Background Recent evidence suggested a potential correlation between overweight and the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective study of advanced cancer patients consecutively treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, in order to compare clinical outcomes according to baseline BMI levels as primary analysis. Based on their BMI, patients were categorized into overweight/obese (≥ 25) and non-overweight (< 25). A gender analysis was also performed, using the same binomial cut-off. Further subgroup analyses were performed categorizing patients into underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese. Results Between September 2013 and May 2018, 976 patients were evaluated. The median age was 68 years, male/female ratio was 663/313. Primary tumors were: NSCLC (65.1%), melanoma (18.7%), renal cell carcinoma (13.8%) and others (2.4%). ECOG-PS was ≥2 in 145 patients (14.9%). PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were administered as first-line treatment in 26.6% of cases. Median BMI was 24.9: 492 patients (50.6%) were non-overweight, 480 patients (50.4%) were overweight/obese. 25.2% of non-overweight patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 55.6% of overweight/obese patients ( p < 0.0001). ORR was significantly higher in overweight/obese patients compared to non-overweight (p < 0.0001). Median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median TTF, PFS and OS were significantly longer for overweight/obese patients in univariate (p < 0.0001, for all the survival intervals) and multivariate models ( p = 0.0009, p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001 respectively). The significance was confirmed in both sex, except for PFS in male patients ( p = 0.0668). Conclusions Overweight could be considered a tumorigenic immune-dysfunction that could be effectively reversed by ICIs. BMI could be a useful predictive tool in clinical practice and a stratification factor in prospective clinical trials with ICIs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0527-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In ambulatory patients with solid cancer, routine thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is not recommended. Several risk prediction scores to identify cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism have been proposed, but their clinical usefulness remains a matter of debate. We evaluated and directly compared the performance of the Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores in a multinational, prospective cohort study. Patients with advanced cancer were eligible if they were due to undergo chemotherapy or had started chemotherapy in the previous three months. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed symptomatic or incidental deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism during a 6-month follow-up period. A total of 876 patients were enrolled, of whom 260 (30%) had not yet received chemotherapy. Fifty-three patients (6.1%) developed venous thromboembolism. The c-statistics of the scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.57. At the conventional positivity threshold of 3 points, the scores classified 13–34% of patients as high-risk; the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism in these patients ranged from 6.5% (95%CI: 2.8–12) for the Khorana score to 9.6% (95%CI: 6.6–13) for the PROTECHT score. High-risk patients had a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism when using the Vienna (subhazard ratio 1.7; 95%CI: 1.0–3.1) or PROTECHT (subhazard ratio 2.1; 95%CI: 1.2–3.6) scores. In conclusion, the prediction scores performed poorly in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. The Vienna CATS and PROTECHT scores appear to discriminate better between low- and high-risk patients, but further improvements are needed before they can be considered for introduction into clinical practice.

BackgroundConcomitant medications, such as steroids, proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and antibiotics, might affect clinical outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter observational retrospective study aimed at evaluating the impact of concomitant medications on clinical outcomes, by weighing their associations with baseline clinical characteristics (including performance status, burden of disease and body mass index) and the underlying causes for their prescription. This analysis included consecutive stage IV patients with cancer, who underwent treatment with single agent antiprogrammed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) with standard doses and schedules at the medical oncology departments of 20 Italian institutions. Each medication taken at the immunotherapy initiation was screened and collected into key categories as follows: corticosteroids, antibiotics, gastric acid suppressants (including proton pump inhibitors - PPIs), statins and other lipid-lowering agents, aspirin, anticoagulants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), ACE inhibitors/Angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium antagonists, β-blockers, metformin and other oral antidiabetics, opioids.ResultsFrom June 2014 to March 2020, 1012 patients were included in the analysis. Primary tumors were: non-small cell lung cancer (52.2%), melanoma (26%), renal cell carcinoma (18.3%) and others (3.6%). Baseline statins (HR 1.60 (95% CI 1.14 to 2.25), p=0.0064), aspirin (HR 1.47 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.08, p=0.0267) and β-blockers (HR 1.76 (95% CI 1.16 to 2.69), p=0.0080) were confirmed to be independently related to an increased objective response rate. Patients receiving cancer-related steroids (HR 1.72 (95% CI 1.43 to 2.07), p<0.0001), prophylactic systemic antibiotics (HR 1.85 (95% CI 1.23 to 2.78), p=0.0030), prophylactic gastric acid suppressants (HR 1.29 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.53), p=0.0021), PPIs (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.48), p=0.0050), anticoagulants (HR 1.43 (95% CI: 1.16 to 1.77), p=0.0007) and opioids (HR 1.71 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.28), p=0.0002) were confirmed to have a significantly higher risk of disease progression. Patients receiving cancer-related steroids (HR 2.16 (95% CI 1.76 to 2.65), p<0.0001), prophylactic systemic antibiotics (HR 1.93 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.98), p=0.0030), prophylactic gastric acid suppressants (HR 1.29 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.57), p=0.0091), PPI (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.52), p=0.0172), anticoagulants (HR 1.45 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.84), p=0.0024) and opioids (HR 1.53 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.11), p=0.0098) were confirmed to have a significantly higher risk of death.ConclusionWe confirmed the association between baseline steroids administered for cancer-related indication, systemic antibiotics, PPIs and worse clinical outcomes with PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, which can be assumed to have immune-modulating detrimental effects.

Background Patients with a history of autoimmune diseases (AIDs) have not usually been included in clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Materials and Methods Consecutive patients with advanced cancer, treated with anti‐programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) agents, were evaluated according to the presence of pre‐existing AIDs. The incidence of immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) and clinical outcomes were compared among subgroups. Results A total of 751 patients were enrolled; median age was 69 years. Primary tumors were as follows: non‐small cell lung cancer, 492 (65.5%); melanoma, 159 (21.2%); kidney cancer, 94 (12.5%); and others, 6 (0.8%). Male/female ratio was 499/252. Eighty‐five patients (11.3%) had pre‐existing AIDs, further differentiated in clinically active (17.6%) and inactive (82.4%). Among patients with pre‐existing AIDs, incidence of irAEs of any grade was significantly higher when compared with patients without AIDs (65.9% vs. 39.9%). At multivariate analysis, both inactive (p = .0005) and active pre‐existing AIDs (p = .0162), female sex (p = .0004), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status <2 (p = .0030) were significantly related to a higher incidence of irAEs of any grade. No significant differences were observed regarding grade 3/4 irAEs and objective response rate among subgroups. Pre‐existing AIDs were not significantly related with progression‐free survival and overall survival. Conclusion This study quantifies the increased risk of developing irAEs in patients with pre‐existing AIDs who had to be treated with anti‐PD‐1 immunotherapy. Nevertheless, the incidence of grade 3/4 irAEs is not significantly higher when compared with control population. The finding of a greater incidence of irAEs among female patients ranks among the “hot topics” in gender‐related differences in immuno‐oncology. Implications for Practice Patients with a history of autoimmune diseases (AIDs) have not usually been included in clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors but are frequent in clinical practice. This study quantifies the increased risk of developing immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with pre‐existing AIDs who had to be treated with anti‐programmed death‐1 immunotherapy. Nevertheless, their toxicities are mild and the incidence of grade 3/4 irAEs is not significantly higher compared with those of controls. These results will help clinicians in everyday practice, improving their ability to offer a proper counselling to patients, in order to offer an immunotherapy treatment even to patients with pre‐existing autoimmune disease.

Quantification of EGFR mutations from plasma with a standardized PCR test is feasible. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing a strong correlation between the EGFR SQI in the first days of treatment and clinical response with relevant implications for patient management.