Background KRAS mutation‐positive (KRAS‐positive), advanced nonsmall‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is characterized by a poor prognosis. KRAS mutations are extremely heterogeneous from a biologic point of view, and real‐world data by mutation subtype in the era of immunotherapy are still incomplete. Methods The objective of this study was to retrospectively analyze all consecutive patients with advanced/metastatic, KRAS‐positive NSCLC who were diagnosed at a single academic institution since the advent of immunotherapy. The authors report on the natural history of the disease as well as the efficacy of first‐line treatments in the entire cohort and by KRAS mutation subtypes as well as the presence/absence of co‐mutations. Results From March 2016 to December 2021, the authors identified 199 consecutive patients who had KRAS‐positive, advanced or metastatic NSCLC. The median overall survival (OS) was 10.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5–12.9 months), and there were no differences by mutation subtype. Among 134 patients who received first‐line treatment, the median OS was 12.2 months (95% CI, 8.3–16.1 months), and the median progression‐free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.5–6.6 months). At multivariate analysis, only an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 was associated with significantly shorter progression‐free survival and OS. Conclusions KRAS‐positive, advanced NSCLC is characterized by a poor prognosis despite the introduction of immunotherapy. Survival was not associated with KRAS mutation subtype. Plain Language Summary This study evaluated the efficacy of systemic therapies for advanced/metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer harboring KRAS mutations, along with the potential predictive and prognostic role of mutation subtypes. The authors found that advanced/metastatic, KRAS‐positive nonsmall cell lung cancer is characterized by a poor prognosis and that first‐line treatment efficacy is not related to different KRAS mutations, although a numerically shorter median progression‐free survival was observed in patients who had p.G12D and p.G12A mutations. These results underline the need for novel treatment options in this population, such as next‐generation KRAS inhibitors, which are in clinical and preclinical development.

Kirsten Rat Sarcoma Viral Oncogene Homolog (KRAS) gene mutations are among the most common driver alterations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Despite their high frequency, valid treatment options are still lacking, mainly due to an intrinsic complexity of both the protein structure and the downstream pathway. The increasing knowledge about different mutation subtypes and co-mutations has paved the way to several promising therapeutic strategies. Despite the best results so far having been obtained in patients harbouring KRAS exon 2 p.G12C mutation, even the treatment landscape of non-p.G12C KRAS mutation positive patients is predicted to change soon. This review provides a comprehensive and critical overview of ongoing studies into NSCLC patients with KRAS mutations other than p.G12C and discusses future scenarios that will hopefully change the story of this disease.

No abstract

Personalized treatment based on driver molecular alterations, such as ALK rearrangement, has revolutionized the therapeutic management of advanced oncogene-addicted NSCLC patients. Multiple effective ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), with the amelioration of the activity at central nervous system level, are now available, leading to substantial prognosis improvement. The exposure to TKIs triggers resistance mechanisms and the sequential administration of other TKIs and chemotherapy is, for the most part, not targeted. In this context, extending the benefit deriving from precision medicine is paramount, above all, when disease progression occurs in a limited number of sites. Retrospective data indicate that, in oligoprogressive disease, targeted therapy beyond progression combined with definitive local treatment of the progressing site(s) is an effective alternative. In these cases, a multidisciplinary approach becomes essential for an integrated treatment strategy, depending on the site of disease progression, in order to improve not only survival, but also quality of life. In this review we provide an updated and comprehensive overview of the main treatment strategies in cases of ALK rearranged oligoprogression, including systemic treatment as well as local therapy, and report a real-world clinical story, with the final aim of identifying the most promising management for this subset of patients.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Aim: Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rapidly spread around the world, Italy has quickly become one of the most affected countries. Healthcare systems introduced strict infection control measures to ensure optimal care, especially in frail groups such as cancer patients (pts). This study investigated the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 pre-procedure screening and whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) influenced timely diagnosis and therapy. Methods: Data of oncological procedures of pts with confirmed or suspected cancer diagnosis, treated at Oncology Department or coming from Emergency Department of San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital between June 2020 and March 2021 were retrospectively collected. A nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) was performed in outpatients 24/48 h before procedures. Inpatients were tested by NPS before and after hospitalization. Results: Two hundred and twenty-one pts were included in this analysis. Median age was 73 years, males were 58%. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status was 0 or 1 in 88% of pts. The most frequent cancer type was lung cancer (57%). Stages IV were 77%. Two hundred and forty three scheduled procedures were performed with diagnostic (n: 142; 58%), therapeutic (n: 55; 23%), and palliative (n: 46; 19%) intent. One hundred and four and 139 procedures were performed in out- and in-pts, respectively. Of the 234 NPS performed, 10 (4%) were positive. Two pts were infected during hospitalization, 8 in community. Most of them were asymptomatic, while only 2 had mild symptoms. Eight procedures (3%) were postponed, 1 cancelled, while 2 were performed in positive pts. Median time to resolution of the infection was 17 days (11-36). Median delay in the procedures was 25 days (14-55). Five pts started systemic treatment, after a median time of 37.5 days (13-57). Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection led to the postponement of a small, but not negligible percentage of oncological procedures. However, the low infection rate observed suggests that structured screening for COVID-19 is critical for the best management of scheduled procedures during pandemic.