Improved Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Compared to Adjuvant Immunotherapy to Eradicate Metastatic Disease

Advances in clinical trials on perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitors for resectable non-small cell lung cancer: A comprehensive review

The reduction in lung cancer mortality rates over the past decade can be partially ascribed to advancements in immunotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the therapeutic landscape for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and have recently been evaluated in multiple clinical trials to confirm their safety and efficacy in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant and perioperative settings for patients with resectable NSCLC. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted approval for adjuvant atezolizumab following platinum-doublet chemotherapy, neoadjuvant nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy, adjuvant pembrolizumab after platinum-doublet chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant/adjuvant pembrolizumab for resectable NSCLC, with potential forthcoming approvals for additional agents or indications. Novel data, approvals, and emerging research findings are dramatically shifting the accepted standards of care over just a few years. Despite these advances, the optimal application of these treatments is not entirely straightforward. This article summarizes the biological rationale for immunotherapy and the important clinical trials regarding perioperative ICIs. We also further outline the controversies and future directions to better guide the individualized treatment of NSCLC patients.

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Resectable Stage III Melanoma

BACKGROUND

In phase 1-2 trials in patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant immunotherapy was more efficacious than adjuvant immunotherapy.

METHODS

In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma to two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by surgery or surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab. Only patients in the neoadjuvant group with a partial response or nonresponse received adjuvant treatment. The primary end point was event-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 423 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated 12-month event-free survival was 83.7% (99.9% confidence interval [CI], 73.8 to 94.8) in the neoadjuvant group and 57.2% (99.9% CI, 45.1 to 72.7) in the adjuvant group. The difference in restricted mean survival time was 8.00 months (99.9% CI, 4.94 to 11.05; P<0.001; hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.32; 99.9% CI, 0.15 to 0.66). In the neoadjuvant group, 59.0% of patients had a major pathological response, 8.0% had a partial response, 26.4% had a nonresponse (>50% residual viable tumor), and 2.4% had progression; in 4.2%, surgery had not yet been performed or was omitted. The estimated 12-month recurrence-free survival was 95.1% in patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a major pathological response, 76.1% among those with a partial response, and 57.0% among those with a nonresponse. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were related to systemic treatment occurred in 29.7% of patients in the neoadjuvant group and in 14.7% in the adjuvant group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by surgery and response-driven adjuvant therapy resulted in longer event-free survival than surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04949113.).

From foes to friends: rethinking the role of lymph nodes in prostate cancer

Clinically localized prostate cancer is often treated with radical prostatectomy combined with pelvic lymph node dissection. Data suggest that lymph node dissection does improve disease staging, but its therapeutic value has often been debated, with few studies showing that lymph node removal directly improves oncological outcomes; however, lymph nodes are an important first site of antigen recognition and immune system activation and the success of many currently used immunological therapies hinges on this dogma. Evidence, particularly in the preclinical setting, has demonstrated that the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors is dampened by the removal of tumour-draining lymph nodes. Thus, whether lymph nodes are truly 'foes' or whether they are actually 'friends' in oncological care is an important idea to discuss.

Anti-PD-(L)1-Based Neoadjuvant Therapy in Head and Neck Carcinoma: a Meta-analysis of Prospective Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiprogressive disease (PD)-(L)1-based neoadjuvant therapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients and identify potential prognostic biomarkers.

DATA SOURCES

Databases were systematically searched for prospective clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD-(L)1-based neoadjuvant therapy for HNSCC before January 12, 2024.

REVIEW METHODS

We estimated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were further performed.

RESULTS

A total of 570 patients from 20 studies were included. The pooled major pathological response (MPR), pathological complete response (pCR), and partial pathological response (PPR) rates were 30.7%, 15.3%, and 68.2%, respectively. Surgical complications, surgical delayed rate, all grade treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) and ≥Grade 3 TRAEs were 0.6%, 0.3%, 82.6%, and 9.7%, respectively. Best MPR or pCR rate was detected in patients receiving neoadjuvant anti-PD-(L)1 therapy + radiotherapy (with MPR rate of 75.5% and pCR rate of 51.1%) and neoadjuvant anti-PD-(L)1 therapy + chemotherapy groups (with MPR rate of 57.5% and pCR rate of 26.7%). No differences were detected in subgroups stratified by neoadjuvant treatment cycles, human papillomavirus (HPV) status, and tumor location. Patients with baseline Combined Positive Score (CPS) ≥ 20 have higher MPR and pCR rates compared to patients with CPS < 20. High Tumor Cell Proportion Score was also associated with MPR and pCR. Objective response rate is a strong predictor of MPR (odds ratio [OR] = 7.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.20%-18.91%) and pCR (OR = 3.24, 95% CI = 1.40%-7.48%).

CONCLUSION

Anti-PD-(L)1-based neoadjuvant therapy was effective and safe for HNSCC patients.

Concordance of whole slide imaging and conventional light microscopy for assessment of pathologic response following neoadjuvant therapy for lung cancer

Pathologic response is an endpoint in many ongoing clinical trials for neoadjuvant regimens, including immune checkpoint blockade and chemotherapy. Whole slide scanning of glass slides generates high resolution digital images and allows for remote review and potential measurement with image analysis tools, but concordance of pathologic response assessment on digital scans compared to glass slides has yet to be evaluated. Such a validation goes beyond previous concordance studies which focused on establishing surgical pathology diagnoses, as it requires quantitative assessment of tumor, necrosis, and regression. Further, as pathologic response assessment is being used as an endpoint, such concordance studies have regulatory implications. The purpose of this study was two fold: firstly, to determine the concordance between pathologic response assessed on glass slides and on digital scans; and secondly, to determine if pathologists benefited from using measurement tools when determining pathologic response. To that end, H&E-stained glass slides from 64 non-small cell lung carcinoma specimens were visually assessed for percent residual viable tumor (%RVT). The sensitivity and specificity for digital vs. glass reads of complete pathologic response (pCR, 0% RVT) and major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% RVT) were all >95%. When %RVT was considered as a continuous variable, intraclass correlation coefficient of digital vs. glass reads was 0.94. The visual assessments of pathologic response were supported by pathologist annotations of residual tumor and tumor bed areas. In a separate subset of H&E-stained glass slides, several measurement approaches to quantifying %RVT were performed. Pathologist estimates strongly reflected measured %RVT. This study demonstrates the high level of concordance between glass slides evaluated using light microscopy and digital whole slide images for pathologic response assessments. Pathologists did not require measurement tools to generate robust %RVT values from slide annotations. These findings have broad implications for improving clinical workflows and multisite clinical trials.

Sequencing of Immunotherapy and Outcomes in Operable Clinical Stage III Melanoma: A National Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The impact of neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NIT) on overall survival (OS) in patients with resectable stage III melanoma remains unknown. We sought to identify factors associated with receipt of NIT and survival outcomes in patients with clinical stage III melanoma undergoing surgery.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (2016-2020) was used to identify patients with clinical stage III melanoma who underwent surgery and received either NIT or adjuvant immunotherapy (AIT) only. Multivariable regression, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazard methods were used to analyze variables of interest.

RESULTS

Patients with clinical N3 disease had 2.5 times the odds of NIT compared to those with N1 disease (95% CI 1.74-3.49). There was no difference in 3-year OS between the two cohorts: 79% (95% CI 73%-85%) for NIT patients and 75% (95% CI 73%-76%) for AIT patients (p = 0.078). Patients with N2/N3 disease had improved 3-year OS of 79% with NIT versus 71% for AIT-only (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38-0.97, p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

NIT is given more selectively to clinical stage III patients with more advanced N category disease. Despite significant differences in N category between groups, there was no difference in OS observed at 3 years, and NIT was associated with a survival advantage among N2/N3 patients.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatments for Early Stage Resectable NSCLC: Consensus Recommendations From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer

Advances in the multidisciplinary care of early stage resectable NSCLC (rNSCLC) are emerging at an unprecedented pace. Numerous phase 3 trials produced results that have transformed patient outcomes for the better, yet these findings also require important modifications to the patient treatment journey trajectory and reorganization of care pathways. Perhaps, most notably, the need for multispecialty collaboration for this patient population has never been greater. These rapid advances have inevitably left us with important gaps in knowledge for which definitive answers will only become available in several years. To this end, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer commissioned a diverse multidisciplinary international expert panel to evaluate the current landscape and provide diagnostic, staging, and therapeutic recommendations for patients with rNSCLC, with particular emphasis on patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer-Union for International Cancer Control TNM eighth edition stages II and III disease. Using a team-based approach, we generated 19 recommendations, of which all but one achieved greater than 85% consensus among panel members. A public voting process was initiated, which successfully validated and provided qualitative nuance to our recommendations. Highlights include the following: (1) the critical importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the evaluation of patients with rNSCLC driven by shared clinical decision-making of a multispecialty team of expert providers; (2) biomarker testing for rNSCLC; (3) a preference for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for stage III rNSCLC; (4) equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with stage II between upfront surgery followed by adjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant or perioperative strategies; and (5) the robust preference for adjuvant targeted therapy for patients with rNSCLC and sensitizing EGFR and ALK tumor alterations. Our primary goals were to provide practical recommendations sensitive to the global differences in biology and resources for patients with rNSCLC and to provide expert consensus guidance tailored to the individualized patient needs, goals, and preferences in their cancer care journey as these are areas where physicians must make daily clinical decisions in the absence of definitive data. These recommendations will continue to evolve as the treatment landscape for rNSCLC expands and more knowledge is acquired on the best therapeutic approach in specific patient and disease subgroups.

Advances in Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy for Melanoma

Melanoma remains one of the most common cancers diagnosed in the United States, yet there have been substantial advancements in the treatment of resectable disease. Adjuvant therapy with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) have now become standard of care for resectable stage IIIB-IV melanoma. In this article, the authors discuss recent scientific developments pertinent to the treatment of resectable melanoma including ICB, targeted therapy with BRAF/MEKi, oncolytic viruses, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, and cancer vaccines.

Pathological Response and Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Receiving Immunotherapy-Based Therapies and Undergoing Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy (CN)

In this study we evaluated outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received immunotherapy before surgery. We found that receiving immunotherapy combinations before surgery can offer patients benefits in reducing tumor size and improving disease control.

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy (IO) has improved outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the timing of surgical intervention for cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) is still controversial for this group of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified patients with mRCC receiving IO-based therapies and undergoing CN. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: those who underwent upfront CN and those who underwent deferred CN. Pathologic and radiographic features along with clinical outcomes were systematically collected. Comparisons were performed using Chi-square test, paired t-Test or Mann-Whitney-U test. Progression Free survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients with mRCC were included, with a median follow-up of 21 months. 38 (74.5%) patients received IO-based therapies prior to CN, while 13 (25.5%) patients underwent up-front CN. IO-based therapies reduced median tumor size from pretreatment 10 cm to 8.6 cm post-treatment when given prior to CN. IO-TKI had a trend toward higher tumor shrinkage (-2.3 vs -1.2 cm). Pathologic T downstaging occurred in 42% (n=16) of patients, 11% (n=4) of whom had pT0 disease. Thrombus downstaging occurred in 13% (n=6) of patients, all with either partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) in metastases. PFS (HR=0.7, 95% CI 0.29-1.98, p=0.58) and OS (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.13-1.57, p=0.21) were not statistically significant between 2 cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

IO-based therapies, particularly IO-TKIs, resulted in pathologic necrosis and reductions in tumor size prior to deferred CN. PFS and OS were similar for patients who received either upfront IO-based therapy or after CN.

Evidence for the evolving role of neoadjuvant and perioperative immunotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer

The treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is becoming increasingly complex. Standard of care management for the past decade has been adjuvant chemotherapy following curative intent resection regardless of nodal status or tumour profile. With the increased incorporation of immunotherapy in NSCLC, especially in the locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic settings, multiple studies have sought to assess its utility in early-stage disease. While there are suboptimal responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, there is a strong rationale for the use of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in tumour downstaging, based upon the concept of enhanced T cell priming at the time of a high tumour antigen burden, and demonstrated clinically in other solid tumours, such as melanoma. In the NSCLC cancer setting, currently over 20 combinations of chemoimmunotherapy in the neoadjuvant and perioperative setting have been studied with results variable. Multiple large phase III studies have demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy combinations result in significant advances in pathological response, disease free and overall survival which has led to practice change across the world. Currently, combination immunotherapy regimens with novel agents targeting alternate immunomodulatory pathways are now being investigated. Given this, the landscape of treatment in resectable early-stage NSCLC has become increasingly complex. This review outlines the literature of neoadjuvant and perioperative immunotherapy and discusses its potential benefits and complexities and ongoing considerations into future research.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Immune-based Approach for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Pros, Cons, and Future Directions

CONTEXT

Immune-oncology strategies are revolutionising the perioperative treatment in several tumour types. The perioperative setting of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an evolving field, and the advent of immunotherapy is producing significant advances.

OBJECTIVE

To critically review the potential pros and cons of adjuvant and neoadjuvant immune-based therapeutic strategies in RCC, and to provide insights for future research in this field.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a collaborative narrative review of the existing literature.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is a new standard of care for patients at a higher risk of recurrence after nephrectomy, demonstrating a disease-free survival and overall survival benefit in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial. Current data do not support neoadjuvant therapy use outside clinical trials. While both adjuvant and neoadjuvant immune-based approaches are driven by robust biological rationale, neoadjuvant immunotherapy may enable a stronger and more durable antitumour immune response. If neoadjuvant single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated limited activity on the primary tumour, immune-based combinations may show increased activity. Overtreatment and a risk of relevant toxicity for patients who are cured by surgery alone are common concerns for both neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies. Biomarkers helping patient selection and treatment deintensification are lacking in RCC. No results from randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant or perioperative immune-based therapy with adjuvant immunotherapy are available.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant immunotherapy is a new standard of care in RCC. Both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy strategies have potential advantages and disadvantages. Optimising perioperative treatment strategies is nuanced, with the role of neoadjuvant immune-based therapies yet to be defined. Given strong biological rationale for a pre/perioperative approach, there is a need for prospective clinical trials to determine clinical efficacy. Research investigating biomarkers aiding patient selection and treatment deintensification strategies is needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Immunotherapy is transforming the treatment of kidney cancer. In this review, we looked at the studies investigating immunotherapy strategies before and/or after surgery for patients with kidney cancer to assess potential pros and cons. We concluded that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy strategies may have potential advantages and disadvantages. While immunotherapy administered after surgery is already a standard of care, immunotherapy before surgery should be better investigated in future studies. Future trials should also focus on the selection of patients in order to spare toxicity for patients who will be cured by surgery alone.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for dMMR and pMMR colorectal cancers: therapeutic strategies and putative biomarkers of response

Approximately 15% of locally advanced colorectal cancers (CRC) have DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), resulting in high microsatellite instability and a high tumour mutational burden. These cancers are frequently sensitive to therapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the metastatic setting. This sensitivity seems to be even more pronounced in locally advanced disease, and organ preservation has become a realistic aim in ongoing clinical trials involving patients with dMMR rectal cancer. By contrast, metastatic CRCs with proficient DNA mismatch repair (pMMR) are generally resistant to ICIs, although a proportion of locally advanced pMMR tumours seem to have a high degree of sensitivity to ICIs. In this Review, we describe the current and emerging clinical evidence supporting the use of neoadjuvant ICIs in patients with dMMR and pMMR CRC, and the potential advantages (based on a biological rationale) of such an approach. We discuss how neoadjuvant 'window-of-opportunity' trials are being leveraged to progress biomarker discovery and we provide an overview of potential predictive biomarkers of response to ICIs, exploring the challenges faced when evaluating such biomarkers in biopsy-derived samples. Lastly, we describe how these discoveries might be used to drive a rational approach to trialling novel immunotherapeutic strategies in patients with pMMR CRC, with the ultimate aim of disease eradication and the generation of long-term immunosurveillance.

Shifting the Paradigm: The Transformative Role of Neoadjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer

The use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) has become increasingly important in the treatment of breast cancer because of its various advantages. These include the ability to downstage tumors without compromising locoregional control and the potential to obtain valuable information about clinical and biological response to therapy with implications for individual prognoses. Surgical response assessment paves the way for response-adapted therapy, and pathological complete response (pCR; defined as ypT0/is ypN0) serves as an additional endpoint for drug development trials. Recommended NST regimens commonly consist of anthracyclines and taxane, with dose-dense anthracyclines and weekly paclitaxel often preferred, whenever feasible. For patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive tumors, dual anti-HER2 therapy (trastuzumab and pertuzumab) is indicated together with NST in case of elevated risk of recurrence. For patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding carboplatin to NST correlates with improved pCR and survival rates, as does the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors. For hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative cancers, emerging data on NST including immune checkpoint inhibitors may elevate the significance of NST in high-risk luminal breast cancer. Here, we present a synthesis of the results from neoadjuvant clinical trials that aim at optimizing treatment options for patients with high-risk breast cancer.

An integrated framework for the study of exercise across the postdiagnosis cancer continuum

Exercise plays many important roles across the entire cancer continuum that have been described in previous frameworks. These frameworks, however, have generally provided a simplified description of the roles of exercise postdiagnosis. The modern cancer treatment landscape has become complex and often consists of multiple lines of multimodal treatments combined concurrently and/or sequentially and delivered over many months or years. This complexity requires a more multifaceted and targeted approach to the study of exercise after a cancer diagnosis. Here, we propose a new integrated framework-Exercise Across the Postdiagnosis Cancer Continuum (EPiCC)-that highlights the distinct roles of exercise for disease treatment and supportive care from diagnosis until death. We also propose new terminology to clarify the distinct roles of exercise that emerge in the context of the modern cancer treatment landscape. The EPiCC Framework is structured around multiple sequential cancer treatments that highlight six distinct cancer treatment-related time periods for exercise-before treatments, during treatments, between treatments, immediately after successful treatments, during longer term survivorship after successful treatments, and during end of life after unsuccessful treatments. The EPiCC Framework proposes that the specific roles of exercise as a disease treatment and supportive care intervention will vary depending on its positioning within different cancer treatment combinations. As a cancer treatment, exercise may serve as a "priming therapy", primary therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, induction therapy, "bridging therapy", adjuvant therapy, consolidation therapy, maintenance therapy, and/or salvage therapy. As a supportive care intervention, exercise may serve as prehabilitation, intrahabilitation, interhabilitation, rehabilitation, "perihabilitation", health promotion/disease prevention, and/or palliation. To date, exercise has been studied during all of the cancer treatment-related time periods but only in relation to some cancer treatments and combinations. Moreover, fewer studies have examined exercise across multiple cancer treatment-related time periods within any cancer treatment combination. Future research is needed to study exercise as a disease treatment and supportive care intervention within and across the distinct cancer treatment-related time periods contained within different cancer treatment combinations. The aim of the EPiCC Framework is to stimulate a more targeted, integrated, and clinically-informed approach to the study of exercise after a cancer diagnosis.

PEARL: A Phase Ib/II Biomarker Study of Adding Radiation Therapy to Pembrolizumab Before Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To assess safety and immune biomarkers after preoperative radiation therapy (RT) and anti-PD1 therapy in breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A phase I/IIb trial of pembrolizumab with RT was conducted in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer. All received pembrolizumab followed by a second cycle + RT (anti-PD1/RT) of 24 Gy/three daily fractions delivered to the breast tumor and then neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Blood and tumor biopsies were obtained at baseline, after anti-PD1, and after anti-PD-RT. Coprimary end points were safety and change in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). Secondary end points were pathologic complete response (pCR), residual cancer burden (RCB) rates, and event-free survival (EFS).

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients with stage I-III breast cancer (54 TNBC, 12 HR+/HER2-) were enrolled. The median follow-up was 32 months. Safety end point was met. Incidence of grade ≥3 toxicities was 41%. The pCR rate was 59.2%, 33.3%, and 54.5% for the TNBC, HR+/HER2-, and entire cohort, respectively. A total of 77.8% of TNBC and 41.6% of HR+/HER2- had a near pCR (RCB 0-1). The 3-year EFS was 80%. In the entire cohort, PD-L1 expression increased after anti-PD1 (median Combined Positive Score [CPS], 7.49-23.20; 95% CI, -41.88 to -6.30; P = .044) and anti-PD1/RT (median CPS, 7.49-23.41; 95% CI, -41.88 to -6.30; P = .009), compared with baseline. In TNBC, adding RT to anti-PD1 significantly decreased TILs (28.9%-17.1%; 95% CI, 2.46 to 21.09; P = .014). Baseline TILs correlated with PD-L1 expression and TNF-a.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative RT with pembrolizumab is safe and results in high pCR rates and 3-year EFS, despite the lack of pembrolizumab during NAC. PD-L1 and TILs may be predictive biomarkers for preoperative anti-PD1/RT response. Reduction in TILs after adding RT to anti-PD1 highlights the importance of treatment sequencing.

Potent therapeutic strategy in gastric cancer with microsatellite instability-high and/or deficient mismatch repair

Gastric cancer (GC) is a common malignancy that presents challenges in patient care worldwide. The mismatch repair (MMR) system is a highly conserved DNA repair mechanism that protects genome integrity during replication. Deficient MMR (dMMR) results in an increased accumulation of genetic errors in microsatellite sequences, leading to the development of a microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) phenotype. Most MSI-H/dMMR GCs arise sporadically, mainly due to MutL homolog 1 (MLH1) epigenetic silencing. Unlike microsatellite-stable (MSS)/proficient MMR (pMMR) GCs, MSI-H/dMMR GCs are relatively rare and represent a distinct subtype with genomic instability, a high somatic mutational burden, favorable immunogenicity, different responses to treatment, and prognosis. dMMR/MSI-H status is a robust predictive biomarker for treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to high neoantigen load, prominent tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) overexpression. However, a subset of MSI-H/dMMR GC patients does not benefit from immunotherapy, highlighting the need for further research into predictive biomarkers and resistance mechanisms. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the clinical, molecular, immunogenic, and therapeutic aspects of MSI-H/dMMR GC, with a focus on the impact of ICIs in immunotherapy and their potential as neoadjuvant therapies. Understanding the complexity and diversity of the molecular and immunological profiles of MSI-H/dMMR GC will drive the development of more effective therapeutic strategies and molecular targets for future precision medicine.

The Role of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in the Management of Merkel Cell Carcinoma with Clinically Detected Regional Lymph Node Metastasis

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy is emerging as a promising option for certain locally advanced and metastatic cutaneous malignancies. However, the role of neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NIO) in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) with clinically detected regional lymph node metastasis (CDRLNM) has not been fully elucidated.

METHODS

For this study, MCC patients with CDRLNM who underwent surgical excision were selected from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Those who received NIO were propensity-matched with those who did not, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of the 1809 selected patients, 356 (19.7%) received NIO followed by wide excision (n = 352, 98.9%) or amputation (n = 4, 1.1%). The rate of complete pathologic response for the primary tumor (ypT0) was 45.2%. Only 223 patents (63.4%) also underwent lymph node dissection (LND). The complete pathologic nodal response (ypN0) rate for these patients was 17.9%. A pathologic complete response of both the primary tumor and the nodal basin (ypT0 ypN0) was seen in 16 of the 223 patients who underwent both primary tumor surgery and LND. Subsequently, 151 pairs were matched between the NIO and no-NIO groups (including only patients with LND). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a significant OS improvement with NIO (median not reached vs. 35.0 ± 8.0 months; p = 0.025). The 5-year OS was 57% in the NIO group versus 44% in no-NIO group (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that NIO in MCC with CDRLNM provides improved OS in addition to promising rates of primary complete response, which could change the profile of surgical resection. This supports ongoing clinical trials exploring the use of NIO in MCC.

Current status of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for the treatment of gastric cancer

Gastric cancer is one of the most prevalent malignant tumors worldwide, characterized by high incidence and mortality rates. At present, comprehensive surgical treatment has enhanced the prognosis of locally advanced gastric cancer patients significantly. However, the postoperative recurrence rate remains high, and the long-term survival for patients is sub-optimal. In recent years, immunotherapy has garnered extensive attention as an innovative approach to the treatment of gastric cancer. Indeed, multiple studies have validated its therapeutic effects in advanced gastric cancer patients, leading to its incorporation into treatment guidelines. Currently, researchers are exploring the application of immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting globally in order to further adjust and refine neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimens for gastric cancer. This article summarizes the research progress and controversies associated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy in gastric cancer, aiming to optimize clinical benefits for gastric cancer patients undergoing this treatment approach. The retrieval methods of this study encompassed databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, etc. The retrieved articles included guidelines, consensus, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and reviews related to locally advanced gastric cancer published up to January 2024.

Clinical status and future prospects of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for localized mismatch repair-deficient cancers: a review

Frameshift mutations accumulate in cancers related to mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), which has the potential to produce various neoantigens, representing a distinct subset of cancers that respond considerably to immunotherapy. In recent years, robust evidence has supported the first-line application of immunotherapy for patients with metastatic dMMR cancers, which provoked extensive investigations of the feasibility and efficacy of immunotherapy in up-front settings, including neoadjuvant therapy. Several completed trials with small sample sizes suggested that neoadjuvant immunotherapy can achieve an impressively high complete response rate, for the first time offering the potential of systemic therapy to cure cancer without the need for surgical resection. However, a difficult dilemma emerges: clinicians are now facing a selection between the standard of care with good evidence for proficient MMR but suboptimal for dMMR cancers and the emerging immunotherapy with promising results but only based on a limited number of patients with shorter duration of follow-up. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the biological rationale and clinical status of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with dMMR cancers. Furthermore, I elaborate on particular issues that must be taken into consideration for further advancement in the field.

Less is more: Exploring neoadjuvant immunotherapy as a de-escalation strategy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) constitutes a significant global cancer burden, given its high prevalence and associated mortality. Despite substantial progress in survival rates due to the enhanced multidisciplinary approach to treatment, these methods often lead to severe tissue damage, compromised function, and potential toxicity. Thus, there is an imperative need for novel, effective, and minimally damaging treatment modalities. Neoadjuvant treatment, an emerging therapeutic strategy, is designed to reduce tumor size and curtail distant metastasis prior to definitive intervention. Currently, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has optimized the treatment approach for a subset of HNSCC patients, yet it has not produced a noticeable enhancement in overall survival (OS). In the contemporary cancer therapeutics landscape, immunotherapy is gaining traction at an accelerated pace. Notably, neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NAIT) has shown promising radiological and pathological responses, coupled with encouraging efficacy in several clinical trials. This potentially paves the way for a myriad of possibilities in treatment de-escalation of HNSCC, which warrants further exploration. This paper reviews the existing strategies and efficacies of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), along with potential de-escalation strategies. Furthermore, the challenges encountered in the context of the de-escalation strategies of NAIT are explored. The aim is to inform future research directions that strive to improve the quality of life (QoL) for patients battling HNSCC.

Exploring the role of the immune microenvironment in hepatocellular carcinoma: Implications for immunotherapy and drug resistance

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver tumor, is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and the incidence of liver cancer is still increasing worldwide. Curative hepatectomy or liver transplantation is only indicated for a small population of patients with early-stage HCC. However, most patients with HCC are not candidates for radical resection due to disease progression, leading to the choice of the conventional tyrosine kinase inhibitor drug sorafenib as first-line treatment. In the past few years, immunotherapy, mainly immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has revolutionized the clinical strategy for HCC. Combination therapy with ICIs has proven more effective than sorafenib, and clinical trials have been conducted to apply these therapies to patients. Despite significant progress in immunotherapy, the molecular mechanisms behind it remain unclear, and immune resistance is often challenging to overcome. Several studies have pointed out that the complex intercellular communication network in the immune microenvironment of HCC regulates tumor escape and drug resistance to immune response. This underscores the urgent need to analyze the immune microenvironment of HCC. This review describes the immunosuppressive cell populations in the immune microenvironment of HCC, as well as the related clinical trials, aiming to provide insights for the next generation of precision immunotherapy.

Peripheral CD8+PD-1+ T cells as novel biomarker for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in humanized mice of non-small cell lung cancer

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown promising clinical activity in the treatment of early non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, further clarification of the specific mechanism and identification of biomarkers are imperative prior to implementing it as a daily practice. The study investigated the reprogramming of T cells in both tumor and peripheral blood following neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in a preclinical NSCLC mouse model engrafted with a human immune system. Samples were also collected from 21 NSCLC patients (Stage IA-IIIB) who received neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, and the dynamics of potential biomarkers within these samples were measured and further subjected to correlation analysis with prognosis. Further, we initially investigated the sources of the potential biomarkers. We observed in the humanized mouse model, neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy could prevent postoperative recurrence and metastasis by increasing the frequency and cytotoxicity of CD8+ T cells in both peripheral blood (p < 0.001) and tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) (p < 0.001). The kinetics of peripheral CD8+PD-1+ T cells reflected the changes in the TIME and pathological responses, ultimately predicting survival outcome of mice. In the clinical cohort, patients exhibiting an increase in these T cells post-treatment had a higher rate of complete or major pathological response (p < 0.05) and increased immune infiltration (p = 0.0012, r = 0.792). We identified these T cells originating from tumor draining lymph nodes and subsequently entering the TIME. In conclusion, the kinetics of peripheral CD8+PD-1+ T cells can serve as a predictor for changes in TIME and optimal timing for surgery, ultimately reflecting the outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in both preclinical and clinical setting.

Mechanism insights and therapeutic intervention of tumor metastasis: latest developments and perspectives

Metastasis remains a pivotal characteristic of cancer and is the primary contributor to cancer-associated mortality. Despite its significance, the mechanisms governing metastasis are not fully elucidated. Contemporary findings in the domain of cancer biology have shed light on the molecular aspects of this intricate process. Tumor cells undergoing invasion engage with other cellular entities and proteins en route to their destination. Insights into these engagements have enhanced our comprehension of the principles directing the movement and adaptability of metastatic cells. The tumor microenvironment plays a pivotal role in facilitating the invasion and proliferation of cancer cells by enabling tumor cells to navigate through stromal barriers. Such attributes are influenced by genetic and epigenetic changes occurring in the tumor cells and their surrounding milieu. A profound understanding of the metastatic process's biological mechanisms is indispensable for devising efficacious therapeutic strategies. This review delves into recent developments concerning metastasis-associated genes, important signaling pathways, tumor microenvironment, metabolic processes, peripheral immunity, and mechanical forces and cancer metastasis. In addition, we combine recent advances with a particular emphasis on the prospect of developing effective interventions including the most popular cancer immunotherapies and nanotechnology to combat metastasis. We have also identified the limitations of current research on tumor metastasis, encompassing drug resistance, restricted animal models, inadequate biomarkers and early detection methods, as well as heterogeneity among others. It is anticipated that this comprehensive review will significantly contribute to the advancement of cancer metastasis research.

Immunotherapy for head and neck cancer: Fundamentals and therapeutic development

Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) has been treated by multidisciplinary therapy consisting of surgery, radiotherapy, and cancer chemotherapy, but the recent advent of immunotherapy has produced significant changes in treatment systems and the results of these therapies. Immunotherapy has greatly improved the outcome of recurrent metastatic SCCHN, and the development of new treatment methods based on immunotherapy is now being applied not only to recurrent metastatic cases but also to locally advanced cases. To understand and practice cancer immunotherapy, it is important to understand the immune environment surrounding cancer, and the changes to which it is subject. Currently, the anti-PD-1 antibody drugs nivolumab and pembrolizumab are the only immunotherapies with proven efficacy in head and neck cancer. However, anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibody drugs have also been shown to be useful in other types of cancer and are being incorporated into clinical practice. In head and neck cancer, numerous clinical trials have aimed to improve efficacy and safety by combining immunotherapy with other drug therapies and treatment modalities. Combinations of immunotherapy with cancer drugs with different mechanisms of action (cytotoxic agents, molecular-targeted agents, immune checkpoint inhibitors), as well as with radiation therapy and surgery are being investigated, and have the potential to significantly change medical care for these patients. The application of cancer immunotherapy not only to daily clinical practice but also to further therapeutic development requires a clear and complete understanding of the fundamentals of cancer immunotherapy, and knowledge of the numerous clinical studies conducted, both past and present. The results of these trials are numerous, both positive and negative, and a comprehensive understanding of this wide range of completed and ongoing clinical trials is critical to a systematic and comprehensive understanding of their scope and lessons learnt. In this article, after outlining the concepts of ``cancer immune cycle,'' ``cancer immune editing,'' and ``tumor microenvironment'' to provide an understanding of the basics of cancer immunity, we summarize the basics and clinical trial data on representative immune checkpoint inhibitors used in various cancer types, as well as recent therapeutic developments in cancer immunotherapy and the current status of these new treatments.

[Perioperative Immunotherapy for Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Current Evidence and New Standard of Care]

Immunotherapy has drastically changed the treatment of lung cancer not only in systemic disease but also in the perioperative setting in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. In particular, the neoadjuvant and perioperative therapy regimes of the CheckMate 816 and KEYNOTE-671 studies as well as the adjuvant therapy according to the IMPower010 and the PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 protocols have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of selected cases. Other therapy protocols and combination therapies with varying drug classes and therapy modalities are currently being examined for their effectiveness and tolerance. The new treatment landscape creates new opportunities but also challenges for the treating disciplines. This article will focus on the current evidence for perioperative immunotherapy for resectable lung cancer and the resulting therapy standards, especially with regard to patient selection for both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy, as well as current research efforts.

Perioperative nivolumab versus observation in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing nephrectomy (PROSPER ECOG-ACRIN EA8143): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or Tany N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related.

INTERPRETATION

Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb.

The Effect of Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy on Surgical Outcomes After Lymph Node Dissections for Stage III Melanoma; An Australian Cohort

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) for patients with stage III melanoma achieves high major pathologic response rates and high recurrence-free survival rates. This study aimed to determine how NAST with targeted therapies (TTs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) influences surgical outcomes after lymph node dissection in terms of complications, morbidity, and textbook outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a lymph node dissection after either NAST in a clinical trial or upfront surgery for stage III melanoma between 2014 and 2022 were identified from an institutional research database.

RESULTS

The study included 89 NAST-treated patients and 79 upfront surgery-treated patients. The rate of postoperative complications did not differ between the NAST- and upfront surgery-treated patients (55% vs. 51%; p = 0.643), and steroid treatment for drug toxicity did not influence the complication rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-3; p = 0.826). No significant differences in postoperative morbidity were observed in terms of seroma (23% vs. 11%; p = 0.570) or lymphedema (36% vs. 51%; p = 0.550). The rate of achieving a textbook outcome was comparable for the two groups (61% vs. 57%; p = 0.641).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical outcomes after lymph node dissections were comparable between the patients who received NAST and those who had upfront surgery, indicating that surgery can be safely performed after NAST with TT or ICI for stage III melanoma.

Towards targeting the breast cancer immune microenvironment

The tumour immune microenvironment is shaped by the crosstalk between cancer cells, immune cells, fibroblasts, endothelial cells and other stromal components. Although the immune tumour microenvironment (TME) serves as a source of therapeutic targets, it is also considered a friend or foe to tumour-directed therapies. This is readily illustrated by the importance of T cells in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), culminating in the advent of immune checkpoint therapy in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy as standard of care for both early and advanced-stage TNBC, as well as recent promising signs of efficacy in a subset of hormone receptor-positive disease. In this Review, we discuss the various components of the immune TME in breast cancer and therapies that target or impact the immune TME, as well as the complexity of host physiology.

Systemic therapies and primary tumour downsizing in renal cell carcinoma: a real-world comparison of anti-angiogenic and immune checkpoint inhibition regimens

PURPOSE

To investigate responses in the primary tumour to different systemic treatment regimens in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective analysis of treatment-naive mRCC patients without prior nephrectomy receiving VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF only), immune checkpoint inhibitors (IO only), or combinations thereof (IO + VEGF). The primary outcome was the rate of partial response in the primary tumour (primary tumour PR, ≥ 30% diameter reduction). Secondary outcomes were time to best primary tumour diameter change, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Predictors of survival outcomes were explored by Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

RESULTS

The rate of primary tumour PR was 14% for VEGF only (4/28 patients), 22% for IO only (5/23) and 50% for IO + VEGF (7/14), with median best primary tumour diameter change of - 8.0%, + 5.1%, and - 31.1% respectively, and median time to best primary tumour diameter change of 3.2, 3.0 and 6.9 months respectively. Median OS was significantly greater with IO + VEGF compared to VEGF only (HR 0.45, p = 0.04) and non-significantly greater compared to IO only (HR 0.46, p = 0.06). In multivariable analysis, primary tumour PR was the only response variable significantly associated with both OS (adjusted HR 0.32, p = 0.01) and PFS (adjusted HR 0.29, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

mRCC patients without prior nephrectomy receiving first-line IO + VEGF regimens showed the greatest primary tumour responses, suggesting further prospective evaluation of this combination in the neoadjuvant and deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy settings.

Emerging Indications for Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapies in Cutaneous Malignancies

Patients with cutaneous malignancies and locoregional involvement represent a high-risk population for disease recurrence, even if they receive optimal surgery and adjuvant treatment. Here, we discuss how neoadjuvant therapy has the potential to offer significant advantages over adjuvant treatment, further improving outcomes in some patients with skin cancers, including melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. Both preclinical studies and in vivo trials have demonstrated that exposure to immunotherapy prior to surgical resection can trigger a broader and more robust immune response, resulting in increased tumor cell antigen presentation and improved targeting by immune cells, potentially resulting in superior outcomes. In addition, neoadjuvant approaches hold the possibility of providing a platform for evaluating pathological responses in the resected lesion, optimizing the prognosis and enabling personalized adaptive management, in addition to expedited drug development. However, more data are still needed to determine the ideal patient selection and the best treatment framework and to identify reliable biomarkers of treatment responses. Although there are ongoing questions regarding neoadjuvant treatment, current data support a paradigm shift toward considering neoadjuvant therapy as the standard approach for selecting patients with high-risk skin tumors.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab in advanced high-grade serous carcinoma: the randomized phase II NeoPembrOV clinical trial

This open-label, non-comparative, 2:1 randomized, phase II trial (NCT03275506) in women with stage IIIC/IV high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) for whom upfront complete resection was unachievable assessed whether adding pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) to standard-of-care carboplatin plus paclitaxel yielded a complete resection rate (CRR) of at least 50%. Postoperatively patients continued assigned treatment for a maximum of 2 years. Postoperative bevacizumab was optional. The primary endpoint was independently assessed CRR at interval debulking surgery. Secondary endpoints were Completeness of Cytoreduction Index (CCI) and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) scores, objective and best response rates, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, postoperative morbidity, and pathological complete response. The CRR in 61 pembrolizumab-treated patients was 74% (one-sided 95% CI = 63%), exceeding the prespecified ≥50% threshold and meeting the primary objective. The CRR without pembrolizumab was 70% (one-sided 95% CI = 54%). In the remaining patients CCI scores were ≥3 in 27% of the standard-of-care group and 18% of the investigational group and CC1 in 3% of the investigational group. PCI score decreased by a mean of 9.6 in the standard-of-care group and 10.2 in the investigational group. Objective response rates were 60% and 72%, respectively, and best overall response rates were 83% and 90%, respectively. Progression-free survival was similar with the two regimens (median 20.8 versus 19.4 months in the standard-of-care versus investigational arms, respectively) but overall survival favored pembrolizumab-containing therapy (median 35.3 versus 49.8 months, respectively). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events with pembrolizumab-containing therapy were anemia during neoadjuvant therapy and infection/fever postoperatively. Pembrolizumab was discontinued prematurely because of adverse events in 23% of pembrolizumab-treated patients. Combining pembrolizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is feasible for HGSC considered not completely resectable; observed activity in some subgroups justifies further evaluation to improve understanding of the role of immunotherapy in HGSC.

Neoadjuvant SHR-1701 with or without chemotherapy in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: A proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial

We conducted a proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial to assess neoadjuvant SHR-1701 with or without chemotherapy, followed by surgery or radiotherapy, and then consolidation SHR-1701 in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the primary cohort of patients receiving neoadjuvant combination therapy (n = 97), both primary endpoints were met, with a post-induction objective response rate of 58% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47-68) and an 18-month event-free survival (EFS) rate of 56.6% (95% CI 45.2-66.5). Overall, 27 (25%) patients underwent surgery; all achieved R0 resection. Among them, 12 (44%) major pathological responses and seven (26%) pathological complete responses were recorded. The 18-month EFS rate was 74.1% (95% CI 53.2-86.7) in surgical patients and 57.3% (43.0-69.3) in radiotherapy-treated patients. Neoadjuvant SHR-1701 with chemotherapy, followed by surgery or radiotherapy, showed promising efficacy with a tolerable safety profile in unresectable stage III NSCLC. Surgical conversion was feasible in a notable proportion of patients and associated with better survival outcomes.

Advancing non-small cell lung cancer treatment: the power of combination immunotherapies

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains an unsolved challenge in oncology, signifying a substantial global health burden. While considerable progress has been made in recent years through the emergence of immunotherapy modalities, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), monotherapies often yield limited clinical outcomes. The rationale behind combining various immunotherapeutic or other anticancer agents, the mechanistic underpinnings, and the clinical evidence supporting their utilization is crucial in NSCLC therapy. Regarding the synergistic potential of combination immunotherapies, this study aims to provide insights to help the landscape of NSCLC treatment and improve clinical outcomes. In addition, this review article discusses the challenges and considerations of combination regimens, including toxicity management and patient selection.

State of the art: Targeting microsatellite instability in gastrointestinal cancers

DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency and the associated microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype has become a subject of enormous interest in recent years due to the demonstrated efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in advanced tumours. Assessing MSI in patients with gastrointestinal tract (GI) cancers is useful to exclude Lynch syndrome, but also to predict benefit for ICI. Following review of the relevant literature, this review article aims to outline the clinicopathologic spectrum of MSI and mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) in the GI tract, hepatobiliary system and pancreas and discuss the therapeutic consideration in this disease.

Preoperative-postoperative immunotherapy as treatment of borderline resectable and oligoprogressive stage III B-D and IV melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative therapy has gained significant importance in patients with advanced melanoma. Currently, there is little data on the routine use of preoperative immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma outside clinical trials. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of preoperative treatment in patients with borderline resectable stage III or IV melanoma as well as in oligoprogressing stage IV cases; the secondary aim is to describe the safety of surgery after immunotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since 1/Jan/2016 seventeen patients were treated with curative intent neoadjuvant immunotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant immunotherapy, while nineteen patients were operated due to oligoprogression while treted with immunotherapy. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and association between variables was tested using the chi-squared test.

RESULTS

R0 resection was achieved in 76.5 % of cases after neoadjuvant immunotherapy. 24 % of patients achieved objective RECIST response and 35 % complete or major pathological response. At the median follow-up time of 51.4 months, 64.7 % of patients were free of PD after perioperative treatment, while 3-year RFS and OS rates were 68 % and 80.9 %, respectively. R0 resection was achieved in 73.7 % of oligo-progressing nodules. The median time to PD on immunotherapy after the first oligoprogression was 10.3 months. Immunotherapy did not result in any unexpected surgical complications. No patient died during preoperative treatment due to immunotherapy toxicity or disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed treatment safety and long-term disease control after perioperative immunotherapy. Patients with borderline resectable melanoma should be referred to reference centers using neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

Multidisciplinary approach for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): 2023 expert consensus of the Spanish Lung Cancer Group GECP

INTRODUCTION

Recent advances in the treatment of locally advanced NSCLC have led to changes in the standard of care for this disease. For the selection of the best approach strategy for each patient, it is necessary the homogenization of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, as well as the promotion of the evaluation of patients by a multidisciplinary oncology team.

OBJECTIVE

Development of an expert consensus document with suggestions for the approach and treatment of locally advanced NSCLC leaded by Spanish Lung Cancer Group GECP.

METHODS

Between March and July 2023, a panel of 28 experts was formed. Using a mixed technique (Delphi/nominal group) under the guidance of a coordinating group, consensus was reached in 4 phases: 1. Literature review and definition of discussion topics 2. First round of voting 3. Communicating the results and second round of voting 4. Definition of conclusions in nominal group meeting. Responses were consolidated using medians and interquartile ranges. The threshold for agreement was defined as 85% of the votes.

RESULTS

New and controversial situations regarding the diagnosis and management of locally advanced NSCLC were analyzed and reconciled based on evidence and clinical experience. Discussion issues included: molecular diagnosis and biomarkers, radiologic and surgical diagnosis, mediastinal staging, role of the multidisciplinary thoracic committee, neoadjuvant treatment indications, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment, postoperative evaluation, and follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus clinical suggestions were generated on the most relevant scenarios such as diagnosis, staging and treatment of locally advanced lung cancer, which will serve to support decision-making in daily practice.

Immune checkpoint inhibition in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors significantly advanced outcomes in both metastatic and locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Despite these advancements, the 5-year survival rate remains suboptimal. Even in early-stage disease a significant portion of patients relapse and die from metastatic progression. The integration of immunotherapy in the management of early-stage NSCLC demonstrated promising results, supported by a plethora of positive clinical trials conducted in recent years. Nonetheless, numerous questions persist. In this manuscript we comprehensively review the currently available data on adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and perioperative treatment strategies. We also address the challenges inherent to these approaches from different stakeholders' perspective.

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Non-melanoma Skin Cancers of the Head and Neck

OPINION STATEMENT

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy will change the standard of care for advanced resectable cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and possibly other non-melanoma skin cancers. With pathological complete response rates around 50% for cSCC in early studies, neoadjuvant therapy allows patients the possibility of significant reduction in tumor size, de-escalation of adjuvant therapy, and improved long-term outcomes. Patients must be carefully selected to ensure that there is a margin of safety with respect to resectability, such that if a tumor progresses on neoadjuvant therapy, there remains a curative surgical option that is acceptable to the patient. The optimal treatment paradigm is an area of active research, with many researchers questioning whether adjuvant therapy, or even local therapy, is necessary in patients who seem to have a complete response. The ability to predict who will respond will become even more critical to answer, as a significant number of patients do not want to risk their disease progressing, especially in cosmetically sensitive areas of the head and neck. Recent studies in melanoma show promise for improved response rates using combination therapies, and these strategies may apply to cSCC as well. The use of LAG-3 inhibitors or mRNA vaccine technology may further improve the utility of neoadjuvant strategies.

Neoadjuvant camrelizumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus chemotherapy or apatinib (a VEGFR-2 inhibitor) for initially unresectable stage II-III non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, two-arm, phase 2 exploratory study

This multicentre, two-arm, phase 2 study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant camrelizumab plus chemotherapy or apatinib in patients with initially unresectable stage II-III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Eligible patients regardless of PD-L1 expression received neoadjuvant camrelizumab 200 mg and platinum-doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks (arm A) or those with PD-L1-positive tumors received neoadjuvant camrelizumab and apatinib 250 mg once daily (arm B), for 2-4 cycles, followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was major pathological response (MPR) rate. Thirty patients in arm A and 21 in arm B were enrolled. Surgery rates were 50.0% (15/30) in arm A and 42.9% (9/21) in arm B, with all patients achieving R0 resections. Of these patients, the MPR and pathological complete response rates were both 20.0% (95% CI 4.3-48.1) in arm A and were 55.6% (95% CI 21.2-86.3) and 11.1% (95% CI 0.3-48.2) in arm B, respectively. The corresponding objective response rates were 33.3% (95% CI 11.8-61.6) and 55.6% (95% CI 21.2-86.3). With a median follow-up of 22.4 months (95% CI 19.0-26.0), the median event-free survival was not reached (NR; 95% CI 13.6-NR) in arm A and 16.8 months (95% CI 8.6-NR) in arm B. Grade 3 or above treatment-related adverse events occurred in eight (26.7%) patients in arm A and three (14.3%) in arm B. Biomarker analysis showed baseline TYROBP expression was predictive of treatment response in arm B. Neoadjuvant camrelizumab plus chemotherapy or apatinib exhibits preliminary efficacy and manageable toxicity in patients with initially unresectable stage II-III NSCLC.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy in HCC: Current status and the future

Surgical therapies in patients with early-stage HCC can afford long-term survival but are often limited by the continued risk of recurrence, underscoring an interest in (neo)adjuvant strategies. Prior attempts at adjuvant therapy using tyrosine kinase inhibitors failed to yield significant improvements in recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Advances in the efficacy of systemic therapy options, including the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors, have fueled renewed interest in this area. Indeed, the IMBrave050 trial recently demonstrated significant improvements in recurrence-free survival with 1 year of adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in high-risk patients undergoing surgical resection or ablation, with several other ongoing trials in this space. There is a strong rationale for consideration of the administration of these therapies in the neoadjuvant setting, supported by early clinical data demonstrating high rates of objective responses, although larger trials examining downstream outcomes are necessary, particularly considering the possible risks of this strategy. In parallel, there has been increased interest in using systemic therapies as a bridging or downstaging strategy for liver transplantation. Current data suggest the short-term safety of this approach, with acceptable rates of rejection, so immunotherapy is not considered a contraindication to transplant; however, larger studies are needed to evaluate the incremental value of this approach over locoregional therapy. Conversely, the use of immunotherapy is currently discouraged after liver transplantation, given the high risk of graft rejection and death. The increasing complexity of HCC management and increased consideration of (neo)adjuvant strategies highlight the critical role of multidisciplinary care when making these decisions.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy based on PD-1/L1 inhibitors for gastrointestinal tumors: a review of the rationale and clinical advances

The landscape of current tumor treatment has been revolutionized by the advent of immunotherapy based on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Leveraging its capacity to mobilize systemic antitumor immunity, which is primarily mediated by T cells, there is growing exploration and expansion of its potential value in various stages of clinical tumor treatment. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy induces a robust immune response against tumors prior to surgery, effectively facilitating tumor volume reduction, early eradication or suppression of tumor cell activity, and control of potential metastatic spread, to improve curative surgical resection rates, and prevent tumor recurrence. This review delineates the theoretical basis of neoadjuvant immunotherapy from preclinical research evidence, discusses specific challenges in clinical application, and provides a comprehensive overview of clinical research progress in neoadjuvant immunotherapy for gastrointestinal tumors. These findings suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy has the potential to ameliorate immunosuppressive states and enhance cytotoxic T cell function while preserving lymphatic drainage in the preoperative period. However, further investigations are needed on specific treatment regimens, suitable patient populations, and measurable endpoints. Despite numerous studies demonstrating the promising efficacy and manageable adverse events of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in gastrointestinal tumors, the availability of high-quality randomized controlled trials is limited, which highlights the necessity for further research.

The anti-cancer immune response in breast cancer: current and emerging biomarkers and treatments

Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) exhibit heightened T cell infiltration, contributing to an enhanced response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) compared with other subtypes. An immune-rich immune microenvironment correlates with improved prognosis in early and advanced TNBC. Combination chemotherapy and ICB is now the standard of care in early- and late-stage TNBC. Although programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) positivity predicts ICB response in advanced stages, its role in early-stage disease remains uncertain. Despite neoadjuvant ICB becoming common in early-stage TNBC, the necessity of adjuvant ICB after surgery remains unclear. Understanding the molecular basis of the immune response in breast cancer is vital for precise biomarkers for ICB and effective combination therapy strategies.

Comparative Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab Versus Cisplatin-based Chemotherapy or Upfront Radical Cystectomy in Patients with Muscle-invasive Urothelial Bladder Cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent progresses in the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) have challenged the therapeutic standards in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial bladder carcinoma (MIBC).

OBJECTIVE

To compare neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by radical cystectomy (RC) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and RC or upfront RC, according to cisplatin eligibility.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted two separate analyses for cisplatin-eligible and cisplatin-ineligible cT2-4N0M0 MIBC patients. We used a propensity score adjustment that relied on inverse probability of treatment-weighting (IPTW).

INTERVENTION

Pembrolizumab within the PURE-01 trial, and NAC and RC or upfront RC from a high-volume tertiary care referral center.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint in both analyses was event-free survival (EFS), defined as freedom from recurrence, and/or death from any cause indexed from the date of treatment initiation or RC. The secondary endpoints included EFS in propensity score-matched patients, pathologic response rate, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) after RC.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 458 patients who underwent RC, with or without NAC, at Moffitt Cancer Center between October 2005 and October 2020, and 146 patients enrolled in PURE-01 were analyzed. In cisplatin-ineligible patients, EFS was superior in those receiving pembrolizumab (p < 0.001). The estimated 3-yr EFS was 77.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63.5-95.2) for pembrolizumab and RC, and 36.1% (95% CI: 28.6-45.5) for upfront RC. EFS remained superior in those receiving neoadjuvant ICI (NICI) following IPTW (p < 0.001). In cisplatin-eligible patients, EFS was superior in those receiving pembrolizumab and RC (p < 0.001). The estimated 3-yr EFS was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.9-93.3) for pembrolizumab and 63.5% (95% CI: 56.5-71.4) for NAC. EFS remained superior in those receiving NICI following IPTW (p < 0.001). Pathologic responses and RFS in pembrolizumab-treated patients were also superior to those in NAC-treated patients. Results are limited by the retrospective nature of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first ever reported comprehensive comparison of outcomes between neoadjuvant ICI and NAC, followed by RC, or upfront RC, we report increased responses and improved oncologic outcomes with neoadjuvant ICI in patients with MIBC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We compared the results obtained from the use of pembrolizumab and radical cystectomy with standard-of-care treatments in patients with bladder carcinoma infiltrating the muscle layer. We reported increased response and survival rates possibilities with the use of immunotherapy, anticipating the possibility to set new therapeutic standards in these patients, pending the results of ongoing randomized studies.

A retrospective cohort study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in locally advanced rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Patients diagnosed with LARC and treated with programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors were recruited.

METHODS

Four different treatment strategies were employed in this study: plan A [long-course radiotherapy + PD-1 inhibitor/capecitabine + PD-1 inhibitor/XELOX+ total mesorectal excision (TME)], plan B (long-course radiotherapy + capecitabine + PD-1 inhibitor/XELOX + TME), plan C (short-course radiotherapy + PD-1 inhibitor/XELOX + TME), and plan D (PD-1 inhibitor/XELOX + short-course radiotherapy + TME). The basic information about patients, pathological indicators, adverse events, and efficacy indexes of treatment plans were analyzed.

RESULTS

96.8 % of patients were mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and only 2 patients belonged to mismatch repair deficient (dMMR). The 2 patients with dMMR showed a pathological complete response (pCR) rate of 100 %, while the pCR rate of pMMR patients was 43.3 %. The overall tumor descending rate reached 79 %, and the anus-retained rate was 88.7 % in all LARC patients. Plan A exhibited the highest pCR rate of 60 %, and plan C had the highest tumor descending rate and anal preservation rate. Radiation enteritis was the most common adverse event in LARC patients after neoadjuvant therapy, and its incidence was the highest in Plan A.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with ICIs demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety in treating LARC patients.

Immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant treatment of gastrointestinal tumors: is the time ripe?

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) revolutionized the management of mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Based on notable results observed in the metastatic setting, several clinical trials investigated ICIs as neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for localized dMMR/MSI-H GI cancers, achieving striking results in terms of clinical and pathological responses and creating the opportunity to spare patients from neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and even surgical resection. Nevertheless, these impressive findings are mainly derived from small proof of concept phase II studies and there are still several open questions to address. Moreover, dMMR/MSI-H represents a limited subgroup accounting for less than 10% of GI cancers. Consequently, many efforts have been produced to investigate neoadjuvant ICIs also in mismatch repair-proficient/microsatellite stable (MSS) cancers, considering the potential synergistic effect in combining immune-targeted agents with standard therapies such as chemo and/or radiotherapy. However, results for combining ICIs to the standard of care in the unselected population are still unsatisfactory, without improvements in event-free survival in esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma for the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, and sometimes limited benefit in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Therefore, a major challenge will be to identify among the heterogenous spectrum of this disease, those patients that could take advantage of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and deliver the most effective treatment. In this review we discuss the rationale of NAT in GI malignancies, summarize the available evidence regarding the completed trials that evaluated this treatment strategy in both MSI-H and MSS tumors. Finally, we discuss ongoing studies and future perspectives to render neoadjuvant immunotherapy another arrow in the quiver for the treatment of locally advanced GI tumors.

Development of perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

The standard preoperative treatment for resectable locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is chemoradiotherapy in western countries (based on the CROSS trial) and triplet chemotherapy in Japan (based on the JCOG1109 trial). Postoperative nivolumab has recently been shown to improve disease-free survival in resectable locally advanced esophageal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients who had residual pathological disease, based on the CheckMate 577 trial. Furthermore, preoperative immune checkpoint inhibitor-containing treatments have also been developed. The JCOG1804E trial is presently evaluating the safety and efficacy of preoperative nivolumab-containing chemotherapy for resectable locally advanced ESCC. This review discusses the treatment of resectable locally advanced ESCC and future perspectives on perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor-containing treatments.

Perioperative Nivolumab in Resectable Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Standard treatment with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy significantly improves outcomes in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Perioperative treatment (i.e., neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy) with nivolumab may further improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned adults with resectable stage IIA to IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 1 year. The primary outcome was event-free survival according to blinded independent review. Secondary outcomes were pathological complete response and major pathological response according to blinded independent review, overall survival, and safety.

RESULTS

At this prespecified interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.4 months), the percentage of patients with 18-month event-free survival was 70.2% in the nivolumab group and 50.0% in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or recurrence, abandoned surgery, or death, 0.58; 97.36% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.81; P<0.001). A pathological complete response occurred in 25.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 4.7% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 6.64; 95% CI, 3.40 to 12.97); a major pathological response occurred in 35.4% and 12.1%, respectively (odds ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.48 to 6.49). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32.5% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 25.2% of those in the chemotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative treatment with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer event-free survival than chemotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC. No new safety signals were observed. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 77T ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04025879.).