Search

BackgroundCOVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA.MethodsA 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit.ResultsInvestigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres.ConclusionMany pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.

Background Immunosuppression induced by anticancer therapy in a COVID-19-positive asymptomatic patient with cancer may have a devastating effect and, eventually, be lethal. To identify asymptomatic cases among patients receiving active cancer treatment, the Federico II University Hospital in Naples performs rapid serological tests in addition to hospital standard clinical triage for COVID-19 infection.Methods From 6 to 17 April 2020, all candidates for chemotherapy, radiotherapy or target/immunotherapy, if negative at the standard clinical triage on the day scheduled for anticancer treatment, received a rapid serological test on peripheral blood for COVID-19 IgM and IgG detection. In case of COVID-19 IgM and/or IgG positivity, patients underwent a real-time PCR (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test to confirm infection, and active cancer treatment was delayed.Results Overall 466 patients, negative for COVID-19 symptoms, underwent serological testing in addition to standard clinical triage. The average age was 61 years (range 25–88 years). Most patients (190, 40.8%) had breast cancer, and chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy was administered in 323 (69.3%) patients. Overall 433 (92.9%) patients were IgG-negative and IgM-negative, and 33 (7.1%) were IgM-positive and/or IgG-positive. Among the latter patients, 18 (3.9%), 11 (2.4%) and 4 (0.9%) were IgM-negative/IgG-positive, IgM-positive/IgG-negative and IgM-positive/IgG-positive, respectively. All 33 patients with a positive serological test, tested negative for RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test. No patient in our cohort developed symptoms suggestive of active COVID-19 infection.Conclusion Rapid serological testing at hospital admission failed to detect active asymptomatic COVID-19 infection. Moreover, it entailed additional economic and human resources, delayed therapy administrationand increased hospital accesses.

Background COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA.Methods A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit.Results Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres.Conclusion Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.

Background: Oncologists tend to under-report subjective symptoms during cancer treatment. This study describes the under-reporting rate of selected symptoms and explores its association with overall survival (OS). A secondary aim is to test the association of patient-reported symptoms with OS., Patients and Methods: This is a post hoc analysis on data pooled from 12 randomized trials, promoted by the National Cancer Institute of Naples (Italy), enrolling patients between 2002 and 2019, with published primary analyses. Occurrence and grade of six side-effects (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea and fatigue) reported by physicians were compared with corresponding symptoms reported by patients in quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires. Under-reporting was defined as the rate of cases reported grade 0 by the physician while grade ≥1 by the patient. Prognostic value was tested in a multivariable model stratified by trial, including age, sex and performance status as confounders. A landmark threshold was defined for OS analyses., Results: 3792 patients with advanced lung, ovarian, pancreatic, breast or colorectal cancer were pooled; 2603 (68.6%) were eligible having at least one toxicity assessment and one QoL questionnaire, before the first planned disease restaging. Concordance between physicians' and patients' reporting was low with Cohen's k coefficients ranging from 0.03 (fatigue) to 0.33 (vomiting). Under-reporting ranged from 52.7% (nausea) to 80.5% (anorexia), and was not associated with OS. Patient-reported anorexia, vomiting and fatigue ('a little' or more) were significantly associated with shorter OS., Conclusions: Under-reporting of treatment side-effects is frequent, but it does not affect OS. Patients' reported symptoms should be used for prognostic evaluation., Competing Interests: Disclosure LA: honoraria from Pfizer, EliLilly. RDL: honoraria from Astellas, Pfizer, Janssen. PDP: Honoraria from Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Roche, Exact Sciences, Novartis; support for attending meetings from Gilead, Lilly, Istituto Gentili, MSD. CG: honoraria as speaker bureau or advisory board member or consultant from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, GSK, Takeda, Boehringer, Menarini, Karyopharm, Sanofi. AM: honoraria for speaker’s bureau or advisory board from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Boehringer, Takeda, Novartis, Lilly, Sanofi. SP: honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, GSK, Pharmamar; research funding from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, GSK. FN: honoraria from Seagen. AA: honoraria from Amgen, MSD, Eisai, Bristol-Meyers; consulting or advisory role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, Bayer. AG: honoraria from Janssen. MDM: honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Amgen, Merck for consultancy or participation to advisory boards; direct research funding from Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline; institutional funding for work in clinical trials/contracted research from Beigene, Exelixis, MSD, Pfizer and Roche. FP: institutional support or grants for clinical trials from Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Incyte, Tesaro/GSK, Merck; honoraria for participation on advisory boards from Bayer, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Ipsen, Clovis, Astellas, Sanofi, Roche, Pfizer. MCP: institutional funding for clinical research from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer; honoraria for educational activities from Astellas, Pfizer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings from Menarini. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the nontaxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor eribulin plus the humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab in a novel second-line chemotherapy scheme in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients progressing after first-line paclitaxel and bevacizumab., Patients and Methods: This is a multicenter, single-arm, Simon's two-stage, phase II study. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate, considered as the sum of partial and complete response based on the best overall response rate (BORR). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical benefit rate., Results: A total of 58 of the 61 patients enrolled in the study were evaluable for efficacy. The BORR was 24.6% (95% CI 14.5-37.3). The clinical benefit rate was 32.8% (95% CI 21.3-46.0). The median PFS was 6.2 months (95% CI 4.0-7.8), and median OS was 14.8 months (95% CI 12.6-22.8). Overall, adverse events (AEs) were clinically manageable and the most common AEs were fatigue, paresthesia, and neutropenia. Quality of life was well preserved in most patients., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that second-line therapy with bevacizumab in combination with eribulin has a meaningful clinical activity and may represent a potential therapeutic option for patients with HER2-negative MBC., Competing Interests: Disclosure CDA is a consultant/advisory board member for Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. FP has received travel, accommodations, expenses supported by Takeda, Ely Lilly, and received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ely Lilly, and Novartis outside the submitted work. AM is a consultant/advisory board member for EISAI, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Celgene; has received travel accommodations supported by Eisai, Celgene, Novartis, and Ipsen. LDM is a consultant/advisory board member for Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, MSD, Genomic Health, Ipsen, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Pierre Fabre, and Eisai. MG, GA, and SDP have declared honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Eisai. MDL has declared consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Eisai, and Celgene. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing The data sets obtained and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The current standard first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (+) metastatic breast cancer is the combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab and a taxane (P + T + taxane), while standard second-line is ado-trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1). The registration trial of pertuzumab, however, did not include early-relapsing patients, defined as patients experiencing tumor relapse ≤12 months from the end of (neo)adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy. Conversely, the pivotal trial of T-DM1 included some patients relapsing ≤6 months after the end of (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab. Thus, a proportion of early-relapsing patients are currently eligible to receive T-DM1 as first-line treatment. Nevertheless, no direct comparison exists between the two regimens in this clinical setting., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively compared T-DM1 versus P + T + taxane as first-line treatment in two cohorts of early-relapsing patients in an Italian 'real-world' setting, involving 14 public health care institutions. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included patients' characterization, overall survival and post-progression survival. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out. All tests were two-sided and a P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant., Results: Among 1252 screened patients, 75 met the inclusion criteria. Forty-four (58.7%) received P + T + taxane and 31 (41.3%) received T-DM1. The two cohorts showed similar characteristics of aggressiveness and no significant differences in treatment history. T-DM1, compared with P + T + taxane was associated with worse progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.13-4.52, P = 0.021) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 3.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.38-11.32, P = 0.010), irrespective of previous (neo)adjuvant treatment, age, hormone receptors status, time-to-relapse (≤6 months or within 6-12 months) and presence of visceral/brain metastases. No differences were observed in post-progression survival (P = 0.095)., Conclusions: Our study suggests superiority for P + T + taxane over T-DM1 as up-front treatment of early-relapsing HER2+ metastatic breast cancer, which merits further assessment in larger and prospective trials., Competing Interests: Disclosure MG, GA and SDP have declared honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Amgen and Eisai outside the submitted work. ML acted as consultant for Roche, AstraZenenca, Novartis, and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Takeda, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz outside the submitted work. LDM has declared honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, Takeda and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), consulting/advisory role for Roche and Eli Lilly, travels, accommodations and expenses from Roche, Pfizer and Celgene outside the submitted work. MDL has declared consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Eisai, Celgene. FP has declared honoraria for advisory boards, activities as a speaker, travel grants, research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda, and research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Roche and Italian Ministry of Health outside the submitted work. PFC reports grants from Merck KGaA, Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb; grants and personal fees from Novartis and EliLilly; personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. VG reports personal fees from Novartis, Roche, EliLilly, MSD, outside the submitted work. DG has declared consulting fees from Novartis, Lilly and Pfizer, research funding from LILT, Novartis, AstraZeneca and University of Trieste outside the submitted work. GB received honoraria for speaker activities and travel grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Genetic Spa, outside the submitted work. FM declared advisory role for Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, travel grants from Roche and financial support from the Fondazione Piemontese per la Ricerca sul Cancro (FPRC) Onlus 5 x mille funding from the Italian Ministry of Health 2017 outside the submitted work. AF has declared honoraria for advisory board from Roche and Novartis, activity as speaker for Pfizer and Lilly, travel grant from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. The other authors have nothing to declare. Data sharing The anonymized database is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The R codes used are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immunosuppression induced by anticancer therapy in a COVID-19-positive asymptomatic patient with cancer may have a devastating effect and, eventually, be lethal. To identify asymptomatic cases among patients receiving active cancer treatment, the Federico II University Hospital in Naples performs rapid serological tests in addition to hospital standard clinical triage for COVID-19 infection., Methods: From 6 to 17 April 2020, all candidates for chemotherapy, radiotherapy or target/immunotherapy, if negative at the standard clinical triage on the day scheduled for anticancer treatment, received a rapid serological test on peripheral blood for COVID-19 IgM and IgG detection. In case of COVID-19 IgM and/or IgG positivity, patients underwent a real-time PCR (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test to confirm infection, and active cancer treatment was delayed., Results: Overall 466 patients, negative for COVID-19 symptoms, underwent serological testing in addition to standard clinical triage. The average age was 61 years (range 25-88 years). Most patients (190, 40.8%) had breast cancer, and chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy was administered in 323 (69.3%) patients. Overall 433 (92.9%) patients were IgG-negative and IgM-negative, and 33 (7.1%) were IgM-positive and/or IgG-positive. Among the latter patients, 18 (3.9%), 11 (2.4%) and 4 (0.9%) were IgM-negative/IgG-positive, IgM-positive/IgG-negative and IgM-positive/IgG-positive, respectively. All 33 patients with a positive serological test, tested negative for RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test. No patient in our cohort developed symptoms suggestive of active COVID-19 infection., Conclusion: Rapid serological testing at hospital admission failed to detect active asymptomatic COVID-19 infection. Moreover, it entailed additional economic and human resources, delayed therapy administrationand increased hospital accesses., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)