Search

Background: The COICA study is an ambispective, observational trial that was conceived to assess the clinical course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in cancer patients. A recently published, population-based, case-control study reported a reduced vaccine efficacy at 3–6 months in cancer patients compared to individuals without cancer. Objectives: The aim of the study was to describe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) outcomes in cancer patients and analyze differences in SARS-CoV-2 outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Methods: Descriptive statistics and frequency counts were used to summarize characteristics of the study population. χ2 test and the log-rank test were used to compare outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: A total of 141 cancer patients (80 males, 61 females) were recruited at two participating Institutions from March 2020 until April 2022 and observed from the time of positive SARS-CoV-2 test to the time of negativization or death. Approximately 35% of patients had been vaccinated at the time of infection with 2 (16 patients) or 3 (33 patients) vaccine doses. Vaccinated patients consistently and significantly showed improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to unvaccinated patients, with CT-diagnosed pneumonia, hospitalization, O2 therapy, and death reported in 0% versus 48.6%, 2.0% versus 15.2%, 0% versus 14.1%, and 0% versus 7.6%, respectively, of assessable patients (p < 0.05). Vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients showed a significantly shorter time to negativization, with a median (95% confidence interval) time of 12 (10–14) versus 20 (17–23) days, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Vaccination consistently improved all COVID-19 outcomes. No death was recorded among vaccinated patients. Additional research is especially warranted to establish optimal timing and patient selection for administration of the fourth vaccination dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cancer aggravates COVID-19 prognosis. Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly frequent in cancer patients, who need to attend hospitals regularly. Since March 2020, all cancer patients having access to the Oncology Unit at the "Andrea Tortora" Hospital (Pagani, Salerno – referred to as "the Hospital") as inpatients or outpatients receiving intravenous therapy have been screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab. The ongoing COICA (COVID-19 infection in cancer patients) study is an ambispective, multicenter, observational study designed to assess the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. The aim of the study presented here was to explore potential differences in COVID-19-related outcomes among screening-detected versus nonscreening-detected SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Methods: The COICA study enrolled cancer patients who had received any anticancer systemic therapy within 3 months since the day they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. The target accrual is 128 patients, and the study was approved by the competent Ethics Committee. Only the subgroup of patients enrolled at the Hospital was considered in this unplanned interim analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of screening-based versus nonscreening-based diagnosis. Results: Since March 15, 2020, until August 15, 2021, a total of 931 outpatients and 230 inpatients were repeatedly screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab at the Hospital. Among these, 71 asymptomatic patients were positive on routine screening and 5 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 outside the institutional screening. Seven patients died because of COVID-19. At univariate analysis, nonscreening- versus screening-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of O2 therapy (OR = 16.2; 95% CI = 2.2–117.1; p = 0.006), hospital admission (OR = 31.5; 95% CI = 3.1–317.8; p = 0.003), admission to ICU (OR = 23.0; 95% CI = 2.4–223.8; p = 0.007), and death (OR = 8.8; 95% CI = 1.2–65.5; p = 0.034). Conclusion: Routine screening with RT-PCR may represent a feasible and effective strategy in reducing viral circulation and possibly COVID-19 mortality in patients with active cancer having repeated access to hospital facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Bladder cancer is the ninth most common cancer worldwide. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, a novel class of immunotherapy drugs that restore natural antitumoral immune activity, have been applied to improve the overall survival and to reduce the morbidity and mortality of bladder cancer both in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. However, some patients do not respond to checkpoint inhibitors. Consequently, the capability for identifying patients eligible for this type of immunotherapy represent one of the efforts of ongoing studies. We aim to summarize the most recent evidence on immune checkpoint inhibitors in neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Bladder cancer is the ninth most common cancer worldwide. Over 75% of non-muscle invasive cancer patients require conservative local treatment, while the remaining 25% of patients undergo radical cystectomy or radiotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent a novel class of immunotherapy drugs that restore natural antitumoral immune activity via the blockage of inhibitory receptors and ligands expressed on antigen-presenting cells, T lymphocytes and tumour cells. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in bladder cancer has been expanded from the neoadjuvant setting, i.e., after radical cystectomy, to the adjuvant setting, i.e., before the operative time or chemotherapy, in order to improve the overall survival and to reduce the morbidity and mortality of both the disease and its treatment. However, some patients do not respond to checkpoint inhibitors. As result, the capability for identifying patients that are eligible for this immunotherapy represent one of the efforts of ongoing studies. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the most recent evidence regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, in a neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immunotherapy based on anti PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors has proven to be more effective than sunitinib in the first-line setting of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). RCC patients with sarcomatoid histology (sRCC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line anti PD-1/PDL-1 agents vs. sunitinib, presenting efficacy data in the sub-group of sRCC patients. The systematic research was conducted on Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase and updated until 31th January, 2020. Abstracts from ESMO and ASCO (2010–2019) were also reviewed. Full texts and abstracts reporting about RCTs testing first-line anti-PD-1/ PD-L1 agents vs. sunitinib in RCC were included if sRCC sub-group analyses of either PFS (progression-free survival), OS (overall survival) or radiological response rate were available. Pooled data from 3814 RCC patients in the ITT (intention-to-treat) population and from 512 sRCC patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. In the sRCC sub-group vs. the ITT population, pooled estimates of the PFS-HRs were 0.57 (95%: 0.45–0.74) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70–0.89), respectively, with a statistically meaningful interaction favoring the sRCC sub-group (pooled ratio of the PFS-HRs = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50–0.82; p < 0.001). Pooled estimates of the difference in CR-R (complete response-rate) achieved with anti-PD-1/PDL-1 agents vs. sunitinib were + 0.10 (95% CI: 0.04–0.16) vs. + 0.04 (95% CI: 0.00–0.07) in the sRCC vs. the non-sRCC sub groups, with a statistically meaningful difference of + 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02–0.10; p = 0.007) favoring the sRCC sub-group. Sarcomatoid histology may be associated with improved efficacy of anti PD-1/PDL-1 agents vs. sunitinib in terms of PFS and CR-R. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]