BackgroundAvelumab (anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)) is approved in multiple countries for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC), a rare and aggressive skin cancer. We report efficacy and safety data and exploratory biomarker analyses from a cohort of patients with mMCC treated with first-line avelumab in a phase II trial.MethodsPatients with treatment-naive mMCC received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was durable response, defined as objective response (complete or partial response; assessed by independent review) lasting ≥6 months. Additional assessments included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses.ResultsIn 116 patients treated with avelumab, median follow-up was 21.2 months (range: 14.9–36.6). Thirty-five patients had a response lasting ≥6 months, giving a durable response rate of 30.2% (95% CI: 22.0% to 39.4%). The objective response rate was 39.7% (95% CI: 30.7% to 49.2%). Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI: 1.4 to 6.1) and median OS was 20.3 months (95% CI: 12.4 to not estimable). Response rates were numerically higher in patients with PD-L1+ tumors, Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV)-negative tumors, and tumors with increased intratumoral CD8+ T-cell density. Exploratory analyses did not identify a biomarker that could reliably predict a response to first-line treatment with avelumab; however, a novel gene expression signature to identify the presence of MCPyV+ tumors was derived. Treatment-related adverse events (any grade) occurred in 94 (81.0%) patients, including grade 3/4 events in 21 (18.1%) patients; no treatment-related deaths occurred.ConclusionIn patients with mMCC, first-line treatment with avelumab led to responses in 40% and durable responses in 30%, and was associated with a low rate of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events.

Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) and the combination of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) are valid first-line options for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, no randomized trials comparing the two schemes have been performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX in terms of safety and effectiveness, taking into account data from real-life studies on mPC. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library up to November 2018 to identify retrospective or cohort studies on mPC comparing GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX. We included 16 retrospective studies, including 3813 patients (2123 treated with GEM-NAB and 1690 treated with FOLFIRINOX). Despite a median weighted overall survival (OS) difference in favor of FOLFIRINOX (mean difference: 1.15, 95% confidence interval CI 0.08–2.22, p = 0.03), in whole population OS was similar (hazard ratio (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.84–1.16; p = 0.9). PFS was also not different between the two arms (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.71–1.1; p = 0.26). The overall response rate was similar (25 vs. 24% with GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX). Among grade 3–4 toxicities, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were lower with GEM-NAB, while neurotoxicity and anemia were lower with FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, despite a numerically longer median OS with FOLFIRINOX as compared to GEM-NAB, the overall risk of death and progression were similar. Their toxicity was different with less nausea, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia with GEM-NAB, as compared to less neurotoxicity and anemia with FOLFIRINOX. Therefore, analysis of non-randomized “real world” studies to date has not provided evidence of a major benefit of one regimen over the other.

In a retrospective study of patients with pNETs, we found a significant association between metformin use and longer PFS.

According to our results, MGMT methylation status, evaluated with methylation specific-polymerase chain reaction or pyrosequencing, should have an important role in patients with metastatic NENs, in order to guide therapeutic options. These results need further confirmation with prospective studies.

Background: In gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms (H-NENs), Ki-67 threshold of 55% defines three prognosis subclasses: neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G3, neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) < 55%, and NEC ≥55%. We investigated whether the molecular profiling of H-NENs differs among these subcategories and evaluated potential therapeutic targets, including PD-L1. Methods: In GEP-NEN patients, we evaluated: (i) 55% threshold for Ki-67 labeling index for further stratifying NEC and (ii) immunoreactivity and gene mutations by immunohistochemistry and targeted next-generation sequencing (T-NGS). Results: Fifteen NETs G3 and 39 NECs were identified. Ki-67 labeling index was < 55% in 9 NECs and ≥55% in 30 NECs. Gene mutations by NGS (TP53, 32.9%; KRAS, 5.5%; BRAF, 4.1%) were detected in 46.6% NENs, significantly enriched in NEC ≥55% (76.7%) compared to NEC < 55% (55.6%) or NET (20.0%). PD-L1 staining in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes was observed in NEC ≥55% (36.7%; p = 0.03). Median OS was 4.3 years in NET G3, 1.8 years in NEC < 55%, and 0.7 years in NEC ≥55% (p < 0.0001); it was 2.3 years with NGS wild-type, 0.7 years with ≥1 mutation (p < 0.0001), 0.8 years in PD-L1-positive patients, and 1.7 years in PD-L1-negative subjects (p = 0.0004).In multivariate analysis, only the proposed subclassification approach yielded statistically significant differences between groups (NEC < 55% vs. NET G3, HR 14.1, 95% CI 2.2-89.8, p = 0.005; NEC ≥55% vs. NET G3, HR 25.8, 95% CI 3.9-169, p = 0.0007). Conclusions: These findings identify NEC ≥55% as a biologically and prognostically distinct subtype and pave the way for more personalized treatment.