UNASSIGNED: Previously reported results have shown promising efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, no randomized control trials comparing neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy have yet been reported. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the superiority of neoadjuvant immunotherapy compared with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable NSCLC in terms of short-term clinical outcomes and surgical outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the ClinicalTrials.gov database, Web of Science, and abstracts derived from multiple major cancer meetings up to March 1, 2020. Short-term clinical outcomes (including objective response rate [ORR], major pathologic response, and pathologic complete response [pCR]) and surgical outcomes (including surgical resection rate and R0 resection rate) were reported. Data were summarized as the estimated pooled value of each evaluated index. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using standard methods.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 trials on neoadjuvant immunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC included 1795 patients. Patients who received Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors (NeoIO) alone (13.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.0%-19.3%) had the lowest ORR compared with those who received NeoIO plus chemotherapy (CT) (62.5%; 95% CI, 54.4%-70.0%) or CT alone (41.6%; 95% CI, 36.8%-46.7%) (NeoIO vs CT, P < .001; NeoIO + CT vs CT, P < .001). Receipt of NeoIO + CT (36.2%; 95% CI, 19.2%-57.6%) was associated with an elevated pCR rate compared with receipt of NeoIO alone (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5%-16.9%; P < .001) or standard CT (7.5%; 95% CI, 5.7%-9.8%; P < .001). Neoadjuvant CT (87.2%; 95% CI, 74.9%-94.0%) was associated with a lower R0 resection rate compared with NeoIO alone (92.7%; 95% CI, 83.4%-97.0%; P = .360) or NeoIO + CT (91.6%; 95% CI, 84.3%-95.7%; P = .409). Meta-regression showed that a higher proportion of stage III patients was correlated with decreased surgical resection and R0 resection rates, whereas no impact was observed with neoadjuvant immunotherapy.
UNASSIGNED: Current data suggest that compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, immunotherapy-based regimens may provide superior pathological response along with a higher rate of complete resection. Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy in neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a more favorable clinical option. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to provide long-term results of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for localized NSCLC and help guide clinical practice.

UNASSIGNED: As the immune-related response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (irRECIST) by imaging greatly underestimated the objective response to immunotherapy, we established the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors based on tumor markers (RecistTM) to explore whether RecistTM can compensate for the deficiencies of the irRECIST criteria.
UNASSIGNED: This was an observational study, which consisted of two parts. The first part (Group A) was a retrospective study including the patients with malignant solid tumors. The second part (Group B) was a prospective study, which were EGFR-negative and ALK-negative patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer receiving first-line treatment. From January 2017 to September 2020, one hundred and ten patients with a three-time increase in tumor markers receiving immunotherapy were recruited. The treatment response to immunotherapy was evaluated by irRECIST and RecistTM. Efficacy, overall survival (OS), first evaluation time and earliest response time under the different evaluation criteria were compared by statistics.
UNASSIGNED: The treatment response evaluated by the RecistTM criteria was not consistent with that evaluated by the irRECIST criteria (Kappa = 0.386, p < 0.001). RecistTM had a higher completed response (CR) rate compared to irRECIST criteria (20.9% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001). The earliest response time under the RecistTM criteria was 3.42 weeks earlier than that under the irRECIST criteria (u = -5.233, p < 0.001). There were significant differences in median OS between tumor marker-related complete response (tmCR) and tumor marker-related partial response (tmPR), as well as between tmPR and tumor marker-related stable disease (tmSD) (χ2 = 15.572, p < 0.001; χ2 = 7.720, p = 0.005), but not between tmSD and tumor marker-related progressive disease (tmPD) (χ2 = 1.596, p = 0.206). When applying both criteria together, for patients with immune-related CR / immune-related PR (irCR/irPR) (n = 54) under irRECIST criteria, there was a significant difference in median OS between achieving tmCR (n = 22) and tmPR (n = 32) (χ2 = 14.011, p < 0.001). RecistTM criteria can predict 1-year and 2-year OS more accurately than irRECIST criteria (AUCs:0.862 vs 0.552, 0.649 vs 0.521, respectively;both p < 0.001). In RecistTM, 4 patients had been observed with pseudoprogression in tumor markers.
UNASSIGNED: The RecistTM criteria could effectively distinguish CR, PR, and SD, which may help resolve the shortcomings of the RECIST criteria in evaluating the treatment response to immunotherapy, especially in assessing whether patients can achieve deep or even complete response as soon as possible.
UNASSIGNED: This work was supported by the Key projects of Chongqing Health and Family Planning Commission (to Xueqin Yang, 2019ZDXM011).

Genomic instability remains an enabling feature of cancer and promotes malignant transformation. Alterations of DNA damage response (DDR) pathways allow genomic instability, generate neoantigens, upregulate the expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and interact with signaling such as cyclic GMP-AMP synthase-stimulator of interferon genes (cGAS-STING) signaling. Here, we review the basic knowledge of DDR pathways, mechanisms of genomic instability induced by DDR alterations, impacts of DDR alterations on immune system, and the potential applications of DDR alterations as biomarkers and therapeutic targets in cancer immunotherapy.

Tumor recurrence rate after surgery or ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is as high as 70%. However, there are no widely accepted adjuvant therapies; therefore, no treatment has been recommended by guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease or the European Association for the Study of the Liver. All the registered trials failed to find any treatment to prolong recurrence-free survival, which is the primary outcome in most studies, including sorafenib. Some investigator-initiated studies revealed that anti-hepatitis B virus agents, interferon-α, transcatheter chemoembolization, chemokine-induced killer cells, and other treatments prolonged patient recurrence-free survival or overall survival after curative therapies. In this review, we summarize the current status of adjuvant treatments for HCC and explain the challenges associated with designing a clinical trial for adjuvant therapy. Promising new treatments being used as adjuvant therapy, especially anti-PD-1 antibodies, are also discussed.

Liver cancer, mostly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is the second leading cause of cancer mortality globally. Most patients were diagnosed at an advanced stage, and systemic therapy is the standard of care. All the approved systemic therapies for HCC are molecular targeted therapies with anti-angiogenic effects targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor signaling pathway. Sorafenib and lenvatinib are the first-line treatment, and regorafenib, ramucirumab, and cabozantinib are second-line treatment options. Although anti-PD-1 antibodies, including nivolumab and pembrolizumab, demonstrated promising anti-tumor effects as monotherapy for advanced HCC in phase II clinical trials, both failed in phase III studies. Anti-angiogenic treatment remains the backbone of systemic therapy for HCC. In this review, we summarized the approved anti-angiogenic medicines and discussed the potential strategies to improve the efficacy of anti-angiogenic therapy, including combination therapy with other treatments, and discussed the approaches to overcome the drawbacks of anti-angiogenic therapies.

Adverse events in platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are major challenges. In this study, we investigated the role of the p53 and MDM2 genes in predicting adverse events in NSCLC patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Specifically, we examined the p53 p. Pro72Arg (rs1042522), MDM2 c.14 + 309T>G (rs2279744) and MDM2 c.- 461C > G (rs937282) polymorphisms using PCR-based restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) in 444 NSCLC patients. We determine that MDM2 c.14 + 309T > G was significantly associated with severe hematologic and overall toxicities for advanced NSCLC patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, especially for patients aged 57 and younger. This was also true for patients with adenocarcinoma. Second, we determine that severe gastrointestinal toxicities in patients with heterozygous MDM2 c.-461C > G were significantly higher than in patients with the G/G genotype. Third, patients with the MDM2 c.-461C > G - c.14 + 309T > G CT haplotype show much higher toxicities than those of CG haplotype. Moreover, patients carrying the MDM2 c.-461 > G -c.14 + 309T > G CG/CT diplotype exhibited higher toxicities than those carrying CG/CG. Fourth, we found that the p53 p. Pro72Arg polymorphism interacts with both age and genotype. In addition, no significant associations were observed between the 3 SNPs and the response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients. In summary, we found that the p53 p. Pro72Arg, MDM2 c.14 + 309T > G and MDM2 c.-461C > G polymorphisms are associated with toxicity risks following platinum-based chemotherapy treatment in advanced NSCLC patients. We suggest that MDM2 c.14 + 309T > G may be used as a candidate biomarker to predict adverse events in advanced NSCLC patients who had platinum-based chemotherapy treatment.