Rosa Falcone

Growing evidence has linked bullous pemphigoid (BP) to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in cancer treatment. However, the immunological features of ICI-associated BP (ICI-BP) are not yet fully elucidated. In order to characterize the humoral response in ICI BP patients and investigate whether their epitope profile differs from idiopathic BP (IBP), 53 ICI-BP patients were enrolled, immunologically characterized and compared with 59 IBP patients. ICI-BP had a distinctive IgG humoral profile, with reduced reactivity toward BP230 and recognition of multiple BP180 epitopes beyond the immunodominant extracellular noncollagenous 16A domain (NC16A). Specifically, reactivity to BP180 ectodomain was present in 94% of ICI-BP and 78% of IBP (p=0.044). Moreover, BP180 C-terminal epitope was more frequently targeted in ICI-BP than IBP (72% vs 41%, p=0.002). Notably, the combined use of an in-house BP180 ectodomain ELISA and the commercial BP180 test increased diagnostic sensitivity from 83% to 100%. Enhanced IgG reactivity toward nonimmunodominant epitopes, and especially C-terminal epitope recognition, characterize the humoral immune response in ICI-BP. Our data suggest that combining NC16A and fulllength BP180 ectodomain ELISAs may help reduce diagnostic delay in ICI-BP patients, in whom a timely diagnosis is crucial to appropriately manage the disease and ultimately avoid discontinuation ofcancer therapy.

Background/Objectives: BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors are widely used for patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma, but no biomarkers of response or resistance are currently available. Besides adverse events in different organs, target therapy with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors may induce the onset of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that have been considered as possible biomarkers of good prognosis in patients with melanoma. Methods: To investigate this aspect, we analyzed the occurrence of irAEs in a cohort of 158 patients treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. We also analyzed by flow cytometry the subsets of circulating immune cells in the patients who developed irAEs and matched controls. Results: We found that irAEs occurred in 3 out of 101 patients (3%) who experienced adverse events. These three patients did not exhibit any specific clinical features or circulating immune cell subtypes that could be associated with a positive response to treatment. However, the onset of toxicity in the entire patient cohort was associated with longer progression-free survival. Notably, the frequency of circulating follicular helper T cells increased in all examined patients during the first two months of treatment. Conclusions: The small sample size prevents us from determining whether irAEs are effectively caused by BRAF/MEK inhibitors or if they are a random event. Additionally, we cannot conclude whether irAEs are related to a better outcome. Nevertheless, we note that BRAF/MEK inhibition may alter the composition of circulating immune cells in melanoma patients. This aspect should be investigated further before proposing combinations of target therapies and immunotherapies.

Background/Objectives: Radiomics is a powerful and emerging tool in oncology, with many potential applications in predicting therapy response and prognosis. To assess the current state of radiomics in melanoma, we conducted a systematic review of its various clinical uses. Methods: We searched three databases: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. Each study was classified based on multiple variables, including patient number, metastasis number, therapy, imaging modality, clinical endpoints and analysis methods. The risk of bias in the systematic review was assessed with QUADAS-2, and the certainty of evidence in the meta-analysis with GRADE. Results: Forty studies involving 4673 patients and 24,561 lesions were included in the analysis. Metastatic disease was the most frequently studied clinical setting (85%). Immunotherapy was the most commonly investigated treatment, featured in half of the studies. Computed tomography (CT) was the preferred imaging modality, appearing in 17 studies (42.5%). Radiomic features were most often extracted using three-dimensional (3D) analysis (72.5%). Across 24 studies investigating the prediction of treatment response and survival, only 9 provided sufficient data (Area Under the Curve, AUC, and standard error, SE) for inclusion. A random-effects model estimated a pooled AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.92), indicating strong discriminative performance of the radiomic models included. Low to moderate heterogeneity was observed (I² = 28.6%, p = 0.4741). No evidence of publication bias was detected (p = 0.470). Conclusions: Radiomics is increasingly being explored in the context of melanoma, particularly in advanced disease settings and in relation to immunotherapy. Most studies rely on CT imaging and 3D feature extraction, while molecular integration remains limited. Despite promising findings with strong discriminative performance in predicting therapy response, further prospective, standardized studies with higher methodological rigor are needed to validate radiomic biomarkers and integrate them into clinical decision-making.

Background: When monotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors in metastatic melanoma fails, there are currently no standard second-line choices. In case of the unavailability of clinical trials, ipilimumab represents a possible alternative treatment. Methods: We collected data of 44 patients who received ipilimumab after the failure of PD-1 inhibitors from July 2017 to May 2023 at our Institute. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and post-progression survival (PPS) based on BRAF or NRAS mutation status, sex, and the presence of brain metastases were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Cox regression was used to evaluate independence in multivariate analysis. The objective response rate (ORR) was estimated based on RECIST 1.1. Results: Among the 44 patients enrolled in this study, 28 BRAF-wildtype, 9 BRAF-mutated, and 7 NRAS-mutated patients were identified. OS analysis showed a significant difference between wildtype and BRAF- or NRAS-mutated patients: 23.2 months vs 5.3 and 4.59, respectively, p = 0.017. The presence of brain metastases and BRAF or NRAS mutation were independent factors for mortality in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: In case of failure to enroll patients in innovative clinical trials, second-line ipilimumab still represents an effective therapy in patients with metastatic wildtype melanoma and in the absence of brain metastases.

Background: Stage III surgically resected melanoma is a disease at high risk of recurrence. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and the target therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors significantly changed the outcome of patients with metastatic melanoma and several studies have also shown their benefit in the adjuvant setting for the delay of recurrence in stage III melanoma patients. Hyperprogression disease was observed as a possible adverse response to immunotherapy in the metastatic setting, suggesting that some patients could face additional risk of progression with ICIs, although no consensus was found for the correct definition of this event.Case presentation: We describe here two cases of rapid multiorgan metastatization during adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with stage III resected melanoma. Even though it would be not accurate to define this syndrome as hyperprogression because of apparent absence of the initial disease in the adjuvant setting, we observed in these two cases the same very rapid progression after first administration of adjuvant ICIs that resulted in death of patients within two months from the starting of treatment. Both patients had NRAS mutated melanoma.Conclusion: There is an urgent need for a better understanding of the causes of these fatal outcomes and for the identification of biomarkers that would allow to select the patients before offering them an adjuvant treatment, reducing the risk of hyperprogression. From these cases, we suggest that it could be useful a particular attention in proposing ICI adjuvant treatment based on the molecular profile.

(1) Background: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is a rare tumor, accounting for about 1% of all diagnosed melanomas. The etiology and pathogenesis of this tumor are unknown. It is characterized by an aggressive phenotype with poor prognosis and a low response rate to approved treatments. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical features, treatments and outcomes of patients diagnosed with MM from different sub-sites (head and neck, gynecological and gastro-intestinal region) between 2013 and 2023 at our Institute. Survival times were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method. Multivariate Cox regression was used to test the independence of significant factors in univariate analysis. (3) Results: Twenty-five patients were included in this study; the disease was equally distributed among females and males. The median age at diagnosis was 74 years old. The majority had MM originating from the head and neck (56%), particularly from the nasal cavity. BRAF V600 mutations were detected in 16% of the study population, limited to gastro-intestinal and gynecological MM. At diagnosis, at least half the patients (52%) had the disease located also at distant sites. The median overall survival (OS) in the whole study population was 22 months, with a longer OS for patients diagnosed at an early stage (38 months, p < 0.001). Longer OSs were reported for head and neck MM compared to other anatomic regions (0.06). Surgery of the primary tumor and radiotherapy were performed in 64% and 36% of the study population, respectively. Radiotherapy was performed only in head and neck MM. At multivariate analysis, the single factor that showed a reduced hazard ratio for death was radiotherapy. (4) Conclusions: The overall survival of MM from different sub-sites treated at our Italian Institution was 22 months, with better outcomes for early-stage disease and head and neck MM. Performing radiotherapy may have a protective effect on OS for head and neck MM. New treatment strategies are urgently needed to improve the outcome in this disease.

Aim: AT-rich interaction domain 1A (ARID1A) encodes a key component of the SWItch/Sucrose Non-Fermentable (SWI/SNF) chromatin remodeling complex that participates in gene expression. ARID1A alterations are quite common among cancer patients, although their role remains debated. The aim of this article was to study ARID1A-mutated cancer patients. Methods: Molecular and clinical data of cancer patients evaluated at Phase 1 Unit of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS were collected. Molecular analyses were performed using FoundationOne® CDx (Foundation Medicine Inc., Cambridge, MA, United States). Cancer patients with at least one molecular alteration in ARID1A gene were identified as ARID1A+. Results: Among the 270 patients undergoing molecular analysis, we found 25 (9%) with at least one pathogenic alteration in ARID1A. The vast majority of these patients were female (84%). The median age at diagnosis was 59; most of the cancers (15, 60%) were gynecological (especially endometrioid endometrial cancers and clear cell ovarian cancers), diagnosed at an early stage. Frameshift alterations in ARID1A were the most common (19/31, 61%) alterations. The median number of mutations in ARID1A+ population was higher compared to ARID1A– population (6 vs. 4), as well as tumor mutational burden (TMB) [20 mutations/megabase (mut/Mb) vs. 1.26 mut/Mb]. Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA), phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), catenin beta 1 (CTNNB1), and lysine methyltransferase 2D (MLL2) mutations were enriched in ARID1A+ population. In this cohort, ARID1A did not display any relation with response to platinum chemotherapy. Cancers with double alterations in ARID1A (ARID1A2+) were all gynecological cancers (83% endometrioid endometrial cancers). Conclusions: This analysis provides clinical and molecular details about the phenotypes of ARID1A+ cancers, in particular the subgroup of gynecologic cancers. The high frequency of concurrent mutations in the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway among endometrioid endometrial cancers may support the proposal of a new treatment strategy based on the combination of ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) inhibitor and PIK3CA inhibitor.

Trophoblast cell surface antigen-2 (Trop-2) is a glycoprotein that was first described as a membrane marker of trophoblast cells and was associated with regenerative abilities. Trop-2 overexpression was also described in several tumour types. Nevertheless, the therapeutic potential of Trop-2 was widely recognized and clinical studies with drug–antibody conjugates have been initiated in various cancer types. Recently, these efforts have been rewarded with the approval of sacituzumab govitecan from both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer patients. In our work, we briefly summarize the various characteristics of cancer cells overexpressing Trop-2, the pre-clinical activities of specific inhibitors, and the role of anti-Trop-2 therapy in current clinical practice. We also review the ongoing clinical trials to provide a snapshot of the future developments of these therapies.

(1) Background: Precision oncology is opening new treatment opportunities for patients suffering from solid tumors. In the last two decades, the advent of CDK4/6 inhibitors, immunotherapy, and antibody–drug conjugates (ADC) improved survival outcomes for advanced or metastatic breast cancers (BC). Nevertheless, some patients progress to approved therapies and still maintain good clinical conditions. (2) Methods: With the aim to estimate the accrual rate to experimental precision oncology treatments, we collected molecular and clinical characteristics of BC patients evaluated at Phase 1 Unit of Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli. Clinical data were retrieved from hospital records. Molecular analysis was performed using Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) FoundationOne CDx on tissue or blood. (3) Results: Among the 38 BC patients referred to our unit, 35 completed the genomic analysis. All patients were female with advanced (mean number of metastatic sites: 3, range 1–6) BC. Median age at our evaluation was 52 (IQR, 48–59). ECOG PS was good in 97% of the study population, although heavily pre-treated (median number of systemic treatments: 5, IQR 3–7). Half of referred patients were HR⁺/HER2⁻ BC, with 39% triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). NGS testing was performed on relapsed disease among most (71%) participants, in particular lymph nodes and soft tissue. Liquid biopsy was requested in 23% of cases. The median time from sample collection to NGS testing was 1 month and from diagnosis 54 months. The median value of mutations, VUS, and TMB were 6, 11, and 5, respectively. TP53, PIK3CA, BRCA2, ESR1, and RAD21 were the genes with the highest number of molecular alterations. In 5 patients (14%), the molecular analysis was helpful to assign targeted therapy in the context of clinical trials with a median progression-free survival of 5 months. (4) Conclusions: HR⁺/HER2⁻ and TNBC were the most frequent subtypes referred for NGS testing. Tissue biopsy of relapsed disease was feasible in 71% of cases. The molecular analysis offered a new treatment opportunity in 14% of patients. The real benefit of these treatments remains to be evaluated in larger cohorts.

Background: In recent years, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been investigated at high-dose to modulate tumor microenvironment acidification thus restoring chemotherapeutic sensitivity. This is the first trial to study activity and safety of repurposing high dose rabeprazole combined with metronomic capecitabine (mCAP). Methods: A phase II study in which patients with gastrointestinal cancer, refractory to standard treatments, who had a life expectancy >3 months, were blind randomized 1:1 to mCAP, 1500 mg/daily, continuously with or without rabeprazole 1.5 mg/kg bid, three days a week. The primary endpoint was 3-months progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were clinical benefit (CB) and overall survival (OS). Safety and plasma concentrations of capecitabine and its metabolites (5′-DFUR and 5-FU) were also evaluated. Results: Sixty-seven (median age 69 years; 63% male; 84% colorectal cancer, 76% ECOG-PS ≤ 1; 84% pretreated with two or more lines of chemotherapy) out of 90 patients screened for eligibility, were randomized to receive mCAP+rabeprazole (n = 32) vs. mCAP (n = 35). All patients were evaluable for response. No significant difference between mCAP+rabeprazole vs. mCAP, in terms of 3-months PFS rate (HR = 1.43, 95%CI 0.53–3.85; p = 0.477), median PFS (HR = 1.22, 95%CI 0.75–2.00, p = 0.420), CB (RR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.29–2.44; p = 0.786) and median OS (HR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.54–1.48; p = 0.664) was observed. However, a 3-year OS rate of 10% and 12% was reported in the mCAP-rabeprazole and mCAP groups, respectively. Overall, no grade 3 or 4 toxicity occurred but grade 1 or 2 adverse event of any type were more frequently in the mCAP+rabeprazole group than in the mCAP (OR 2.83, 95%CI 1.03–7.79; p = 0.043). Finally, there was not statistically significant difference in the plasma concentration of capecitabine and its metabolites between the two groups. Conclusions: Although the adjunct of high dose rabeprazole to mCAP was not shown to affect mCAP activity, as PPI are being investigated worldwide as drugs to be repositioned in cancer treatment and also considering the limited sample size as well as the favorable safety profile of the combination in the present study, further clinical investigations are desirable.