Background: Patients with refractory mCRC rarely undergo third-line or subsequent treatment. This strategy could negatively impact their survival. In this setting, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two key new treatment options with statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control with different tolerance profiles. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in real-world practice. Materials and Methods: In 2012–2022, 866 patients diagnosed with mCRC who received sequential R and T (T/R, n = 146; R/T, n = 116]) or T (n = 325]) or R (n = 279) only were retrospectively recruited from 13 Italian cancer institutes. Results: The median OS is significantly longer in the R/T group (15.9 months) than in the T/R group (13.9 months) (p = 0.0194). The R/T sequence had a statistically significant advantage in the mPFS, which was 8.8 months with T/R vs. 11.2 months with R/T (p = 0.0005). We did not find significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving T or R only. A total of 582 grade 3/4 toxicities were recorded. The frequency of grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reactions was higher in the R/T sequence compared to the reverse sequence (37.3% vs. 7.4%) (p = 0.01), while grade 3/4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the R/T group than in the T/R group (66.2% vs. 78.2%) (p = 0.13). Toxicities in the non-sequential groups were similar and in line with previous studies. Conclusions: The R/T sequence resulted in a significantly longer OS and PFS and improved disease control compared with the reverse sequence. R and T given not sequentially have similar impacts on survival. More data are needed to define the best sequence and to explore the efficacy of sequential (T/R or R/T) treatment combined with molecular-targeted drugs.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Immunotherapy has changed the management of patients with various types of malignancies (melanoma, renal, lung, and bladder cancers) but immune checkpoint inhibitors may be associated with several adverse events. Up to 20% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors may develop dermatological immune-related adverse events, mostly rashes and pruritus but rarely even bullous pemphigoid. Case report We report a case of an elderly patient with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in therapy with pembrolizumab, 200 mg/body every three weeks. After 26 cycles of therapy, the patient developed widespread itching and then after 28 cycles she developed strained blisters filled with serous fluids on predominantly erythematous skin with suspicious of bullous pemphigoid. Management and outcome: Skin biopsy confirms bullous pemphigoid, so we decided to permanently discontinue therapy with pembrolizumab and the patient is currently on therapy with doxycycline, nicotinamide, and clobetasol propionate with good regression of symptoms and cutaneous lesions. Discussion In the literature, the first case of bullous pemphigoid induced by pembrolizumab has been described in 2015. On Pubmed, from 2015 to date, we have found 19 cases of bullous pemphigoid during pembrolizumab therapy but only three of them are related to non-small cell lung cancer, adding our patient we reach a total of 20 cases. It could be interesting to investigate if there is a specific relationship between the appearance of itching and the development of bullous pemphigoid.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid reorganization of healthcare activities, leading to reduced access to clinics, interruption of screenings, and treatment schedule modifications in several cancer types. Few data are available on sarcomas. We analyzed COVID-19-related diagnostic delay in a sarcoma referral center in Italy.MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled in this study patients with histological diagnosis of soft tissue or bone sarcoma and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases obtained during the first year of the pandemic (Covid group) or the year before (Control group) and followed at the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. The primary endpoint was the time from the first symptom to histological diagnosis.ResultsWe evaluated 372 patients, 185 of whom were eligible for primary endpoint analysis (92 patients in the Control group and 93 patients in the Covid group). The patients were affected by soft tissue sarcoma in most cases (63.0% and 66.7% in Covid and Control groups, respectively). We observed a diagnostic delay in the Covid group with a median time from the first symptom to the definitive histological diagnosis of 103.00 days (95% CI 92.77–113.23) vs. 90.00 days (95% CI 69.49–110.51) in the Control group (p = 0.024), but not a delay in treatment beginning (151 days, 95% CI 132.9–169.1 vs. 144 days, 95% CI 120.3–167.7, respectively, p = 0.208). No differences in stage at diagnosis were observed (12% vs. 16.5% of patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis in the Covid and Control groups, respectively, p = 0.380). Progression-free survival (p = 0.897) and overall survival (p = 0.725) were comparable in the subgroup of patients affected by soft tissue sarcoma.ConclusionsA delay in sarcoma diagnosis but not in starting treatment has been observed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, no difference in stage at diagnosis or in terms of survival has been observed.