Melanoma treatment is leading the neo-adjuvant systemic (NAS) therapy field. It is hypothesized that having the entire tumor in situ, with all of the heterogeneous tumor antigens, allows the patient\'s immune system to have a broader response to the tumor in all its shapes and forms. This translates into a higher clinical efficacy. Another benefit of NAS therapy potentially includes identifying patients who have a favorable response, which could offer an opportunity for the de-escalation of the extent of surgery and the need for adjuvant radiotherapy and/or adjuvant systemic therapy, as well as tailoring the follow-up in terms of the frequency of visits and cross-sectional imaging. In this paper, we will review the rationale for NAS therapy in resectable metastatic melanoma and the results obtained so far, both for immunotherapy and for BRAF/MEKi therapy, and discuss the response assessment and interpretation, toxicity and surgical considerations. All the trials that have been reported up to now have been investigator-initiated phase I/II trials with either single-agent anti-PD-1, combination anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 or BRAF/MEK inhibition. The results have been good but are especially encouraging for immunotherapies, showing high durable recurrence-free survival rates. Combination immunotherapy seems superior, with a higher rate of pathologic responses, particularly in patients with a major pathologic response (MPR = pathologic complete response [pCR] + near-pCR [max 10% viable tumor cells]) of 60% vs. 25-30%. The SWOG S1801 trial has recently shown a 23% improvement in event-free survival (EFS) after 2 years for pembrolizumab when giving 3 doses as NAS therapy and 15 as adjuvant versus 18 as adjuvant only. The community is keen to see the first results (expected in 2024) of the phase 3 NADINA trial (NCT04949113), which randomized patients between surgery + adjuvant anti-PD-1 and two NAS therapy courses of a combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab, followed by surgery and a response-driven adjuvant regimen or follow-up. We are on the eve of neo-adjuvant systemic (NAS) therapy, particularly immunotherapy, becoming the novel standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma.

UNASSIGNED: Chemotherapy has been traditionally used as neo-adjuvant therapy in breast cancer for down-staging of locally advanced disease in all sub-types. In the adjuvant setting, genomic assays have shown that a significant proportion of ER positive/HER2 negative patients do not derive benefit from the addition of chemotherapy to adjuvant endocrine therapy. An interest in hormonal treatments as neo-adjuvant therapies in ER positive/HER2 negative cancers has been borne by their documented success in the adjuvant setting. Moreover, cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in ER positive/HER2 negative disease compared with other breast cancer subtypes in obtaining pathologic complete responses.
UNASSIGNED: Neo-adjuvant therapies for ER positive/HER2 negative breast cancers and associated biomarkers are reviewed, using a Medline survey. A focus of discussion is the prediction of patients that are unlikely to derive extra benefit from chemotherapy and have the highest probabilities of benefiting from hormonal and other targeted therapies.
UNASSIGNED: Predictive biomarkers of response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapies are instrumental for selecting ER positive/HER2 negative breast cancer patients for each treatment. Chemotherapy remains the standard of care for many of those patients requiring neo-adjuvant treatment, but other neo-adjuvant therapies are increasingly used.

Despite advances in treatment strategies and surgical approaches in recent years, improving survival outcomes in esophagogastric cancer (EGC) patients treated with curative intent remains a significant area of unmet need. The recent emergence of adjuvant immunotherapy as the standard of care for resected EGC demonstrates the impact of immunotherapy in improving recurrence-free survival. Neoadjuvant and perioperative immunotherapies represent another promising approach with potential advantages over adjuvant therapy. Despite the promising results of early neoadjuvant immunotherapy studies, there are several challenges and future research needs. The optimal timing, duration and number of doses in relation to surgery and the optimal combination of immunotherapies are still unclear. In addition, rigorous correlative studies need to be performed to identify biomarkers for patient selection and treatment response prediction to maximize the benefits of neoadjuvant immunotherapy. In this review, we provide a concise summary of the current standard of care for resectable EGC and discuss the rationale for the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting and the pre-clinical and early clinical data of these novel therapies. Finally, we will examine the potential role and future direction of immunotherapy in the treatment paradigm and the perceived challenges and opportunities that lay ahead.

Introduction Giant cell tumor (GCT) or bony tumor mainly involving long bones of arms and legs is very rarely associated with the small bones of hands and feet. Due to its nonspecific signs and symptoms, it is not easy to diagnose based on clinical findings; therefore, histopathological evidence is required to confirm it. Method A total of 16 patients with positive histopathological bone lesions enriched with giant cells were included in our study. After a complete evaluation of their case records, the required radiological assessment was carried out. Campanacci\'s method of staging was used to evaluate the advancement of lesions. The Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) score was recorded postoperatively. All the patients were followed up for a mean duration of 2.8 years until they were lost to follow-up. Result The result of the current study shows that 62.5% of our patients presented in their twenties and 81.25% of patients came at a reasonably advanced stage. Hand and foot were involved in 1:1 cases. Patients were treated by one of the following options: extended curettage with bone graft or cement, wide excision, or en bloc resection. Phenol, a neoadjuvant, was used in all patients. Two of our patients (6.25%) who underwent curettage with bone graft showed up with recurrence during follow-up - one was then treated with wide excision and the other with amputation. Conclusion Giant cell tumors should undoubtedly be aggressively approached with the goal of preserving limb function while reducing recurrence risk to as minimal as possible. GCT of hand is more aggressive comparatively and should be treated accordingly.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rates of pathological complete response (ypT0N0/X) and pathological response (ypT1N0/X or less) in patients with upper tract urothelial cancer who were treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and to examine their impact on oncological outcomes.
METHODS: This study is a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of patients with high-risk upper tract urothelial cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical nephroureterectomy between 2002 and 2021. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate all clinical parameters for response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the effect of the response on the oncological outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 84 patients with UTUC who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy were identified. Among them, 44 (52.4%) patients received cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and 22 (26.2%) patients had a carboplatin-based regimen. The pathological complete response rate was 11.6% (n = 10), and the pathological response rate was 42.9% (n = 36). Multifocal tumors or tumors larger than 3 cm significantly reduced the odds of pathological response. In the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, pathological response was independently associated with better overall survival (HR 0.38, p = 0.024), cancer-specific survival (HR 0.24, p = 0.033), and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.17, p = 0.001), but it was not associated with bladder recurrence-free survival (HR 0.84, p = 0.69).
CONCLUSIONS: Pathological response after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and radical nephroureterectomy is strongly associated with patient survival and recurrence, and it might be a good surrogate for evaluating the efficacy of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in the future.

Gastroesophageal cancers (GEC) have a poor survival rate of 20-30% at 5 years, often due to delayed presentations. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery or peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery are widely used as the standard of care for patients with resectable GEC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival in metastatic and recurrent GEC which led to their application in resectable GEC. Based on the pivotal CheckMate 577 study results, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab for patients with completely resected high-risk esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). Several ongoing trials with many ICIs could potentially improve resectable GEC outcomes. This review explores the rationale for using ICIs in resectable GEC and discusses the significance of reported clinical trials. Finally, we will examine some ongoing clinical trials and the challenges as well as prospects of ICIs in resectable GEC.

Background Excellent outcomes and high rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) have been reported in patients with operable esophageal carcinoma using 41.4 Gy of radiation with concurrent carboplatin and paclitaxel. With pCR rates similar to studies using higher doses, it remains unclear whether doses greater than 41.4 Gy result in improved outcomes. This study aims to compare pCR rates and oncologic outcomes in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy vs 41.4 Gy. Methods We reviewed the charts of patients with operable esophageal carcinoma who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by oncologic resection. Our primary endpoint was the pCR rate. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity.  Results We identified 43 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Nineteen patients were treated with 41.4 Gy and 24 were treated with 50.4 Gy. Cohorts were well-matched, except for a significantly higher percentage of patients with adenocarcinoma (AC) (89.5% vs 54.2%, p = 0.02), usage of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (100% vs 47.6%; p = 0.002), and usage of carboplatin, plus paclitaxel (100% vs 75%; p = 0.003) in the 41.4 Gy group. The pCR rate for the cohort was 44.2%. No differences in the pCR rate (41.7% vs 47.4%), three-year overall survival (OS) (73.7% vs 77.5%), or three-year PFS (52.8% vs 43.7%) were observed. Late toxicity rates also did not vary significantly (p = 0.2). No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. Conclusion In this small series, there were no differences in the pCR rate, PFS, or OS between those treated with 50.4 Gy and 41.4 Gy. Larger, multi-institutional series are needed to validate these findings.

This case report reviews the case of a 13-year-old patient who presented with a 9 cm NTRK1-rearranged cervical sarcoma with fibrosarcoma like morphology. At presentation the lesion filled her vagina and pelvis and any attempt at surgical removal would have been morbid and led to loss of fertility. These neoplasms are extremely rare with 18 cases of the uterine cervix reported in the literature, none of which have occurred in a paediatric patient, and none of whom have received neo-adjuvant therapy prior to excision. Based upon evidence that has shown good tolerability and responses of paediatric NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours to TRK inhibitors, both in the neo-adjuvant and upfront setting, this patient was managed with neo-adjuvant entrectinib. Following a dramatic reduction in tumour size confirmed by imaging, she underwent conservative fertility sparing surgery with final histopathology showing no residual disease.

Both Zoledronic acid and denosumab have been utilized in neo-adjuvant setting for facilitating surgery and downsizing the lesion in Giant cell tumor (GCT). This study is aimed at comparing Zoledronic acid and Denosumab, when used in neo-adjuvant setting, in terms of radiological and clinical outcomes in GCT undergoing surgical intervention.
Patients undergoing surgical intervention for GCT who received either denosumab or Zoledronic acid as neoadjuvant agents were retrospectively analyzed for reduction in tumor load radiologically, change in surgical plan after therapy, facilitation of surgery, therapy related complications, cost of treatment, rate of local recurrence and clinical outcomes.
Twenty patients received denosumab and 19 patients received Zoledronic acid as neoadjuvant agent. There was no significant difference in radiological outcomes, facilitation of surgery and clinical outcomes at end of follow-up. Zoledronic acid group had lower number of recurrences, however, not statistically significant. Therapy with Zoledronic acid was significantly cheaper (p = 0.001).
Zoledronic acid is a cheaper alternative to denosumab in terms of solidification of lesion, reducing recurrence rates and improving clinical outcomes. Larger prospective studies required to further delineate this outcome with Zoledronic acid.

Background Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is frequently administered in breast carcinoma patients. The clinical response to NAC guides further treatment. The pathological response is not only an independent prognostic factor, but it also guides further treatment and prognosis. Objectives The aim of our study was to find the degree of concordance between clinical and pathological response assessments after NAC in Invasive lobular Carcinoma (ILC) cases by using World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and different pathological systems, respectively. We also tried to identify any useful parameter of clinical assessment that could better correlate with pathologic assessment and provide a better estimation of residual tumor. Methods This retrospective study was conducted on 26 ILC tumors diagnosed in 24 patients who were treated with NAC followed by surgical resection between January 2009 and December 2020. Medical records and microscopy glass slides were reviewed for clinical and pathological response assessments, respectively. Results The pre-treatment tumor area ranged from 1.8-255 cm2 and the mean±SD was 52.2±66.8 cm2. After NAC, complete clinical response was observed in four (15.3%) cases. The clinically assessed mean tumor area significantly reduced from 52.2±66.8 cm2 to 17.2±22.6 cm2 (p-value<0.001). The pathologically assessed mean tumor area (27.4±24.1 cm2) didn\'t differ significantly from the clinically assessed mean tumor area (17.2±22.6 cm2) (p-value=0.114). Pathologically, the majority of the cases showed partial response, and a complete pathological response was achieved in only two (7.7%) cases. The concordance rates between clinical assessment by the WHO method and pathological assessment of the breast using the Sataloff method, Miller-Payne (MP) system, Residual Cancer Burden system, and Chevallier method were 26.7%, 15.8%, 9%, and 3.5%, respectively, with insignificant p-values. Percentage reduction in clinical size and percentage reduction in tumor cellularity differed significantly (p-value=0.038). Conclusion Clinical response assessment provides a less accurate estimation of residual disease, as it shows poor concordance with pathological assessment using different assessment systems/methods.