Recently immune checkpoint inhibitors amazingly changed the landscape of cancer therapy worldwide. The number of immune checkpoint molecules in clinical practice is constantly increasing. There are some monoclonal antibodies recently registered in the Russian Federation: anti-PD1 antibodies (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), anti-PD-L1 (atezolizumab, durvalumab), anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab). Immune-mediated endocrinopathies are some of the most common complications of immunotherapy. According to the results of clinical studies, the incidence of serious endocrine immuno-mediated adverse events with anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies is low (3.5–8%). The use of anti-CTLA4 antibodies, combined regimens, and the use of immunotherapy after chemoradiotherapy significantly increase the incidence of serious adverse events to 30%. In clinical practice of N.N. Blokhin Cancer Research Center among 245 non-small cell lung cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with immunotherapy, 22 (8,9%) developed an immune-mediated endocrinopathy. Most patients developed adverse events of 1–2 degrees, in two patients – 3 degrees, requiring discontinuation of treatment. The aim of this article was to provide useful information and recommendations regarding the management of common immuno-related endocrine adverse events (including hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, pituitary, adrenal insufficiency) for clinical oncologists.

Aim of the study: to evaluate prognostic value of baseline lung immune prognostic index (LIPI) and its modification (mLIPI) for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).Material and methods. Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lactate dehydrogenase, hemoglobin, platelets, and fibrinogen level were collected from 133 patients treated with ICI in monotherapy or combination between July 2015 and July 2022 in N.N. Blokhin NMRCO. According to evaluating factors patients were divided into three groups of “good” (LIPI 0/mLIPI 0–1), “intermediate” (LIPI 1/mLIPI 2–3) and “poor” prognosis (LIPI 2/mLIPI 4–5). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS).Results. The median PFS for the LIPI groups were 9.7 months (1.4–17.9; 95 % CI), 7.9 months (5.9–9.9; CI 95 %) and 6.0 months (4.07–7.93; 95 % CI) in the “good”, “intermediate” and “poor” prognosis groups, respectively; the hazard ratio (HR) for patients in the “poor” prognosis group (17 patients) was 2.02 (1.06–3.84; 95 % CI) compared with the “good” LIPI group (p=0.03). The median PFS for mLIPI groups were 9.0 months (4.53–13.47; 95 % CI), 8.0 months (5.4–10.6; CI 95 %) and 2.0 months. (1.33–2.67; 95 % CI) in the “good”, “intermediate” and “poor” prognosis groups, respectively. The HR for patients in the “poor” prognosis group (n=12) was 3.12 (1.51–6.46; 95 % CI) compared with the “good” mLIPI group (p=0.002).Conclusion. Baseline LIPI and mLIPI predicts potential resistance to ICI treatment in mNSCLC patients.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the approaches to treatmentdiffer due to the stage of the disease. According to BCLC classification, B stage patients are recommendedto be underwent transarterial chemoembolization. However, BCLC B integrates patients with differentintrahepatic tumor burden and with different liver deterioration. There are many staging classifications thatdetermine the treatment and survival rates due to heterogeneity of this patient cohort. The aim of this studyis to review the existing ones and to describe their prognostic value.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. The progression of HCC after previously effective TACE is quite often local. This article describes our experience with repeated TACE in patients with local progression of HCC. We analyzed 125 patients with HCC, for the period from 2009 to 2015. TACE was performed for intrahepatic manifestations of HCC. Progression of HCC after TACE-1 was observed in 88.8 % (n = 111) patients. Disease progression after TACE‑2 was registered in 40 (32 %) patients. TACE‑3 was performed in 8 (6.4 %) patients. The analysis showed that isolated local intrahepatic progression of HCC with the growth of intrahepatic tumor nodes previously subjected to TACE‑1 (without new foci) does not affect OS. The efficiency of re-embolization (TACE‑2) is somewhat lower than for TACE of the first stage. Independent factors of overall survival increase in patients receiving TACE: satisfactory objective status according to ECOG, efficacy of the first stage of TACE, late progression and objective effect after re-embolization.

Introduction. Fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma (FlC) is a rare subtype of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Drug antitumor treatment of FlC has not been studied sufficiently due to the rarity of the pathology and requires further research to choose an effective treatment.Aim. The choice of effective drug antitumor treatment in patients with fibrolamellar liver carcinoma.Materials and methods. The retrospective study included 31 patients with FlC who received drug antitumor therapy at the N.N. Blokhin National Research Center of Oncology of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation in the period from 2005 to 2020. The patients were divided into comparison groups: “targeted therapy” (mainly sorafenib), “chemotherapy” (mainly gemcitabine + cisplatin). A comparative intergroup analysis of the effectiveness of drug antitumor treatment in the 1st and 2nd lines of therapy was carried out. Adjuvant chemotherapy was evaluated for time without progression. The correlation of the number of treatment lines in the anamnesis with the prognosis of the disease was also evaluated.Results. Analysis of the effect of adjuvant therapy on relapse-free survival did not prove significant differences between the comparison groups (p = 0.112; log-rank test). Therapy with multikinase inhibitors (mainly sorafenib) allows to achieve a better time without progression compared to chemotherapy (mainly gemcitabine + cisplatin / oxaliplatin) (p = 0.000; log-rank test) in patients in the 1st line of FlC treatment. OS did not significantly differ between the groups (p = 0.417; log-rank test). In line 2, time without progression in patients receiving targeted therapy (p = 0.042; log-rank test) is higher compared to patients receiving chemotherapy in line 2. A longer duration of OV was recorded in the groups of patients who underwent 2 lines of drug antitumor treatment and in the group of 3 or more lines compared with the use of only 1st line of treatment (p = 0.024) and (p = 0.003), respectively.Conclusion. The results of the work demonstrate an advantage in the appointment of targeted therapy as the 1st and 2nd lines of drug antitumor treatment, while the appointment of chemotherapy remains a less prognostically favorable option. Adjuvant therapy administration did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in relapse-free survival.