Search

BackgroundPatients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies.Patients and methodsPatients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients).ResultsA total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality.ConclusionsClinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies.Clinical trial identifierNCT04354701.

Patients with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) of soft tissue have responsiveness to immunotherapy treatment. Since few patients with soft tissue sarcoma respond to immunotherapy, guidelines for its management are lacking. Specifically, the optimal duration of immunotherapy is unclear. This report is unique owing to the probable longest reporting of successful continuous immunotherapy for metastatic UPS over 6.5 years and 109 cycles. Here a patient who developed metastatic UPS is presented. The patient required systemic therapy for metastatic sarcoma, eventually with immunotherapy. A prolonged treatment over many years is elaborated. A robust response was seen but occasionally augmented by adding external beam radiation therapy (XRT). Treatment was tolerated without adverse effects. A brief review of current treatment practice and known risks of prolonged immunotherapy is presented. For similar patients, a lengthy treatment course, beyond that utilized for other malignancies, can be considered. This is likely to be safe if it is tolerated and without early adverse effects. Other treatment modalities such as palliative surgery and XRT are described which may also be required for management of mixed responses., Competing Interests: The author declares that there is no potential conflict of interest., (Copyright 2024, Reuben.)

Introduction: COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy., Methods: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors., Results: Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35)., Conclusions: Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections following vaccination against COVID-19 are of international concern. Patients with cancer have been observed to have worse outcomes associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic. We sought to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after 2 or 3 doses of mRNA vaccines., Methods: We evaluated the clinical characteristics of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough infections using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19; NCT04354701). Analysis was restricted to patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed in 2021 or 2022, to allow for a contemporary unvaccinated control population; potential differences were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for potential baseline confounding variables. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with key secondary endpoints of hospitalization and ICU and/or mechanical ventilation (ICU/MV)., Findings: The analysis included 2486 patients, of which 564 and 385 had received 2 or 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine prior to infection, respectively. Hematologic malignancies and recent receipt of systemic anti-neoplastic therapy were more frequent among vaccinated patients. Vaccination was associated with improved outcomes: in the primary analysis, 2 doses (aOR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.88) and 3 doses (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.36) were associated with decreased 30-day mortality. There were similar findings for the key secondary endpoints of ICU/MV (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82 and 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58) and hospitalization (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.75 and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.46) for 2 and 3 doses, respectively. Importantly, Black patients had higher rates of hospitalization (aOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.12-1.92), and Hispanic patients presented with higher rates of ICU/MV (aOR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.06-2.44)., Interpretation: Vaccination against COVID-19, especially with additional doses, is a fundamental strategy in the prevention of adverse outcomes including death, among patients with cancer., Funding: This study was partly supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to C-YH, YS, SM, JLW; T32-CA236621 and P30-CA046592 to C.R.F; CTSA 2UL1TR001425-05A1 to TMW-D; ACS/FHI Real-World Data Impact Award, P50 MD017341-01, R21 CA242044-01A1, Susan G. Komen Leadership Grant Hunt to MKA. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH)., Competing Interests: TKC reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, BMS, Exelixis, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, GSK, Pfizer, EMD Serono; stocks in Pionyr, Tempest, outside the submitted work; In addition, TKC reports patent: pending International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/12209, entitled “PBRM1 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint Response,” filed January 3, 2018, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/445,094, filed January 11, 2017; pending International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/058430, entitled “Biomarkers of Clinical Response and Benefit to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy,” filed October 31, 2018, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/581,175, filed November 3, 2017; TKC sits on National Comprehensive Cancer Network kidney panel. CL reports grants from Genentech/ImCore. ZB reports non-financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb, grants from Genentech/ImCore, personal fees from UpToDate, outside the submitted work. ALS reports non-financial support from Astellas and Pfizer outside the submitted work. GdLL reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; grants from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Tesaro, Bavarian Nordic, Novartis, G1 Therapeutics, Adaptimmune, BMS, GSK, Abbvie, Rgenix, Pfizer, Roche, Genentech, Eli Lilly, Janssen; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, E.R. Squibb Sons, LLC, Janssen; all outside the submitted work. CH reports grants from Merck, Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health; Consulting fees from Tempus, Genzyme, EMD Sorono, payment or honoraria from OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Merck, participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board of Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Hoosier Cancer Research Network; Leadership or fiduciary role in Wayne County Medical Society of Southeast Michigan; Stock or stock options in Johnson and Johnson, all outside the submitted work. EAG reports Consulting fees from Alexion Inc, Picnic Health, AbbVie, CTI Biopharma, Genentech Inc., Novartis, Celgene/Bristol Myers-Squibb, Takeda oncology, Taiho Oncology and Research Funding from Genentech Inc, Astex Pharmaceuticals, and BluePrint Medicines, outside the submitted work. SH reports grants/research supports from ASCO TAPUR, Astellas; honoraria or consultation fees from Sanofi, Aveo Oncology, outside the submitted work. SB reports Consulting fees from BMS, Exelexis, Eisai, Pfizer, Myovant, SeaGen; Payment or honoraria from Exelexis, Eisai, BMS; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from SeaGen, Pfizer, Myovant; Stock or stock options in Natera; outside the submitted work. MJ reports grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer; Eisai, personal fees from Seagen, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. NTNG reports personal fees from Novocure, outside the submitted work. RRM reports Advisory board/consultant—Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squib, Calithera, Caris, Dendreon, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sorrento therapeutics, Pfizer, Tempus, Vividion, unrelated to this work. SMR reports advisory for Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, and EUSA Pharma, unrelated to this work. PV reports institutional research funding from Sanofi; stocks or stock options in Novavax, Biontech. HAZ acknowledges support from Georgia NCORP. CRF reports grants from Merck Foundation, grants from NCCN/Pfizer, grants from National Cancer Institute, other from National Cancer Institute, other from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, outside the submitted work. SM reports support from National Cancer Institute, and Intl Assoc. for the Study of Lung Cancer during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from National Geographic outside the submitted work. DF reports Grants or contracts from Merck, Viracor, Astellas; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Viracor; outside the submitted work. JLW reports grants from NIH during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Roche, Westat, Flatiron Health, Melax Tech, IBM Watson Health, ownership of HemOnc.org LLC, grants from AACR; outside the submitted work. TMW-D reports grants from BMS, Merck & Co, GSK/Tesaro, Janssen; personal fees from Exicure, Shattuck Labs, SITC, Merck & Co, Caris Life Sciences, outside the submitted work. C-YH, SRKS, CJ, LBW, UW, TEO'C, OAP, EJK, HS, RN, TKN, RQ, MP, BHM, SADP, KR, BF, DYR, MKA, HS, DRR, YS, and SB have nothing to disclose. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the US Food and Drug Administration official views or policies., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with sarcoma often require individualized treatment strategies and are likely to receive aggressive immunosuppressive therapies, which may place them at higher risk for severe COVID-19. We aimed to describe demographics, risk factors, and outcomes for patients with sarcoma and COVID-19., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with sarcoma and COVID-19 reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry (NCT04354701) from 17 March 2020 to 30 September 2021. Demographics, sarcoma histologic type, treatments, and COVID-19 outcomes were analyzed., Results: of 281 patients, 49% ( n = 139) were hospitalized, 33% ( n = 93) received supplemental oxygen, 11% ( n = 31) were admitted to the ICU, and 6% ( n = 16) received mechanical ventilation. A total of 23 (8%) died within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis and 44 (16%) died overall at the time of analysis. When evaluated by sarcoma subtype, patients with bone sarcoma and COVID-19 had a higher mortality rate than patients from a matched SEER cohort (13.5% vs 4.4%). Older age, poor performance status, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy, and lung metastases all contributed to higher COVID-19 severity., Conclusions: Patients with sarcoma have high rates of severe COVID-19 and those with bone sarcoma may have the greatest risk of death.

Background: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common malignancy worldwide, yet the management of patients with advanced or metastatic disease is challenging, with limited treatment options. Recently, programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) inhibition has demonstrated activity in BCC after prior Hedgehog inhibitor treatment., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of BCC patients treated with PD-1 inhibitor therapy. We examined the efficacy and safety of PD-1 therapy, as well as clinical and pathological variables in association with outcomes. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and duration of response (DOR) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Toxicity was graded per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0., Results: A total of 29 patients with BCC who were treated with PD-1 inhibition were included for analysis, including 20 (69.0%) with locally advanced and 9 (31.0%) with metastatic disease. The objective response rate was 31.0%, with five partial responses (17.2%), and four complete responses (13.8%). Nine patients had stable disease (31.0%), with a disease control rate of 62.1%. The median DOR was not reached. Median PFS was 12.2 months (95% CI 0.0 to 27.4). Median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI 18.1 to 46.7). Two patients (6.9%) developed grade 3 or higher toxicity, while four patients (13.8%) discontinued PD-1 inhibition because of toxicity. Higher platelets (p=0.022) and any grade toxicity (p=0.024) were significantly associated with disease control rate., Conclusions: The clinical efficacy of PD-1 inhibition among patients with advanced or metastatic BCC in this real-world cohort were comparable to published trial data. Further investigation of PD-1 inhibition is needed to define its optimal role for patients with this disease., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GKI reports having consulting/advisory board roles with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, BMS, Castle Biosciences, Regeneron, Sanofi; receiving research support from Regeneron, Array, Idera, Roche/Genentech, Replimune, Xencor, InstilBio, and having speaker roles for Merck. DYR reports having consulting/advisory board roles with Castle Biosciences. JCH reports having consulting/advisory board roles with Regeneron. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has left patients with current or past history of cancer facing disparate consequences at every stage of the cancer trajectory. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the literature on COVID-19 and cancer, including the immune response to COVID-19, risk factors for severe disease, and impact of anticancer therapies. We also review the latest data on treatment of COVID-19 and vaccination safety and efficacy in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the pandemic on cancer care, including the urgent need for rapid evidence generation and real-world study designs. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients with cancer have faced severe consequences at every stage of the cancer journey due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the field regarding COVID-19 and cancer. We cover the immune response, risk factors for severe disease, and implications for vaccination in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care delivery. Overall, this review provides an in-depth summary of the key issues facing patients with cancer during this unprecedented health crisis., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

In March 2020, the designation of the COVID-19 outbreak as a worldwide pandemic marked the beginning of an unprecedented era in modern medicine. Facing the possibility of resource precincts and healthcare rationing, leading dermatological and cancer societies acted expeditiously to adapt their guidelines to these contingencies. Melanoma is a lethal and aggressive skin cancer necessitating a multidisciplinary approach to management and is associated with significant healthcare and economic cost in later stages of disease. In revisiting how the pandemic transformed guidelines from diagnosis and surveillance to surgical and systemic management of melanoma, we appraise the evidence behind these decisions and their enduring implications., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Li, Valdebran and Reuben.)

Background: Therapeutic options for patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) are limited. The goal of the current phase 2 study was to examine the clinical activity and safety of the combination of gemcitabine plus pazopanib, a multityrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in STS., Methods: The current randomized, phase 2 trial enrolled patients with advanced nonadipocytic STS who had received prior anthracycline-based therapy. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 with pazopanib at a dose of 800 mg daily (G+P) or gemcitabine at a dose of 900 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 and docetaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m 2 on day 8 (G+T) every 3 weeks. Crossover was allowed at the time of disease progression. The study used a noncomparative statistical design based on the precision of 95% confidence intervals for reporting the primary endpoints of median progression-free survival (PFS) and rate of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) for these 2 regimens based on the intent-to-treat patient population (AEs were graded using version 4.0 of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events)., Results: A total of 90 patients were enrolled: 45 patients on each treatment arm. The median PFS was 4.1 months for each arm (P = .3, log-rank test). The best overall response of stable disease or better (complete response + partial response + stable disease) was the same for both treatment arms (64% for both the G+T and G+P arms). The rate of related grade ≥3 AEs was 82% for the G+T arm and 78% for the G+P arm. Related grade ≥3 AEs occurring in ≥10% of patients in the G+T and G+P arms were anemia (36% and 20%, respectively), fatigue (29% and 13%, respectively), thrombocytopenia (53% and 49%, respectively), neutropenia (20% and 49%, respectively), lymphopenia (13% and 11%, respectively), and hypertension (2% and 20%, respectively)., Conclusions: The data from the current study have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of G+P as an alternative to G+T for patients with nonadipocytic STS., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)