Conventional cancer clinical trials can be time-consuming and expensive, often yielding results with limited applicability to real-world scenarios and presenting challenges for patient participation. Real-world data (RWD) studies offer a promising solution to address evidence gaps and provide essential information about the effects of cancer treatments in real-world settings. The distinction between RWD and data derived from randomized clinical trials lies in the method of data collection, as RWD by definition are obtained at the point of care. Experimental designs resembling those used in traditional clinical trials can be utilized to generate RWD, thus offering multiple benefits including increased efficiency and a more equitable balance between internal and external validity. Real-world data can be utilized in the field of pharmacovigilance to facilitate the understanding of disease progression and to formulate external control groups. By utilizing prospectively collected RWD, it is feasible to conduct pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) that can provide evidence to support randomized study designs and extend clinical research to the patient’s point of care. To ensure the quality of real-world studies, it is crucial to implement auditable data abstraction methods and develop new incentives to capture clinically relevant data electronically at the point of care. The treatment landscape is constantly evolving, with the integration of front-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, affecting subsequent treatment lines. Real-world effectiveness and safety in underrepresented populations, such as the elderly and patients with poor performance status (PS), hepatitis, or human immunodeficiency virus, are still largely unexplored. Similarly, the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of these innovative agents are important considerations in the real world.

During development, as tissues expand and grow, they require circulatory, lymphatic, and nervous system expansion for proper function and support. Similarly, as tumors arise and develop, they also require the expansion of these systems to support them. While the contribution of blood and lymphatic systems to the development and progression of cancer is well known and is targeted with anticancer drugs, the contribution of the nervous system is less well studied and understood. Recent studies have shown that the interaction between neurons and a tumor are bilateral and promote metastasis on one hand, and the formation of new nerve structures (neoneurogenesis) on the other. Substances such as neurotransmitters and neurotrophins being the main actors in such interplay, it seems reasonable to expect that alternative splicing and the different populations of protein isoforms can affect tumor-derived neurogenesis. Here, we report the different, documented ways in which neurons contribute to the development and progression of cancer and investigate what is currently known regarding cancer-neuronal interaction in several specific cancer types. Furthermore, we discuss the incidence of alternative splicing that have been identified as playing a role in tumor-induced neoneurogenesis, cancer development and progression. Several examples of changes in alternative splicing that give rise to different isoforms in nerve tissue that support cancer progression, growth and development have also been investigated. Finally, we discuss the potential of our knowledge in alternative splicing to improve tumor diagnosis and treatment.

Lung neuroendocrine tumors (LNETs) and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are two distinct types of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) that have traditionally been treated as a single entity despite originating from different sources. Although they share certain phenotypic characteristics and the expression of neuroendocrine markers, they exhibit differences in their microenvironment, molecular mutations, and responses to various therapeutic regimens. Recent research has explored the genetic alterations in these tumors, revealing dissimilarities in the frequently mutated genes, the role of EGFR in carcinogenesis, the presence of transcription factors, and the immunogenicity of the tumor and its microenvironment. Spread Through Air Spaces (STAS), a phenomenon unique to lung carcinomas, appears to play a crucial role in LNET prognosis. These distinctions are also evident in the cascade response of lung and GI tract neuroendocrine tumors to somatostatin analogs, Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT), chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. Identifying similarities and differences between the two groups may improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and facilitate the development of more effective treatment strategies.

Background: Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) presents significant treatment challenges due to its rarity and limited therapeutic options. The LANCE study was designed to explore the survival benefits of incorporating atezolizumab in chemotherapy for metastatic LCNEC. Methods: In this non-randomized study, patients with metastatic LCNEC were prospectively enrolled and assigned to receive either standard chemotherapy plus atezolizumab followed by maintenance with atezolizumab or standard chemotherapy alone. The primary outcomes measured were 12- and 24-month survival rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between the two groups. Results: Of the 22 patients screened, 17 met the inclusion criteria and received either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 10) or chemotherapy alone (n = 7). After a median follow-up of 23.3 months, the 12-month survival rate was 57.1% (95% CI: 32.6–100%) and 14.3% (95% CI: 2.33–87.7%) for the atezolizumab and the chemotherapy-only groups, respectively. The survival benefit for the atezolizumab group was sustained at 24 months (45.7% vs. 14.3%). Overall survival was significantly higher for the atezolizumab group, and PFS was non-significantly associated with the addition of atezolizumab (log-rank p = 0.04 and 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that the addition of atezolizumab to standard platinum-based chemotherapy may provide a substantial survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of metastatic LCNEC.

Lung cancer (LC) is a serious health problem worldwide. Survival outcomes have improved over time due to the widespread use of novel therapeutic agents, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Endocrine immune-related adverse events (e-irAEs) are common in LC patients treated with ICIs. We performed a retrospective study of patients with LC who received treatment with ICIs at a tertiary referral center between January 2014 and October 2023. In total, 983 LC patients were included in the study. E-irAEs presented at a median time of 4.1 months and included hypothyroidism (15.6%), hyperthyroidism (4.3%), adrenal insufficiency (0.4%), hypophysitis (0.4%), and diabetes mellitus (0.2%). These toxicities were not related to the duration of treatment or the type of ICIs. Most (97.6%) e-irAEs were mild (grade 1–2). Median overall survival (OS) was higher in LC patients who experienced e-irAEs (31.6 months) compared to those who did not (10.8 months). The difference remained statistically significant in the 3-month (HR: 0.42) and 6-month landmark analysis (HR: 0.51). The OS advantage was observed in both patients with NSCLC (HR: 0.36) and SCLC (HR: 0.27). Additional research is needed to validate the role of e-irAEs as an independent predictor of survival outcomes in patients with LC.

The influence of the naturally occurring population of microbes on various human diseases has been a topic of much recent interest. Not surprisingly, continuously growing attention is devoted to the existence of a gut brain axis, where the microbiota present in the gut can affect the nervous system through the release of metabolites, stimulation of the immune system, changing the permeability of the blood–brain barrier or activating the vagus nerves. Many of the methods that stimulate the nervous system can also lead to the development of cancer by manipulating pathways associated with the hallmarks of cancer. Moreover, neurogenesis or the creation of new nervous tissue, is associated with the development and progression of cancer in a similar manner as the blood and lymphatic systems. Finally, microbes can secrete neurotransmitters, which can stimulate cancer growth and development. In this review we discuss the latest evidence that support the importance of microbiota and peripheral nerves in cancer development and dissemination.