Search

Additional file 1.

Background: Adoptive cell therapy with peripheral blood T cells expressing transgenic T-cell receptors (TCRs) is an innovative therapeutic approach for solid malignancies. We investigated the safety and feasibility of adoptive transfer of autologous T cells expressing melanoma antigen recognized by T cells 1 (MART-1)-specific TCR, cultured to have less differentiated phenotypes, in patients with metastatic melanoma. Materials and methods: In this phase I/IIa trial, peripheral blood T cells from HLA-A2∗02:01-positive patients with unresectable stage IIIC/IV melanoma expressing MART-1 were selected and stimulated with anti-CD3/CD28 beads, transduced with a modified MART-1(26-35)-specific 1D3 TCR (1D3HMCys) and expanded in interleukin (IL)-7 and IL-15. Patients received a single infusion of transgenic T cells in a dose-escalating manner. Feasibility, safety and objective response rate were assessed. Results: Twelve pretreated metastatic cutaneous (n = 7) and uveal (n = 5) melanoma patients were included. Patient 1 received 4.6 × 109 1D3HMCys T cells and experienced grade 5 toxicity after 9 days. Subsequent patients received 5.0 × 107 [n = 3; cohort (c) 2], 2.5 × 108 (n = 2; c3) and 1.0 × 108 (n = 6; c4) 1D3HMCys T cells. The study was prematurely terminated because of dose-dependent toxicity, concerning skin (10/12), eyes (3/12), ears (4/12) and cytokine release syndrome (5/12), with 7 patients experiencing grade 3-5 toxicity. Partial responses were seen in 2/11 (18%) assessable patients and persistence of 1D3HMCys T cells corresponded to infused cell dose. Conclusions: Production of TCR-modified cells as described leads to highly potent T cells. Partial responses were seen in 18% of patients with dose-dependent ‘on-target, off-tumor’ toxicity and a maximum tolerated dose of 1.0 × 108 cells.

Highlights • Risk of distress/burnout amongst oncology professionals continues to worsen since COVID-19 despite improved job performance. • Female and younger (≤40 years old) colleagues continue to be at higher risk of poor well-being and feeling burnout. • Job demands have increased, with nearly half now feeling overwhelmed with workload. • Concerns regarding career development/training, job security, and international fellowship opportunities remain high. • A quarter of oncology professionals reported considering changing their career, including leaving the oncology profession. Background COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the well-being and job performance of oncology professionals globally. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate and monitor well-being since COVID-19 in relation to work, lifestyle and support factors in oncology professionals 1 year on since the start of the pandemic. Methods An online, anonymous survey was conducted in February/March 2021 (Survey III). Key outcome variables included risk of poor well-being or distress (expanded Well-Being Index), feeling burnout (single item from expanded Well-Being Index), and job performance since COVID-19. Longitudinal analysis of responses to the series of three surveys since COVID-19 was carried out, and responses to job demands and resources questions were interrogated. SPSS V.26.0/V.27.0 and GraphPad Prism V9.0 were used for statistical analyses. Results Responses from 1269 participants from 104 countries were analysed in Survey III: 55% (n = 699/1269) female, 54% (n = 686/1269) >40 years, and 69% (n = 852/1230) of white ethnicity. There continues to be an increased risk of poor well-being or distress (n = 464/1169, 40%) and feeling burnout (n = 660/1169, 57%) compared with Survey I (25% and 38% respectively, P < 0.0001), despite improved job performance. Compared with the initial period of the pandemic, more participants report feeling overwhelmed with workload (45% versus 29%, P < 0.0001). There remain concerns about the negative impact of the pandemic on career development/training (43%), job security (37%). and international fellowship opportunities (76%). Alarmingly, 25% (n = 266/1086) are considering changing their future career with 38% (n = 100/266) contemplating leaving the profession. Conclusion Oncology professionals continue to face increased job demands. There is now significant concern regarding potential attrition in the oncology workforce. National and international stakeholders must act immediately and work closely with oncology professionals to draw up future-proof recovery plans.

We established an international consortium to review and discuss relevant clinical evidence in order to develop expert consensus statements related to cancer management during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The steering committee prepared 10 working packages addressing significant clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a virtual consensus meeting of 62 global experts and one patient advocate, led by the European Society for Medical Oncology, statements were discussed, amended and voted upon. When consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements until a consensus was reached. Overall, the expert panel agreed on 28 consensus statements that can be used to overcome many of the clinical and technical areas of uncertainty ranging from diagnosis to therapeutic planning and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Immune-related Adverse Events (IrAEs) present a new challenge to patient safety. The use of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) to monitor adverse events is increasing. Existing measures like the PRO version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) do not offer clear guidance how to select the symptoms to monitor in different populations. The wide spectrum of toxicities of more recent treatments such as Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) is not fully covered. We aimed to a) reach expert consensus on PRO-CTCAE symptom to be monitored in cancer patients treated with ICIs; b) gather expert opinion on additional symptom terms that could be used to broaden its reach in the ICI toxicity spectrum; and c) reach expert consensus on a set of priority symptom terms to monitor symptomatic IrAEs in this population. Methods: We conducted a Delphi study with an international panel of eleven experts across four rounds. In round 1, experts assessed the relevance of PRO-CTCAEsymptom terms and suggested additional terms. Subsequent rounds aimed at consensus on the importance-to-monitor on three levels (level1 ¼ highest; level 3 ¼ lowest) of all relevant symptom terms. Results: All (n¼80) PRO-CTCAE Symptom terms were considered relevant. By round 4, consensus on the importance-to-monitor was reached for 82% (n¼65). Thirty terms reached consensus on level 1 importance, followed by 33 on level 2 and 2on level 3. Experts agreed on a set of 54 additional symptom terms to be considered to monitor ICI-related toxicities. Consensus on the importance-to-monitor was reached for 87% (n¼47) of these terms. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first consensus of a prioritized list of symptom terms that should be considered for prospective surveillance of ICI-related toxicities. Additionally, they reveal the need to improve existing PRO measures to address the complex nature of IrAEs, and provide a first consensus on what symptom terms should be targeted by future work.

Background: Exploratory research showed that female oncologists are frequently under-represented in leadership roles. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Women for Oncology (W4O) therefore implemented gender equality programs in career development and established international studies on female representation at all stages of the oncology career pathway. Methods: For 2017-2019, data were collected on (i) first and last authorship of publications in five major oncology journals and (ii) representation of women in leadership positions in oncology—as invited speakers at National/International congresses, board members or presidents of National/International societies and ESMO members. The 2015/2016 data from the first published W4O Study were incorporated for comparisons. Results: Across 2017-2019, female oncologists were significantly more likely to be first than last authors (P < 0.001). The proportion of female first authors was similar across years: 38.0% in 2017, 37.1% in 2018, 41.0% in 2019 (P = 0.063). The proportion of female last authors decreased from 30.4% in 2017 to 24.2% in 2018 (P = 0.0018) and increased to 28.5% in 2019 (P = 0.018). Across 2015-2019, invited speakers at International/National oncology congresses were significantly less likely to be female than male (P < 0.001; 29.7% in 2015 to 36.8% in 2019). Across 2016-2019, board members of International/National oncology societies were significantly less likely to be female than male (P < 0.001; 26.8% in 2016 to 35.8% in 2019). There were statistically significant increasing trends in female speakers and board members across the study periods (P < 0.001 for both). Societies with a female president had a higher proportion of female board members across these periods (P = 0.026). Conclusions: Reported progress towards gender equality in career development in oncology is real but slow. Women in leadership positions are essential for encouraging young women to aspire to and work towards similar or greater success. Therefore, continued monitoring is needed to inform ESMO W4O initiatives to promote gender balance at all stages of the career pathway. © 2021