Maria Grazia Vitale

New Frontiers in the Pathobiology and Treatment of Cancer Regimen-Related Mucosal Injury.

Mucositis is a common complication of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted agents. It often affects compliance to anticancer therapies as it frequently causes schedule delays, interruptions or discontinuations of treatment. Moreover, the economic impact related to the management of mucositis is topical and several estimations of additional hospital costs due to this clinical condition have been recently reported. The ability to determine risk factors for mucositis, to early detect its onset, to assess correctly the degree of this toxicity and to plan its multidisciplinary management are all key elements to guarantee the quality of life of patients and to avoid useless dose reduction or interruption of treatment. The pathogenesis of mucositis is multifactorial and it is classily subdivided into oral and gastrointestinal mucositis according to its anatomic presentation. Treatment and patients’ related factors might help in predicting the frequency and the potential degree of symptoms onset. Here we discuss about clinical presentation and pathogenesis of mucositis in relation to different kinds of treatments. Moreover, we focus on therapeutic and prevention strategies, describing past and present management according to international guidelines and the most promising new data about agents potentially able to further improve the treatment of mucositis in the next future.

Axitinib after Sunitinib in metastatic renal cancer: Preliminary results from Italian "Real-World" SAX Study

Axitinib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor, currently approved for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after failure of prior treatment with Sunitinib or cytokine. The present study is an Italian Multi-Institutional Retrospective Analysis that evaluated the outcomes of Axitinib, in second-line treatment of mRCC. The medical records of 62 patients treated with Axitinib, were retrospectively reviewed. The Progression Free Survival (PFS), the Overall Survival (OS), the Objective Response Rate (ORR), the Disease Control Rate (DCR), and the safety profile of axitinib and sunitinib–axitinib sequence, were the primary endpoint. The mPFS was 5.83 months (95% CI 3.93–7.73 months). When patients was stratified by Heng score, mPFS was 5.73, 5.83, 10.03 months according to poor, intermediate, and favorable risk group, respectively. The mOS from the start of axitinib was 13.3 months (95% CI 8.6–17.9 months); the observed ORR and DCR were 25 and 71%, respectively. When stratified patients by subgroups defined by duration of prior therapy with Sunitinib (≤ vs. >median duration), there was a statistically significant difference in mPFS with 8.9 (95% CI 4.39–13.40 months) vs. 5.46 months (95% CI 4.04–6.88 months) for patients with a median duration of Sunitinib >13.2 months. DCR and ORR to previous Sunitinib treatment was associated with longer statistically mPFS, 7.23 (95% CI 3.95–10.51 months, p = 0.01) and 8.67 (95% CI 4.0–13.33 months, p = 0.008) vs. 2.97 (95% CI 0.65–5.27 months, p = 0.01) and 2.97 months (95% CI 0.66–5.28 months, p = 0.01), respectively. Overall Axitinib at standard schedule of 5 mg bid, was well-tolerated. The most common adverse events of all grades were fatig (25.6%), hypertension (22.6%), gastro-intestinal disorders (25.9%), and hypothyroidism (16.1%). The sequence Sunitinib–Axitinib was well-tolerated without worsening in side effects, with a median OS of 34.7 months (95% CI 18.4–51.0 months). Our results are consistent with the available literature; this retrospective analysis confirms that Axitinib is effective and safe in routine clinical practice.

Androgen receptor in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer: Beyond expression

In recent years, new therapeutic approaches have reshaped the overall strategy of breast cancer (BC) treatment and have markedly improved patient survival. This is, in part, due to novel therapies for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive BC. Unfortunately, many patients present de novo resistance to these therapies or develop an acquired resistance over time. Therefore, research is now focused on discovering new molecular targets to overcome these resistances. Interestingly, preclinical and clinical studies have shown a critical role for the cross-talk between androgen receptor (AR) and ER in luminal-like BC. AR is expressed in >60% of BC and in up to 90% of ERα-positive tumors. Multiple studies suggest that AR is associated with a favorable prognosis. However, AR overexpression and, in particular, the high AR:ER ratio, seem to be involved in resistance to hormonal treatment. In this setting, a group of BCs could benefit from AR-inhibitors; nevertheless, some ER-positive BC patients do not seem to benefit from this strategy. Therefore, it is crucial to identify biomarkers that would enable the selection of patients who might benefit from combination treatment with ER and AR inhibitors.

Sarcopenia in gastric cancer: when the loss costs too much

Sarcopenia is a complex syndrome characterized by progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength. Malignancy is a major determinant of sarcopenia, and gastric cancer (GC) is among the most common causes of this phenomenon. As sarcopenia is a well-recognized poor prognostic feature in GC and has been associated with worse tolerance of surgical and medical treatments, members of the multidisciplinary team should be aware of the clinical relevance, pathogenic mechanisms, and potential treatments for this syndrome. The importance of sarcopenia is often underestimated in everyday practice and clinical trials, particularly among elderly or fragile patients. As treatment options are improving in all disease stages, deeper knowledge and greater attention to the metabolic balance in GC patients could further increase the benefit of novel therapeutic strategies and dramatically impact on quality of life. In this review, we describe the role of sarcopenia in different phases of GC progression. Our aim is to provide oncologists and surgeons dealing with GC patients with a useful tool for comprehensive assessment and timely management of this potentially life-threatening condition.

Atezolizumab for the treatment of breast cancer

ABSTRACT Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer diagnosed among women. The development of new personalized therapeutic strategies has reshaped the landscape in this field. However, BC is still the first cause of death among women. Interestingly, several preclinical studies and some clinical evidences are focused their attention on the role of immune system and immunotherapy on cancer control, also in BC. Areas covered: Usually, BC has been considered a not immunogenic tumor for its low mutational load. However, recent studies have evidenced that some subtypes, triple negative and HER-2 positive BC, are ‘hot’ tumors, thus more immunogenic. Moreover, the presence of immune infiltrate is positively associated with favorable prognosis. Therefore, the use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors seems to be an encouraging treatment option also in BC. Among these drugs, atezolizumab is an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody with a particular structure that reduce antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity against T cells, increasing quantitatively and qualitatively the effective response. Expert opinion: The use of immunotherapy is a promising option for BC. However, at the same time it still raises many doubts. Surely, the research and the validation of immune biomarkers can permit to identify patients who more benefit from these drugs.

Determinants of Last-line Treatment in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Micro‐Abstract We retrospectively analyzed a series of metastatic breast cancer patients to identify factors that could potentially improve the prognostic valuation and clinical decision‐making at the end of life. Worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and liver function impairment were associated with a greater risk of death within 1 month. Age < 70 years, luminal B‐like disease, and number of previous treatment lines were associated with receiving chemotherapy in a subset of patients. Background: In metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients, the identification of factors helping clinicians in the choice between active therapy versus best supportive care is needed clinically. The aim of the present study was to identify the clinicopathologic factors that could improve the prognostic valuation of MBC patients and clinical decision‐making at the end of life. Patients and Methods: The present study analyzed data from a retrospective series of 522 MBC patients treated at the oncology department (University Hospital of Udine) from January 2004 to June 2014. The association between clinicopathologic features and death within 30 or 90 days since last‐line treatment prescription was explored. Differences between lightly (≤ 3 lines) and heavily (> 3 lines) pretreated patients and the factors affecting treatment choice were investigated. Results: The event “death” occurred in 410 patients. The median last‐line survival was 100 days. The median number of therapeutic lines was 3. On multivariate analysis, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was significantly associated with death within 90 and 30 days since last‐line treatment prescription. Among the heavily pretreated patients, liver function impairment and evaluation by a breast cancer specialist were significantly associated with a greater and lower risk of death within 30 days, respectively. Among the lightly pretreated patients with luminal disease, age < 70 years, luminal B‐like disease, and number of previous lines were associated with a greater chance of receiving chemotherapy. Conclusion: In the present study, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was the most robust independent factor driving the last‐line therapeutic choice for MBC patients. In addition, the molecular subtype and oncologist subspecialization also influenced the decision‐making process.