Metronomic chemotherapy treatment (mCHT) refers to the chronic administration of low doses chemotherapy that can sustain prolonged, and active plasma levels of drugs, producing favorable tolerability and it is a new promising therapeutic approach in solid and in hematologic tumors. mCHT has not only a direct effect on tumor cells, but also an action on cell microenvironment, by inhibiting tumor angiogenesis, or promoting immune response and for these reasons can be considered a multi-target therapy itself. Here we review the state of the art of mCHT use in some classical tumour types, such as breast and no small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), see what is new regarding most recent data in different cancer types, such as glioblastoma (GBL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and new drugs with potential metronomic administration. Finally, a look at the strategic use of mCHT in the context of health emergencies, or in low –and middle-income countries (LMICs), where access to adequate healthcare is often not easy, is mandatory, as we always need to bear in in mind that equity in care must be a compulsory part of our medical work and research.

Advances in the genomic, molecular and immunological make-up of melanoma allowed the development of novel targeted therapy and of immunotherapy, leading to changes in the paradigm of therapeutic interventions and improvement of patients’ overall survival. Nevertheless, the mechanisms regulating either the responsiveness or the resistance of melanoma patients to therapies are still mostly unknown. The development of either the combinations or of the sequential treatment of different agents has been investigated but without a strongly molecularly motivated rationale. The need for robust biomarkers to predict patients’ responsiveness to defined therapies and for their stratification is still unmet. Progress in immunological assays and genomic techniques as long as improvement in designing and performing studies monitoring the expression of these markers along with the evolution of the disease allowed to identify candidate biomarkers. However, none of them achieved a definitive role in predicting patients’ clinical outcomes. Along this line, the cross-talk of melanoma cells with tumor microenvironment plays an important role in the evolution of the disease and needs to be considered in light of the role of predictive biomarkers. The overview of the relationship between the molecular basis of melanoma and targeted therapies is provided in this review, highlighting the benefit for clinical responses and the limitations. Moreover, the role of different candidate biomarkers is described together with the technical approaches for their identification. The provided evidence shows that progress has been achieved in understanding the molecular basis of melanoma and in designing advanced therapeutic strategies. Nevertheless, the molecular determinants of melanoma and their role as biomarkers predicting patients’ responsiveness to therapies warrant further investigation with the vision of developing more effective precision medicine.

Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT), defined as continuous administration of low-dose chemotherapeutic agents with no or short regular treatment-free intervals, was first introduced to the clinic in international guidelines in 2017, and, since then, has become one of the available strategies for the treatment of advanced breast cancer (ABC). Despite recent successes, many unsolved practical and theoretical issues remain to be addressed. The present review aims to identify the “lights and shadows” of mCHT in preclinical and clinical settings. In the preclinical setting, several findings indicate that one of the most noticeable effects of mCHT is on the tumor microenvironment, which, over the last twenty years, has been demonstrated to be pivotal in supporting tumor cell survival and proliferation. On the other hand, the direct effects on tumor cells have been less well-defined. In addition, critical items to be addressed are the lack of definition of an optimal biological dose (OBD), the method of administration of metronomic schedules, and the recognition and validation of predictive biomarkers. In the clinical context—where mCHT has mainly been used in a metastatic setting—low toxicity is the most well-recognised light of mCHT, whereas the type of study design, the absence of randomised trials and uncertainty in terms of doses and drugs remain among the shadows. In conclusion, growing evidence indicates that mCHT is a suitable treatment option for selected metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Moreover, given its multimodal mechanisms of action, its addition to immunological and targeted therapies might represent a promising new approach to the treatment of MBC. More preclinical data are needed in this regard, which can only be obtained through support for translational research as the key link between basic science and patient care.

8513 Background: Systemic chemotherapy in MPM is inevitably followed by relapse, and response rates to second line treatment are limited. T is an antineoplastic agent targeting both the malignant cells and the tumor microenvironment with demonstrated activity against a range of tumors. We aimed to study the activity and safety of T in advanced MPM. Methods: ATREUS, an Italian multicenter single arm phase II trial, assessed the activity T in MPM evaluating the proportion of patients responding to treatment and achieving progression free survival for 12 weeks (PFS12w). Pre-treated epithelioid and naive or pre-treated biphasic/sarcomatoid pts were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Initial dose was 1.3 mg/m2, over 3 hours every 21 days, later reduced to 1.1 mg/m2to improve tolerability. In the epithelioid cohort, sample size was based on a Simon's Optimal Two-Stage Design. The study was set to reject, at an alpha error of 10% the hypothesis that PFS12w was ≤25% and to demonstrate, with a power of 85% the hypothesis that PFS12w was ≥40%. At least 20 out of 62 pts with assessed disease, no major protocol violations, either receiving ≥12 weeks of treatment or interrupting before for progression or death (per protocol – PP analysis) were to reach PFS12w in order to consider T effective. Results: 71 pts were enrolled and evaluable. Average age was 65.8 ± 8.75 years. 71.8% were male and 82.5% presented stage III or IV disease. 42.4% (25/59) of pts included in the PP analysis obtained PFS12w (95% CI: 29.6% - 55.9%). In a second, more conservative analysis, including pts withdrawn prematurely for toxicity or intercurrent illness as failures, PFS12w rate reached 38.5% (25/65 pts). The most frequent grade ≥3 treatment-related toxicities werehepatic toxicity (60.5%), non-febrile neutropenia (21.1%), and fatigue (6.6%). Five pts (7%) interrupted treatment for toxicities (2 liver, 1 multi-organ failure, 1 thrombocytopenia, 1 T intolerance). Conclusions: In pts with advanced epithelioid MPM, second line treatment with T showed an elevated rate of disease stabilization. Safety data is promising but require further evaluation. Clinical trial information: NCT02194231.

Purpose Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents a subtype of breast cancer which lacks the expression of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2): TNBC accounts for approximately 20% of newly diagnosed breast cancers and is associated with younger age at diagnosis, greater recurrence risk and shorter survival time. Therapeutic options are very scarce. Aim of the present analysis is to provide further insights into the clinical activity of metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT), in a real-life setting. Methods We used data included in the VICTOR-6 study for the present analysis. VICTOR-6 is an Italian multicentre retrospective cohort study, which collected data of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients who have received mCHT between 2011 and 2016. Amongst the 584 patients included in the study, 97 were triple negative. In 40.2% of the TNBC patients, mCHT was the first chemotherapy treatment, whereas 32.9% had received 2 or more lines of treatment for the metastatic disease. 45.4% out of 97 TNBC patients received a vinorelbine (VRL)-based regimen, which resulted in the most used type of mCHT, followed by cyclophosphamide (CTX)-based regimens (30.9%) and capecitabine (CAPE)-based combinations (22.7%). Results Overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 17.5% and 64.9%, respectively. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.0 months (95% CI: 4.9–7.2) and 12.1 months (95% CI: 9.6–16.7). Median PFS was 6.9 months for CAPE-based regimens (95% CI: 5.0–18.4), 6.1 months (95% CI: 4.0–8.9) for CTX-based and 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.1–9.5) for VRL-based ones. Median OS was 18.2 months (95% CI: 9.1-NE) for CAPE-based regimens and 11.8 months for VRL- (95% CI: 9.3–16.7 and CTX-based ones (95%CI: 8.7–52.8). Tumour response, PFS and OS decreased proportionally in later lines. Conclusion This analysis represents the largest series of TNBC patients treated with mCHT in a real-life setting and provides further insights into the advantages of using this strategy even in this poor prognosis subpopulation.