BackgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common cancer associated with a poor prognosis. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor, a mediator of tumor angiogenesis. Bevacizumab is currently under investigation as treatment for HCC. We performed a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced HCC.MethodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched using the terms “bevacizumab AND hepatocellular carcinoma AND (advanced OR unresectable)”. Phase II trials of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced HCC were included. Outcomes of interest included progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS), tumor response, and toxicities.ResultsA total of 26 records were identified. Of these, 18 were excluded. Hence, eight trials involving 300 patients were included. Bevacizumab was given as monotherapy (n = 1 trial) or in combination with erlotinib (n = 4 trials), capecitabine (n = 1 trial), capecitabine+oxaliplatin (n = 1 trial), or gemcitabine+oxaliplatin (n = 1 trial). Most trials (five of eight) reported median PFS and OS between 5.3 months and 9.0 months and 5.9 and 13.7 months, respectively. The disease control rate was consistent in five of eight trials, ranging from 51.1% to 76.9%. The response and partial response rates ranged from 0 to 23.7%, but were around 20% in four trials. Only one patient had a complete response. Frequently reported Grade 3/4 toxicities were increased aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase (13%), fatigue (12%), hypertension (10%), diarrhea (8%), and neutropenia (5%). Thirty patients experienced gastrointestinal bleeding (grade 1/2 = 18, grade 3/4 = 12), typically due to esophageal varices.ConclusionsBevacizumab shows promise as an effective and tolerable treatment for advanced HCC. The reported efficacy of bevacizumab appears to compare favorably with that of sorafenib, the only currently approved treatment for unresectable HCC. Phase III trials are warranted to comprehensively examine the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab for treatment of advanced HCC.

Immune checkpoint blockade‐related pneumonitis is a rare but potentially life‐threatening adverse effect, but its risk factors are not completely understood. This case‐control study was conducted to identify pneumonitis risk factors in patients treated with anti‐PD1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), including all the patients who developed pneumonitis after anti‐PD‐1 mAbs treatment in the Cancer Center of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from September 2015 to September 2017. Two controls per case were matched according to a propensity‐score matching algorithm to account for confounding effects caused by individual baseline variables. Demographic and clinical information was obtained from medical records. In total, 55 cases and 110 controls were included in the study. No association was observed between smoking status or primary lung cancer and risk of pneumonitis. Significant risk factors for pneumonitis related to anti‐PD‐1 mAbs were prior thoracic radiotherapy, prior lung disease and combination therapy with odds ratios of 3.34 (1.51‐7.39), 2.86 (1.45‐5.64) and 2.73 (1.40‐5.31), respectively. The associations remained significant in the multivariable logistic regression model. The risk of pneumonitis induced by anti‐PD‐1 mAbs is associated with prior thoracic radiotherapy, prior lung disease, and combination therapy. Clinicians should monitor these features in patients receiving anti‐PD‐1 therapy to optimize clinical safety and efficacy.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated great promise for treating cancers with homologous recombination (HR) defects, such as germline BRCA1/2 mutation. Further studies suggest that PARP inhibitors (PARPi) can also exhibit efficacy in HR-competent cancers, by amplifying the DNA damage and inducing immunogenic cell death, and PARPi lead to increasing tumor neoantigen, upregulation of interferons and PD-L1, and modulation of the tumor microenvironment, which may facilitate a more profound antitumor immune response. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD-1/PD-L1 or CTLA-4 have achieved impressive success in the treatment of different malignancies. However, only a subset of populations derive clinical benefit, and the biomarkers and resistance mechanisms are not fully understood. Therefore, given that PARPi could potentiate the therapeutic effect of ICIs, PARPi combined with ICIs are becoming an alternative for patients who cannot benefit from ICI monotherapy. In this review, we focus on the mechanisms and immune role of PARPi and discuss the rationale and clinical studies of this combined regimen.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway have demonstrated promise in treating a variety of advanced cancers; however, little is known regarding their efficacy under various clinical situations, including different cancer types, treatment lines, drug combinations, and therapeutic regimens.MethodsPublished articles and conference abstracts (in English) in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register, and Web of Science were searched up to February 10, 2020. The data were analyzed by the meta-analysis program in Stata.ResultsA total of 16,400 patients from 91 clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors had a mean ORR of 19.56% (95% CI: 15.09–24.03), a median TTR of 2.05 months (m) (95%CI: 1.85–2.26), and a median DOR of 10.65 m (95%CI: 7.78–13.52). First-line treatment had a higher ORR (36.57% vs. 13.18%) but a shorter DOR (9.00 m vs. 13.42 m) compared to the second-line or subsequent treatment. Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy (I+C) (46.81% [95%CI: 36.02–57.60]) had a statistically significant higher ORR compared to immunotherapy (I) (17.75% [95%CI: 14.47–21.03]) or immunotherapy combined with immunotherapy (I+O) (12.25% [95%CI: 1.56–22.94]), while I+C (8.09 m [95%CI: 6.86–9.32]) appeared to reduce the DOR compared to I (12.39 m [95%CI: 7.60–17.18]). PD-1 inhibitors were associated with better ORR (21.65% vs. 17.60%) and DOR (11.26 m vs. 10.03 m) compared to PD-L1 inhibitors. There were no significant differences in TTR under different situations.ConclusionsPD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were promising immunotherapeutic agents to achieve satisfactory response efficacies with different cancer types, treatment lines, drug combinations, and therapeutic regimens. This comprehensive summary of the response efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors serves as a reference for clinicians to make evidence-based decisions.

Objective: To explore the expression and significance of estrogen receptor (ER), progestrone receptor (PR), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), CA15-3, CA125 and carcinoma embryonic antigen (CEA) expression in judging the prognosis of breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Sixty-five patients with breast cancer undergoing operations in the general surgery department were considered as the observation group, and 50 healthy outpatients of our hospital as the control group. Cubital venous blood was drawn in the morning from fasting patients in the two groups and chemiluminescence immunoassays were used to detect the levels of CA15-3, CA125 and CEA in serum. The follow-up duration was from 4 months to 2 years, and change in levels of the indicators was detected by dynamically drawing blood. After surgery, cancer tissue samples of patients in observation group remained on file (the non-recurrent patients were biopsied). Immunohistochemistry was applied to determine the expression of ER, PR and VEGF in tissue. Results: The effective rate of 12 patients with negative ER and PR expression was 33.3% in the observation group, being associated with prognosis to varying extents. Serum CA15-3, CA125 and CEA in the observation group were all significantly higher than in control group (p<0.01). With increase in pathological staging, levels of serum CA15-3, CA125 and CEA gradually increased (p<0.01). Levels in patients with lymph node metastasis were markedly higher than in those without (p<0.01). In addition, values with distal lymph node metastasis were notably higher than with adjacent lymph node metastasis (p<0.01). The postoperative follow-up results revealed that positive VEGF and levels of serum VEGF, CA15-3, CA125 and CEA in recurrence group were obviously higher than in non-recurrence group (p<0.01). Conclusions: Joint detection of ER and PR expression as well as levels of serum VEGF, CA15-3, CA125 and CEA is meaningful and can guide the diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer.