Search

Background: Hypovitaminosis D can have a negative prognostic impact in patients with cancer. Vitamin D has a demonstrated role in T-cell-mediated immune activation. We hypothesized that systematic vitamin D repletion could impact clinical outcomes in patients with cancer receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)., Methods: We planned a prospective observational study (PROVIDENCE) to assess serum vitamin D levels in patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs (cohort 1 at treatment initiation, cohort 2 during treatment) and the impact of systematic repletion on survival and toxicity outcomes. In an exploratory analysis, we compared the clinical outcomes of cohort 1 with a control cohort of patients followed at the participating centers who did not receive systematic vitamin D repletion., Results: Overall, 164 patients were prospectively recruited in the PROVIDENCE study. In cohort 1, consisting of 101 patients with 94.1% hypovitaminosis (≤ 30 ng/ml) at baseline, adequate repletion with cholecalciferol was obtained in 70.1% at the three months re-assessment. Cohort 2 consisted of 63 patients assessed for vitamin D at a median time of 3.7 months since immunotherapy initiation, with no patients having adequate levels (> 30 ng/ml). Even in cohort 2, systematic supplementation led to adequate levels in 77.8% of patients at the three months re-assessment. Compared to a retrospective control group of 238 patients without systematic vitamin D repletion, PROVIDENCE cohort 1 showed longer overall survival (OS, p = 0.013), time to treatment failure (TTF, p = 0.017), and higher disease control rate (DCR, p = 0.016). The Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighing (IPTW) fitted multivariable Cox regression confirmed the significantly decreased risk of death (HR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.34-0.90) and treatment discontinuation (HR 0.61, 95%CI: 0.40-0.91) for patients from PROVIDENCE cohort 1 in comparison to the control cohort. In the context of longer treatment exposure, the cumulative incidence of any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was higher in the PROVIDENCE cohort 1 compared to the control cohort. Nevertheless, patients from cohort 1 experienced a significantly decreased risk of all grade thyroid irAEs than the control cohort (OR 0.16, 95%CI: 0.03-0.85)., Conclusion: The PROVIDENCE study suggests the potential positive impact of early systematic vitamin D supplementation on outcomes of patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs and support adequate repletion as a possible prophylaxis for thyroid irAEs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Real-life spectrum and survival implications of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with extended interval dosing (ED) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are unknown., Methods: Characteristics of 812 consecutive solid cancer patients who received at least 1 cycle of ED monotherapy (pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W or nivolumab 480 mg Q4W) after switching from canonical interval dosing (CD; pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W or nivolumab 240 mg Q2W) or treated upfront with ED were retrieved. The primary objective was to compare irAEs patterns within the same population (before and after switch to ED). irAEs spectrum in patients treated upfront with ED and association between irAEs and overall survival were also described., Results: A total of 550 (68%) patients started ICIs with CD and switched to ED. During CD, 225 (41%) patients developed any grade and 17 (3%) G3 or G4 irAEs; after switching to ED, any grade and G3 or G4 irAEs were experienced by 155 (36%) and 20 (5%) patients. Switching to ED was associated with a lower probability of any grade irAEs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.99; P = .047), whereas no difference for G3 or G4 events was noted (aOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.94; P = .18). Among patients who started upfront with ED (n = 232, 32%), 107 (41%) developed any grade and 14 (5%) G3 or G4 irAEs during ED. Patients with irAEs during ED had improved overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.82; P = .004 after switching; aHR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.93; P = .025 upfront)., Conclusions: Switching ICI treatment from CD and ED did not increase the incidence of irAEs and represents a safe option also outside clinical trials., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2., Methods: OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974., Findings: At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [50·7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49·3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16·6%; 95% CI 14·8-18·5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the pre-vaccination phase (191 [19·1%; 95% CI 16·4-22·0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16·8%; 13·8-20·3] of 653 patients, p=0·24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6·2%; 3·5-10·2] of 256 patients, p<0·0001). In the alpha-delta phase, 84 (18·3%; 95% CI 14·6-22·7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9·4%; 1·9-27·3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7·4%; 95% CI 3·5-13·5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9·8%; 5·8-15·5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [18·5%; 16·5-20·9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0·0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4·4%; 1·6-9·6], 11 [6·0%; 3·0-10·7] vs 148 [9·9%; 8·4-11·6], p=0·030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2·2%; 0·1-6·4], ten [5·4%; 2·6-10·0] vs 115 [7·7%; 6·3-9·3], p=0·037)., Interpretation: Unvaccinated patients with cancer remain highly vulnerable to COVID-19 sequelae irrespective of viral strain. This study confirms the role of previous SARS-CoV-2 immunisation as an effective measure to protect patients from COVID-19 sequelae, disruption of therapy, and ensuing mortality., Funding: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AC has received consulting fees from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Roche, and speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, and Eisai. ML acted as a consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, MSD, Pfizer, and Seagen, and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, Ipsen, and Sandoz outside the submitted work. AG declares consulting or advisory roles for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, and Daichii Sankyo; speakers' fees for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo; and research funds from Eisai, Eli Lilly, and Roche. CM-V has received travel grants and other honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. JB has declared consulting or advisory roles for MSD and AstraZeneca, and support for attending meetings and travel from GlaxoSmithKline. OM reports personal fees from Grupo Pacifico, Kyowa Kirin, Roche, and ROVI, and travel support from Almirall, Kyowa Kirin, and Sanofi. JT reports personal financial interest in the form of scientific consultancy roles for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspirna, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Ona Therapeutics, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Scandion Oncology, Scorpion Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Sotio Biotech, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, and TheraMyc; stocks in Oniria Therapeutics; and educational collaboration with Imedex/HMP, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Physicians Education Resource. LRi reports receiving consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Taiho Oncology, and Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, and Zymeworks. AD'A has received educational support for congress attendance and consultancy fees from Roche. DJP has received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, Eisai, and the Falk Foundation; travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, Eisai, Roche, DaVolterra, and Astra Zeneca; and institutional research funding from MSD and Bristol Myers Squibb. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccines immunogenicity in patients with cancer has been investigated, whether they can significantly improve the severity of COVID-19 in this specific population is undefined., Methods: Capitalizing on OnCovid (NCT04393974) registry data we reported COVID-19 mortality and proxies of COVID-19 morbidity, including post-COVID-19 outcomes, according to the vaccination status of the included patients., Results: 2090 eligible patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 02/2020 and 11/2021 were included, of whom 1930 (92.3%) unvaccinated, 91 (4.4%) fully vaccinated and 69 (3.3%) partially vaccinated. With the exception of a higher prevalence of patients from the UK (p = 0.0003) and receiving systemic anticancer therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (p = 0.0082) among fully vaccinated patients, no demographics/oncological features were associated with vaccination status. The 14-days case fatality rate (CFR) (5.5% vs 20.7%, p = 0.0004) and the 28-days CFR (13.2% vs 27.4%, p = 0.0028) demonstrated a significant improvement for fully vaccinated patients in comparison with unvaccinated patients. The receipt of prior full vaccination was also associated with reduced symptomatic COVID-19 (79.1% vs 88.5%, p = 0.0070), need of COVID-19 oriented therapy (34.9% vs 63.2%, p < 0.0001), complications from COVID-19 (28.6% vs 39.4%, p = 0.0379), hospitalizations due to COVID-19 (42.2% vs 52.5%, p = 0.0007) and oxygen therapy requirement (35.7% vs 52%, p = 0.0036). Following Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) procedure no statistically significant difference according to the vaccination status was confirmed; however, all COVID-19 related outcomes were concordantly in favour of full vaccination. Among the 1228 (58.8%) patients who underwent a formal reassessment at participating centres after COVID-19 resolution, fully vaccinated patients experienced less sequelae than unvaccinated patients (6.7% vs 17.2%, p = 0.0320)., Conclusions: This analysis provides initial evidence in support of the beneficial effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: As corresponding author of the abovementioned manuscript, I declare on behalf of my co-authors the following conflict of interests: David J Pinato received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, EISAI, Falk Foundation, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, DaVolterra and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS.Aleix Prat has declared personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo; travel, accommodations, and expenses paid by Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from Roche and Novartis; and consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb.Matteo Lambertini acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, Ipsen and Sandoz outside the submitted work.Joan Brunet has declared consulting/advisory role for MSD and Astra Zeneca.Alessandra Gennari has declared consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, and Daichii Sankyo; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo; research funds: EISAI, Eli Lilly, and Roche. CMV has received travel grants and other honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche.Gianluca Gaidano has declared consulting/advisory role for Janssen, Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca and BeiGene, and speaker fees from Janssen and Abbvie.Lorenza Rimassa received consulting fees from Taiho Oncology, Servier, Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks.Joseph Tabernero reported consulting fees from Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspirna Inc, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Ona Therapeutics, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Scandion Oncology, Servier, Sotio Biotech, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics and TheraMyc. He also reported speaker's fees from Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource (PER). He also declared institutional research support from Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International SA, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen-Cilag SA, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Health KGAA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus NV, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica SA, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho Pharma USA Inc, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation and Cancer Research UK.Alessio Cortellini received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche; speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Eisai.All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.London, April 18th, 2022., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe., Methods: In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing., Findings: As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 [47·4%] were women and 1822 [52·6%] were men, with a median age of 68 years [IQR 57-77]). 2033 (58·5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31·0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10·5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33·3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48·7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16·6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2·3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·61) and 28 days (0·34 [0·16-0·79]), complications due to COVID-19 (0·26 [0·17-0·46]), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0·17 [0·09-0·32]), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0·22 [0·15-0·34]) and oxygen therapy (0·24 [0·14-0·43]) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten [25%] of 40 patients vs 114 [17%] of 656) and at 28 days (11 [27%] of 40 vs 184 [28%] of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 [43%] of 42 vs 266 [41%] of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 [31%] of 42 vs 237 [36%] of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase., Interpretation: Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DJP has received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, Eisai, and Falk Foundation; travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, Eisai, Roche, DaVolterra, and Astra Zeneca; and research funding (to their institution) from MSD and BMS. MLa has acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen, and Gilead; and has received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, and Sandoz. FM has received consulting fees from Eli Lilly, MSD, Takeda, and Roche; and travel support from Sanofi. SP reported that their spouse is employed by AstraZeneca. ASa has received consulting fees from Arqule, Sanofi, and Incyte; speaker's fees from Takeda, BMS, Roche, AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Servier, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Arqule, Eli Lilly, Sandoz, Eisai, Novartis, Bayer, and MSD; and participation on data monitoring committees for BMS, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, and MSD. FG has received consulting fees from Novocure, BMS, PharmaMar, and Novartis; speaker's fees from Novocure; travel support from MSD, Novocure, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, PharmaMar, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; and participation on a data safety monitoring board for MSD, BMS, PharmaMar and Novartis. JH has a leadership role with Blood Cancer UK. NS-G has received speakers' fees from Amgen. GG has received consulting fees or had an advisory role for Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Roche, Incyte, and BeiGene, and reported speaker fees from Janssen and AbbVie. LRi has received consulting fees from Taiho Oncology, Servier, Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, and Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, and Zymeworks. JT reports consulting fees from Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspirna, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Ona Therapeutics, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Scandion Oncology, Servier, Sotio Biotech, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, and TheraMyc; speaker's fees from Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Physicians Education Resource; and institutional research support from Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen-Cilag, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus NV, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho Pharma USA, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. MB has received speakers' fee from Eisai pharma, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and ViiV; and has had leadership roles in the European AIDS Clinical Society, UNAIDS, WHO, and The European Hematology Association/ European Society of Medical Oncology. AC has received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, and Eisai. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A significant proportion of patients with cancer who recover from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience COVID-19 sequelae in the early post-infection phase, which negatively affect their continuity of care and oncological outcome. The long-term prevalence and clinical impact of the post-COVID-19 syndrome in patients with cancer are largely unknown., Methods: In this study, we describe the time course of COVID-19 sequelae in patients with non-advanced cancers enrolled in the OnCovid registry., Results: Overall, 186 patients were included, with a median observation period of 9.9 months (95%CI:8,8-11.3) post-COVID-19 resolution. After a median interval of 2.3 months post-COVID-19 (interquartile range: 1.4-3.7), 31 patients (16.6%) reported ≥1 sequelae, including respiratory complications (14, 7.6%), fatigue (13, 7.1%), neuro-cognitive sequelae (7, 3.8%). The vast majority of the patients were not vaccinated prior to COVID-19. COVID-19-related sequelae persisted in 9.8% and 8% of patients 6 and 12 months after COVID-19 resolution. Persistence of sequelae at first oncological follow-up was associated with history of complicated COVID-19 (45.2% vs 24.8%, p = 0.0223), irrespective of oncological features at COVID-19 diagnosis., Conclusion: This study confirms for the first time that, in a largely unvaccinated population, post-COVID-19 syndrome can affect a significant proportion of patients with non-advanced cancer who recovered from the acute illness. COVID-19 sequelae may persist up to 12 months in some patients, highlighting the need for dedicated prevention and supportive strategies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Alessio Cortellini received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche; speakers’ fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Eisai. David J Pinato received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, EISAI, Falk Foundation, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, DaVolterra and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. Aleix Prat has declared personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo; travel, accommodations and expenses paid by Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from Roche and Novartis; and consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Matteo Lambertini acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, Ipsen and Sandoz outside the submitted work. Thomas Newsom-Davis has declared consulting/advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; speakers fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Takeda and travel, accommodations and expenses paid by AstraZenca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Joan Brunet has declared consulting/advisory role for MSD and Astra Zeneca. Alessandra Gennari has declared consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, and Daichii Sankyo; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo; research funds: EISAI, Eli Lilly, and Roche. CMV has received travel grants and other honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche. Gianluca Gaidano has declared consulting/advisory role for Janssen, Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca and BeiGene, and speaker fees from Janssen and Abbvie. Lorenza Rimassa received consulting fees from Servier, Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Whether the severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with cancer have improved in terms of disease management and capacity is yet to be defined., Objective: To test whether severity and mortality from COVID-19 among patients with cancer have improved during the course of the pandemic., Design, Setting, and Participants: OnCovid is a European registry that collects data on consecutive patients with solid or hematologic cancer and COVID-19. This multicenter case series study included real-world data from 35 institutions across 6 countries (UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany). This update included patients diagnosed between February 27, 2020, and February, 14, 2021. Inclusion criteria were confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a history of solid or hematologic cancer., Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection., Main Outcomes and Measures: Deaths were differentiated at 14 days and 3 months as the 2 landmark end points. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared by stratifying patients across 5 phases (February to March 2020, April to June 2020, July to September 2020, October to December 2020, and January to February 2021) and across 2 major outbreaks (February to June 2020 and July 2020 to February 2021)., Results: At data cutoff, 2795 consecutive patients were included, with 2634 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age, 68 [18-77] years ; 52.8% men). Eligible patients demonstrated significant time-dependent improvement in 14-day case-fatality rate (CFR) with estimates of 29.8% (95% CI, 0.26-0.33) for February to March 2020; 20.3% (95% CI, 0.17-0.23) for April to June 2020; 12.5% (95% CI, 0.06-22.90) for July to September 2020; 17.2% (95% CI, 0.15-0.21) for October to December 2020; and 14.5% (95% CI, 0.09-0.21) for January to February 2021 (all P < .001) across the predefined phases. Compared with the second major outbreak, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak were more likely to be 65 years or older (974 of 1626 [60.3%] vs 564 of 1008 [56.1%]; P = .03), have at least 2 comorbidities (793 of 1626 [48.8%] vs 427 of 1008 [42.4%]; P = .001), and have advanced tumors (708 of 1626 [46.4%] vs 536 of 1008 [56.1%]; P < .001). Complications of COVID-19 were more likely to be seen (738 of 1626 [45.4%] vs 342 of 1008 [33.9%]; P < .001) and require hospitalization (969 of 1626 [59.8%] vs 418 of 1008 [42.1%]; P < .001) and anti-COVID-19 therapy (1004 of 1626 [61.7%] vs 501 of 1008 [49.7%]; P < .001) during the first major outbreak. The 14-day CFRs for the first and second major outbreaks were 25.6% (95% CI, 0.23-0.28) vs 16.2% (95% CI, 0.13-0.19; P < .001), respectively. After adjusting for country, sex, age, comorbidities, tumor stage and status, anti-COVID-19 and anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 complications, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak had an increased risk of death at 14 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.32) and 3 months (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51) compared with those diagnosed in the second outbreak., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this registry-based study suggest that mortality in patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 has improved in Europe; this improvement may be associated with earlier diagnosis, improved management, and dynamic changes in community transmission over time.

Background: The medium-term and long-term impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is not yet known. In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and their impact on the survival of patients with cancer. We also aimed to describe patterns of resumption and modifications of systemic anti-cancer therapy following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection., Methods: OnCovid is an active European registry study enrolling consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with a history of solid or haematological malignancy and who had a diagnosis of RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this retrospective study, patients were enrolled from 35 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Patients who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, and entered into the registry at the point of data lock (March 1, 2021), were eligible for analysis. The present analysis was focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent clinical reassessment at each participating institution. We documented prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and described factors associated with their development and their association with post-COVID-19 survival, which was defined as the interval from post-COVID-19 reassessment to the patients' death or last follow-up. We also evaluated resumption of systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients treated within 4 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis. The OnCovid study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974., Findings: 2795 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, were entered into the study by the time of the data lock on March 1, 2021. After the exclusion of ineligible patients, the final study population consisted of 2634 patients. 1557 COVID-19 survivors underwent a formal clinical reassessment after a median of 22·1 months (IQR 8·4-57·8) from cancer diagnosis and 44 days (28-329) from COVID-19 diagnosis. 234 (15·0%) patients reported COVID-19 sequelae, including respiratory symptoms (116 [49·6%]) and residual fatigue (96 [41·0%]). Sequelae were more common in men (vs women; p=0·041), patients aged 65 years or older (vs other age groups; p=0·048), patients with two or more comorbidities (vs one or none; p=0·0006), and patients with a history of smoking (vs no smoking history; p=0·0004). Sequelae were associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 (p<0·0001), complicated COVID-19 (p<0·0001), and COVID-19 therapy (p=0·0002). With a median post-COVID-19 follow-up of 128 days (95% CI 113-148), COVID-19 sequelae were associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·80 [95% CI 1·18-2·75]) after adjusting for time to post-COVID-19 reassessment, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumour characteristics, anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 severity. Among 466 patients on systemic anti-cancer therapy, 70 (15·0%) permanently discontinued therapy, and 178 (38·2%) resumed treatment with a dose or regimen adjustment. Permanent treatment discontinuations were independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 3·53 [95% CI 1·45-8·59]), but dose or regimen adjustments were not (0·84 [0·35-2·02])., Interpretation: Sequelae post-COVID-19 affect up to 15% of patients with cancer and adversely affect survival and oncological outcomes after recovery. Adjustments to systemic anti-cancer therapy can be safely pursued in treatment-eligible patients., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DJP reports lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eisai, and Falk Foundation; travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees from Mina Therapeutics, Eisai, Roche, DaVolterra, and Astra Zeneca; and research funding (to institution) from Merck Sharp and Dohme and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside of the submitted work. MLa acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work, and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, and Sandoz, outside of the submitted work. EF reports research funding to institution from Pfizer, outside of the submitted work, and travel expenses from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Esai, outside of the submitted work. TN-D reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; speakers fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; and travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZenca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work. JB reports consulting fees for Merck Sharp and Dohme and Astra Zeneca, outside of the submitted work. APr reports personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work; travel, accommodations, and expenses by Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work; research funding (to institution) from Roche and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and consulting fees from NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside of the submitted work. APar reports consulting fees from Takeda and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. MT reports travel grants from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; and honoraria as a medical writer from Novartis and Amgen, outside the submitted work. AG reports consulting fees from Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, and Daichii Sankyo, outside the submitted work; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo, outside the submitted work; research funds (to institution) from Eisai, Eli Lilly, and Roche, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Roche, outside the submitted work; and personal research funding from Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation UPO aging project, outside the submitted work. GG reports personal research funding outside of the submitted work from Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Janssen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from Janssen and Abbvie, outside the submitted work. LR reports consulting fees from Servier, Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zymeworks, outside the submitted work; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; travel expenses from Ipsen, outside the submitted work; and institutional research funding (to institution) from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, and Zymeworks, outside the submitted work. JT reports having a scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, and TheraMyc, outside of the submitted work; educational collaboration with Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource, outside of the submitted work; and institutional financial interest in form of financial support for clinical trials or contracted research for Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen-Cilag, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Healt, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merus, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation, and Cancer Research UK, outside the submitted work. ACo reports consulting fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Roche, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Astellas, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Opioid addiction, if not well diagnosed and treated, can be a significant challenge for optimal pain management even in cancer patients. To date there is no definitive pharmacological standard of care for treating addiction, especially in this setting of patients. We present a clinical case series of three opioid-addicted advanced cancer patients, effectively treated with haloperidol, a well-known first-generation typical antipsychotic.

Background: Scientific societies recommend early interaction between oncologic and supportive care, but there is still a lack of systematic evaluations regarding symptoms from the perspective of oncologists., Patients and Methods: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the PERSONS score, in both "simultaneous care" and "supportive care" settings using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) as a comparator., Results: From November 2017 to April 2018, 67 and 110 consecutive patients were enrolled in outpatient and home care cohorts, respectively. The final study population comprised 163 patients. There were no significant changes over time in the total PERSONS scores and total ESAS scale. The intra-interviewer reliability (ICC2,1) and inter-interviewer reliability (ICC2,k) showed good reproducibility (test-retest) in each group of patients: 0.60 (0.49-0.70) and 0.82 (0.75-0.87), respectively, for the home care patients and 0.73 (0.62-0.81) and 0.89 (0.83-0.93), respectively, for the outpatient cohort. There were high correlations between PERSONS and ESAS, both at the baseline and final assessments. The mean PERSONS and ESAS scores between the home care patients and outpatients were not different at the baseline and final assessments. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the PERSONS total score revealed good diagnostic ability. Area under the curve (AUC) was 0.825 and 0.805 for improvement and deterioration, respectively., Conclusions: The PERSONS score is an easy to apply tool for symptom assessment. Importantly, the PERSONS score showed high concordance with the established ESAS scale and, therefore, provides an alternative for everyday use in supportive care assessment.

Background : We investigate the role of family history of cancer (FHC) and diagnosis of metachronous and/or synchronous multiple neoplasms (MN), during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. Design : This was a multicenter retrospective study of advanced cancer patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. FHC was collected in lineal and collateral lines, and patients were categorized as follows: FHC-high (in case of cancer diagnoses in both the lineal and collateral family lines), FHC-low (in case of cancer diagnoses in only one family line), and FHC-negative. Patients were also categorized according to the diagnosis of MN as follows: MN-high (>2 malignancies), MN-low (two malignancies), and MN-negative. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade were evaluated. Results : 822 consecutive patients were evaluated. 458 patients (55.7%) were FHC-negative, 289 (35.2%) were FHC-low, and 75 (9.1%) FHC-high, respectively. 29 (3.5%) had a diagnosis of synchronous MN and 94 (11.4%) of metachronous MN. 108 (13.2%) and 15 (1.8%) patients were MN-low and MN-high, respectively. The median follow-up was 15.6 months. No significant differences were found regarding ORR among subgroups. FHC-high patients had a significantly longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.48-0.97], p = .0379) and OS (HR = 0.61 [95% CI: 0.39-0.93], p = .0210), when compared to FHC-negative patients. FHC-high was confirmed as an independent predictor for PFS and OS at multivariate analysis. No significant differences were found according to MN categories. FHC-high patients had a significantly higher incidence of irAEs of any grade, compared to FHC-negative patients ( p = .0012). Conclusions : FHC-high patients seem to benefit more than FHC-negative patients from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Background: Recent evidence suggested a potential correlation between overweight and the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of advanced cancer patients consecutively treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, in order to compare clinical outcomes according to baseline BMI levels as primary analysis. Based on their BMI, patients were categorized into overweight/obese (≥ 25) and non-overweight (< 25). A gender analysis was also performed, using the same binomial cut-off. Further subgroup analyses were performed categorizing patients into underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese., Results: Between September 2013 and May 2018, 976 patients were evaluated. The median age was 68 years, male/female ratio was 663/313. Primary tumors were: NSCLC (65.1%), melanoma (18.7%), renal cell carcinoma (13.8%) and others (2.4%). ECOG-PS was ≥2 in 145 patients (14.9%). PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were administered as first-line treatment in 26.6% of cases. Median BMI was 24.9: 492 patients (50.6%) were non-overweight, 480 patients (50.4%) were overweight/obese. 25.2% of non-overweight patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 55.6% of overweight/obese patients (p < 0.0001). ORR was significantly higher in overweight/obese patients compared to non-overweight (p < 0.0001). Median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median TTF, PFS and OS were significantly longer for overweight/obese patients in univariate (p < 0.0001, for all the survival intervals) and multivariate models (p = 0.0009, p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001 respectively). The significance was confirmed in both sex, except for PFS in male patients (p = 0.0668)., Conclusions: Overweight could be considered a tumorigenic immune-dysfunction that could be effectively reversed by ICIs. BMI could be a useful predictive tool in clinical practice and a stratification factor in prospective clinical trials with ICIs.