Search

Purpose: No evidence exists as to whether type 2 diabetes (T2DM) impairs clinical outcome from Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) in patients with solid tumors. Experimental Design: In a large cohort of ICI recipients treated at 21 institutions from June 2014 to June 2020, we studied whether patients on glucose lowering medications (GLM) for T2DM had shorter OS and PFS. We used targeted transcriptomics in a subset of patients to explore differences in the tumor microenvironment of patients with/without diabetes. Results: A total of 1395 patients were included. Primary tumors included NSCLC (54.7%), melanoma (24.7%), renal cell (15.0%) and other carcinomas (5.6%). Following multivariable analysis, patients on GLM (n=226, 16.2%) displayed an increased risk of death (HR 1.29, 95%CI:1.07-1.56) and disease progression/death (HR 1.21, 95%CI:1.03-1.43) independent of number of GLM received. We matched 92 metformin exposed with 363 controls and 78 patients on other oral GLM or insulin with 299 control patients. Exposure to metformin, but not other GLM was associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.53, 95%CI:1.16-2.03) and disease progression/death (HR 1.34, 95%CI:1.04-1.72). T2DM patients with higher pre-treatment glycaemia had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (p=0.04), while exploratory tumoral transcriptomic profiling in a subset of patients (n=22) revealed differential regulation of innate and adaptive immune pathways in T2DM patients. Conclusions: In this study patients on GLM experienced worse outcomes from immunotherapy, independent of baseline features. Prospective studies are warranted to clarify the relative impact of metformin over a pre-existing diagnosis of T2DM in influencing poorer outcomes in this population.

Includes supplementary methods, figures, and tables.

Purpose:PI3K–Akt–mTOR and androgen receptor (AR) signaling are commonly aberrantly activated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with PTEN loss associating with poor prognosis. We therefore conducted a phase Ib/II study of the combination of ipatasertib, an Akt inhibitor, with the CYP17 inhibitor abiraterone in patients with mCRPC.Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to ipatasertib 400 mg, ipatasertib 200 mg, or placebo, with abiraterone 1,000 mg orally. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in the intent-to-treat population and in patients with PTEN-loss tumors.Results:rPFS was prolonged in the ipatasertib cohort versus placebo, with similar trends in overall survival and time-to-PSA progression. A larger rPFS prolongation for the combination was demonstrated in PTEN-loss tumors versus those without. The combination was well tolerated, with no treatment-related deaths.Conclusions:In mCRPC, combined blockade with abiraterone and ipatasertib showed superior antitumor activity to abiraterone alone, especially in patients with PTEN-loss tumors.See related commentary by Zhang et al., p. 901

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 center dot 7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49 center dot 3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16 center dot 6%; 95% CI 14 center dot 8-18 center dot 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 prevaccination phase (191 [19 center dot 1%; 95% CI 16 center dot 4-22 center dot 0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16 center dot 8%; 13 center dot 8- 20 center dot 3] of 653 patients, p=0 center dot 24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6 center dot 2%; 3 center dot 5-10 center dot 2] of 256 patients, p

BACKGROUND Gastric cancer is an aggressive disease with frequent lymph node (LN) involvement. The NCCN recommends a D2 lymphadenectomy and the harvesting of at least 16 LNs. This threshold has been the subject of great debate, not only for the extent of surgery but also for more appropriate staging. The reclassification of stage IIB through IIIC based on N3b nodal staging in the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system highlights the efforts to more accurately discriminate survival expectancy based on nodal number. Furthermore, studies have suggested that pathologic assessment of 30 or more LNs improve prognostic accuracy and is required for proper staging of gastric cancer. AIM To evaluate the long-term survival of advanced gastric cancer patients who deviated from expected survival curves because of inadequate nodal evaluation. METHODS Eligible patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Those with stage II–III gastric cancer were considered for inclusion. Three groups were compared based on the number of analyzed LNs. They were inadequate LN assessment (ILA, < 16 LNs), adequate LN assessment (ALA, 16-29 LNs), and optimal LN assessment (OLA, ≥ 30 LNs). The main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival. Data were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, log-rank test, hazard risk, and Cox proportional univariate and multivariate models. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare the ALA and OLA groups. RESULTS The analysis included 11607 patients. Most had advanced T stages (T3 = 48%; T4 = 42%). The pathological AJCC stage distribution was IIA = 22%, IIB = 18%, IIIA = 26%, IIIB = 22%, and IIIC = 12%. The overall sample divided by the study objective included ILA (50%), ALA (35%), and OLA (15%). Median OS was 24 mo for the ILA group, 29 mo for the ALA group, and 34 mo for the OLA group (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that the ALA and OLA groups had better OS than the ILA group [ALA hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79–0.88, P < 0.001 and OLA HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.68–0.79, P < 0.001]. The OS outcome was confirmed by multivariate analysis (ALA HR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.64–0.71, P < 0.001 and OLA: HR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.44–0.52, P < 0.001). A 1:1 PSM analysis in 3428 patients found that the OLA group had better survival than the ALA group (OS: OLA median = 34 mo vs ALA median = 26 mo, P < 0.001, which was confirmed by univariate analysis (HR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.75–0.89, P < 0.001) and multivariate analysis: (HR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.65–0.78, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Proper nodal staging is a critical issue in gastric cancer. Assessment of an inadequate number of LNs places patients at high risk of adverse long-term survival outcomes.

Although androgen deprivation therapy is typically given long-term for men with metastatic prostate cancer, second-generation hormone therapies are generally discontinued before the subsequent line of treatment. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of continuing enzalutamide after progression in controlling metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel and prednisolone.PRESIDE was a two-period, multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study done at 123 sites in Europe (in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK). Patients were eligible for period 1 (P1) of the study if they had histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features, serum testosterone concentrations of 1·73 nmol/L or less, and had progressed during androgen deprivation therapy with a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist or after bilateral orchiectomy. In P1, patients received open-label enzalutamide 160 mg per day orally. At week 13, patients were assessed for either radiographic or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (25% or more increase and 2 ng/mL or more above nadir). Patients who showed any decline in PSA at week 13 and subsequently progressed (radiographic progression, PSA progression, or both) were screened and enrolled in period 2 (P2), during which eligible patients were treated with up to ten cycles of intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/mBetween Dec 1, 2014, and Feb 15, 2016, 816 patients were screened for P1 of the study. 688 patients were enrolled in P1 and 687 received open-label enzalutamide. In P2, 271 patients were randomly assigned at 73 sites to receive enzalutamide (n=136) or placebo (n=135). The data cutoff for analysis was April 30, 2020. Median progression-free survival with enzalutamide was 9·5 months (95% CI 8·3-10·9) versus 8·3 months (6·3-8·7) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·53-0·96]; p=0·027). The most common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (17 [13%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 12 [9%] of 135 patients in the placebo group) and asthenia (ten [7%] vs six [4%]). The most common grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in P2 was neutropenia (23 [17%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 28 [21%] of 135 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 67 (49%) of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group and 52 (39%) of 135 patients in the placebo group. Two (15%) of 13 deaths in the enzalutamide group (caused by septic shock and haematuria) and one (14%) of seven deaths in the placebo group (caused by actue kidney injury) were associated with docetaxel.PRESIDE met its primary endpoint and showed that continuing enzalutamide with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy delayed time to progression compared with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy alone, supporting the hypothesis that enzalutamide maintenance could control persistent androgen-dependent clones in men with mCRPC who progress after treatment with enzalutamide alone.Astellas Pharma and Pfizer.

Background: We previously demonstrated the cumulative poor prognostic role of concomitant medications on the clinical outcome of patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, creating and validating a drug-based prognostic score to be calculated before immunotherapy initiation in patients with advanced solid tumours. This ‘drug score’ was calculated assigning score 1 for each between proton-pump inhibitor and antibiotic administration until a month before cancer therapy initiation and score 2 in case of corticosteroid intake. The good risk group included patients with score 0, intermediate risk with score 1–2 and poor risk with score 3–4. Methods: Aiming at validating the prognostic and putative predictive ability depending on the anticancer therapy, we performed the present comparative analysis in two cohorts of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), respectively, receiving first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy through a random case-control matching and through a pooled multivariable analysis including the interaction between the computed score and the therapeutic modality (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy). Results: Nine hundred fifty and 595 patients were included in the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. After the case-control random matching, 589 patients from the pembrolizumab cohort and 589 from the chemotherapy cohort were paired, with no statistically significant differences between the characteristics of the matched subjects. Among the pembrolizumab-treated group, good, intermediate and poor risk evaluable patients achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 50.0%, 37.7% and 23.4%, respectively, (p < 0.0001), whereas among the chemotherapy-treated group, patients achieved an ORR of 37.0%, 40.0% and 32.4%, respectively (p = 0.4346). The median progression-free survival (PFS) of good, intermediate and poor risk groups was 13.9 months, 6.3 months and 2.8 months, respectively, within the pembrolizumab cohort (p < 0.0001), and 6.2 months, 6.2 months and 4.3 months, respectively, within the chemotherapy cohort (p = 0.0280). Among the pembrolizumab-treated patients, the median overall survival (OS) for good, intermediate and poor risk patients was 31.4 months, 14.5 months and 5.8 months, respectively, (p < 0.0001), whereas among the chemotherapy-treated patients, it was 18.3 months, 16.8 months and 10.6 months, respectively (p = 0.0003). A similar trend was reported considering the two entire populations. At the pooled analysis, the interaction term between the score and the therapeutic modality was statistically significant with respect to ORR (p = 0.0052), PFS (p = 0.0003) and OS (p < 0.0001), confirming the significantly different effect of the score within the two cohorts. Conclusion: Our ‘drug score’ showed a predictive ability with respect to ORR in the immunotherapy cohort only, suggesting it might be a useful tool for identifying patients unlikely to benefit from first-line single-agent pembrolizumab. In addition, the prognostic stratification in terms of PFS and OS was significantly more pronounced among the pembrolizumab-treated patients.

Background The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy as second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC) has not been evaluated prospectively. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab following disease progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy in patients with mRCC. Design, setting, and participants IMmotion150 was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of patients with untreated mRCC. Patients randomized to the atezolizumab or sunitinib arm who had investigator-assessed progression as per RECIST 1.1 could be treated with second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Intervention Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (IV) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 wk following disease progression on either atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The secondary endpoints analyzed during the second-line part of IMmotion150 included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. PFS was examined using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results and limitations Fifty-nine patients in the atezolizumab arm and 78 in the sunitinib arm were eligible, and 103 initiated second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezolizumab arm, n = 44; sunitinib arm, n = 59). ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 27% (19–37%). The median PFS (95% CI) from the start of second line was 8.7 (5.6–13.7) mo. The median event follow-up duration was 19.4 (12.9–21.9) mo among the 25 patients without a PFS event. Eighty-six (83%) patients had treatment-related adverse events; 31 of 103 (30%) had grade 3/4 events. Limitations were the small sample size and selection for progressors. Conclusions The atezolizumab + bevacizumab combination had activity and was tolerable in patients with progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib. Further studies are needed to investigate sequencing strategies in mRCC. Patient summary Patients with advanced kidney cancer whose disease had worsened during treatment with atezolizumab or sunitinib began second-line treatment with atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Tumors shrank in more than one-quarter of patients treated with this combination, and side effects were manageable.

Introduction The incidence of kidney cancer is increasing; it could be counteracted with new ways to predict and detect it. We aimed to implement an artificial neural network in order to predict new cases of renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) in the population using population rate, obesity, smoking incidence, uncontrolled hypertension, and life expectancy data in the United States. Patients and Methods Statistics were collected on US population numbers, life expectancy, obesity, smoking, and hypertension. We used MATLAB R2018 (MathWorks) software to implement an artificial neural network. Data were repeatedly and randomly divided into training (70%) and validation (30%) subsets. Results The number of new RCC cases will grow from 44,400 (2020) to 55,400 (2050), an increase of +24.7%. Our data show that preventing hypertension would have the greatest impact on reduction of the incidence, estimated at −775 and −575 cases per year in 2020 and in 2030, respectively. The prevention of obesity and smoking would have a more limited impact, estimated at −64 and −180 cases per year in 2020 and in 2030, respectively, for obesity, and −173 and −21 cases per year in 2020 and in 2030, respectively, for smoking. Conclusions Our predictions underline the need for accurate studies on RCC-related risk factors to reduce the incidence.

[68Ga]-Ga-PSMA-PET/CT (PSMA-PET) is routinely performed in many patients who have received or are receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT). However, potentially occurring interactions of ADT on PSMA expression in men with Prostate cancer (PCa) have not been yet fully investigated nor understood. Since an influence of ADT on the expression of PSMA was observed in both in vitro and in vivo studies, relevant implications for image interpretation and PSMA-radioligand therapy (RLT) timing may arise from a better understanding of such a phenomenon. In this mini review, we analyzed the most relevant clinical literature on this topic (PubMed). We also presented a case series of two patients who underwent sequential PSMA-PET during ADT. We found a total of five studies which investigated the effect of ADT on PSMA expression on 43 patients at different stages of the natural history of the disease. Four studies investigated the effect of short-term ADT and detected an increase of PSMA expression (more or less heterogeneous). The remaining study investigated the long-term ADT effect, demonstrating a decrease in most lesions. In our case series, despite a complete PSA response, we observed a rapid up-regulation of PSMA expression in our PSMA-PET imaging immediately after ADT administration. Although clinical evidence remains inconclusive, a short-term ADT administration may seem to increase PSMA expression in some selected cases, while long-term ADT might have the opposite effect at least in castrate sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) patients, even if potentially leading to an early selection of those lesions most at risk of becoming castrate resistant.

Background Immunotherapy has brought clinical benefits to patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Most patients tolerate immunotherapy but serious immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have been reported. Some studies indicate a correlation between irAEs and clinical response in other cancer types (eg, lung cancer and melanoma). For patients with mRCC, the impact of irAE on clinical outcome is unknown. Patients and Methods A retrospective review of 167 patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab as standard of care between March 2017 and January 2018 in 16 Italian centers was performed. irAEs were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.0. Results Any grade and grade 3/4 irAEs occurred in 46% and 8.9% of patients, respectively. The median time to appearance of irAEs was 10 weeks; 38.8% of patients required steroid treatment. The most common irAEs were cutaneous (33.7%) and gastrointestinal (23.3%). The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 20.13 and 7.86 months, respectively. Patients with irAEs showed a greater overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.63) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29-0.66) benefit as well as better overall response rate (27.3% vs. 13.7%; odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.03-5.44) and disease control rate (68.8% vs. 48%; odds ratio, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.23-4.67) if compared with those without irAEs. No correlation was found between steroid use and clinical outcomes. Conclusions Our analysis revealed that the appearance of irAEs was associated with better outcomes in patients treated with nivolumab. This data may be limited by sample size and the retrospective nature of the study.

Background Despite the increasing treatments options, reliable biomarkers of response are still missing for patients affected by metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Methods Patients affected by mRCC undergoing standard first line treatment were enrolled. Twelve ml of blood were drawn at treatment baseline and circulating free DNA (cfDNA) was extracted from plasma. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) analyses were performed on cfDNA using the Pan-Cancer Cell-Free Assay and clinical outcomes were correlated with liquid biopsy. Results A total of 48 patients were enrolled, 12 received immunotherapy and 36 received a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). A cfDNA cut-off of 0.883 ng/µl stratified patients based on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (p=0.001 and p=0.008, respectively). cfDNA amount was also correlated with best response (p=0.006). A further cfDNA cut-point divided patients into short, intermediate and long responders, with a PFS of 4.87 vs 9.13 vs 23.1 months, respectively (pConclusions The present study demonstrates that cfDNA and TP53 may be used as predictive biomarkers of response in mRCC.

This is a retrospective analysis on the safety and activity of compassionate Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) administered to patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) with intermediate or poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score as a first-line regimen. IPI was infused at 1 mg/kg in combination with Nivolumab 3 mg/kg every three weeks for four doses, followed by maintenance Nivolumab (240 or 480 mg flat dose every two or four weeks, respectively) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 324 patients started IPI-NIVO at 86 Italian centers. Median age was 62 years, 68.2% IMDC intermediate risk. Primary tumor had been removed in 65.1% of patients. Two hundred and twenty patients (67.9%) completed the four IPI-NIVO doses. Investigator-assessed overall response rate was 37.6% (2.8% complete). Twelve-month survival rate was 66.8%, median progression-free survival was 8.3 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 67 patients (26.9%). IMDC intermediate risk, nephrectomy, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, and steroid use for toxicities correlated with improved survival, while age < 70 years did not. IPI-NIVO combination is a feasible and effective regimen for the first-line treatment of intermediate-poor IMDC risk mRCC patients in routine clinical practice.

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.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.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).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.

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.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.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.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.National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.

Data on spectrum and grade of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in long-term responders to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are lacking.We performed a retrospective multicenter study to characterized irAEs occurring after a 12-months minimum treatment period with PD-(L)1 ICIs in advanced cancer patients. IrAEs were categorized into “early” (≤12 months) and “late” (>12 months).From September 2013 to October 2019, 436 consecutive patients were evaluated. 223 experienced any grade early-irAEs (51.1%), while 132 experienced any grade late-irAEs (30.3%) (p < 0.0001). Among the latter, 29 (22%) experienced a recurrence of an early-irAEs, while 103 (78%) experienced de novo late-irAEs involving different system/organ. Among patients with late-irAEs, 21 experienced G3/G4 irAEs (4.8%). Median time to onset of early-irAEs was 3.4 months (95%CI: 2.8-4.2), while the median time to onset of late-irAEs was 16.6 months (95%CI: 15.8-17.6). Cumulative time-adjusted risk of disease progression according to both the early-irAEs (HR = 0.63 [95%CI: 0.30-1.29], p = 0.204) and late-irAEs occurrence revealed no statistically significant differences (HR = 0.75 [95%CI: 0.37-1.56], p = 0.452). Also the time-adjusted cumulative risk of death according to both early-irAEs (HR = 0.79 [95%CI: 0.34-1.86], p = 0.598) and late-irAEs (HR = 0.92 [95%CI: 0.49-1.74], p = 0.811) did not show statistically significant differences.Although less frequent than early-irAEs, late-irAEs are quite common in long responders to PD-(L)1 ICIs, and are different in terms of spectrum and grade. Time-adjusted analysis revealed that the cumulative risk of disease progression and death were not significantly reduced in patients who experienced late-irAEs.

Objective To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and methods Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. Results Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Conclusion PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

Several studies have found an association between higher body mass index (BMI) and improved clinical outcomes in cancer patients receiving programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors. In a previous study, we found that overweight/obese patients were significantly more likely to experience any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) compared to non-overweight patients.We conducted a 'real-life', multi centre, retrospective observational study aimed at comparing the incidence of irAEs among cancer patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors according to baseline BMI.One thousand and seventy advanced cancer patients were evaluated. The median age was 68 years (range: 21-92), male/female ratio was 724/346. Primary tumours were: non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) (653 patients), melanoma (233 patients), renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (152 patients) and others (29 patients). Median BMI was 25 (13.6-46.6); according to World Health Organisation (WHO) classification, 44 patients (4.1%) were defined as underweight, 480 patients (44.9%) as having a normal weight, 416 patients (38.9%) as overweight and 130 patients (12.1%) as obese. Higher BMI was significantly related to higher occurrence of any grade immune-related adverse events [irAEs] (p 0.0001), G3/G4 irAEs (p 0.0001) and irAEs leading to discontinuation (LTD) (p 0.0001). Overweight and obesity were confirmed predictors for irAEs of any grade at both univariate and multivariate analysis. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) (compared to normal-weight) were 10.6; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 7.5-14.9 for overweight, and 16.6 (95%CI: 10.3-26.7) for obese patients. Obesity was the only factor significantly related to a higher incidence of G3/G4 irAEs (OR = 11.9 [95%CI: 6.4-22.3], p 0.0001) and LTD irAEs (OR = 8.8 [95%CI: 4.3-18.2], p 0.0001). Overweight and obese patients experienced a significantly higher occurrence of cutaneous, endocrine, gastro-intestinal (GI), hepatic and 'others' irAEs, compared to normal-weight patients. Only obese patients experienced a significantly higher occurrence of pulmonary and rheumatic irAEs, compared to normal-weight patients.Considering the previously evidenced association between higher BMI and better outcome, the current finding about the relationship between BMI and irAEs occurrence can contribute to consideration of these findings as the upside of the downside, which underlies an 'immunogenic phenotype'.

Background Planning for and managing patients who follow multidisciplinary paths allow institutions to provide better care administration; greater collaboration among medical staff, patients, and their relatives; better patients education; reduced possible complications related to surgery and hospital stay; and increased patient adherence to the proposed treatments due to better information. The ERAS Society’s guidelines align in this direction, and many institutions are now looking to apply the suggestions contained in its items. This effort is especially important in surgical oncology. In this work, we report the experience of our center in developing tailored guidelines for patients undergoing gastrectomy based on evidence from the literature and adapted to address the availability of personnel and equipment in our institute. Methods A permanent institutional working group was established at St. Mary’s Hospital. Evidence‐based comprehensive research was conducted to find optimal perioperative care management for patients undergoing gastrectomy. Evidence and recommendations were thoroughly evaluated and considered together with the items from the ERAS Society’s guidelines. Results A complete patient pathway has been established from the first outpatient visit to discharge. All ERAS items were considered and adapted to our hospital’s care environment. Education, nutrition, anesthesiologist care, surgical approach, and ward organization are the main points of strength highlighted in the present work. Conclusion This proposed institutional evidence‐based protocol show comprehensive management for patients with gastric cancer eligible for enhanced surgical pathways.

Background Ramucirumab-an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonistplus docetaxel was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in platinum-refractory, advanced urothelial carcinoma. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of overall survival results for the RANGE trial.Methods We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 investigative sites (hospitals, clinics, and academic centres) in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or placebo 10 mg/kg volume equivalent followed by intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 (60 mg/m 2 in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline, and visceral metastasis. Progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) and overall survival (a key secondary endpoint) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426125; patient enrolment is complete and the last patient on treatment is being followed up for safety issues.Findings Between July 20, 2015, and April 4, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated to ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. At database lock (March 21, 2018) for the final overall survival analysis, median follow-up was 7.4 months (IQR 3.5-13.9). In our sensitivity analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival at the overall survival database lock, median progression-free survival remained significantly improved with ramucirumab compared with placebo (4.1 months [95% CI 3.3-4.8] vs 2.8 months [2.6-2.9]; HR 0.696 [95% CI 0.573-0.845]; p=0.0002). Median overall survival was 9.4 months (95% CI 7.9-11.4) in the ramucirumab group versus 7.9 months (7.0-9.3) in the placebo group (stratified HR 0.887 [95% CI 0.724-1.086]; p=0.25). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in 5% or more of patients and with an incidence more than 2% higher with ramucirumab than with placebo were febrile neutropenia (24 [9%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 16 [6%] of 265 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (17 [7%] of 258 vs six [2%] of 265). Serious adverse events were similar between groups (112 [43%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 107 [40%] of 265 patients in the placebo group). Adverse events related to study treatment and leading to death occurred in eight (3%) patients in the ramucirumab group versus five (2%) patients in the placebo group.Interpretation Additional follow-up supports that ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improves progression-free survival, without a significant improvement in overall survival, for patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clinically meaningful benefit might be restricted in an unselected population. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 RANGE trial found ramucirumab/docetaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo/docetaxel (median 4.1 vs 2.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.757, p = 0.0118) for treatment of platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Some patients received an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) prior to RANGE. In other studies, unselected patients with platinum-refractory UC exhibited an overall response rate (ORR) of 15–31% to ICIs. OBJECTIVE: Efficacy and safety data from the subgroup of patients treated with prior ICI were examined using prespecified analyses to compare outcomes between RANGE treatment arms. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind RANGE study (n = 530) took place July 2015-April 2017 in 23 countries. Forty-five patients (8.5%) received prior ICI. PFS was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: 17 ramucirumab/docetaxel arm, 28 placebo/docetaxel arm patients were treated with an ICI. The prior-ICI ramucirumab subgroup had worse Bellmunt scores at baseline versus placebo (score of 2-3 : 70.6% vs 25%, respectively). Most patients (84.4%) received the ICI immediately following platinum and immediately prior to RANGE. ORR to prior ICI was 6.7% Responses were achieved by 5/17 (29.4%) on ramucirumab/docetaxel, compared to 2/28 (7.1%) on placebo/docetaxel. Median PFS was 3.15 months on ramucirumab/docetaxel versus 2.73 months on placebo/docetaxel (HR = 0.786, 95% CI = 0.404–1.528, p = 0.4877). The frequency of grade≥3 adverse events was similar between arms. Limitations include sample size and treatment setting of the analyzed population. CONCLUSIONS: Ramucirumab/docetaxel may provide a clinical benefit with acceptable safety in the third-line setting for metastatic UC patients whose disease has progressed on both prior platinum chemotherapy and ICI therapy.

Constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with an increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancers. Current evidence indicates that BRCA1/2 PVs are also associated with pancreatic cancer, and that BRCA2 PVs are associated with prostate cancer risk. The identification of carriers of constitutional PVs in the BRCA1/2 genes allows the implementation of individual and family prevention pathways, through validated screening programs and risk-reducing strategies. According to the relevant and increasing therapeutic predictive implications, the inclusion of BRCA testing in the routine management of patients with breast, ovarian, pancreatic and prostate cancers represent a key requirement to optimize medical or surgical therapeutic and prevention decision-making, and access to specific anticancer therapies. Therefore, accurate patient selection, the use of standardized and harmonized procedures, and adherence to homogeneous testing criteria, are essential elements to implement BRCA testing in clinical practice. This consensus position paper has been developed and approved by a multidisciplinary Expert Panel of 64 professionals on behalf of the AIOM-AIRO-AISP-ANISC-AURO-Fondazione AIOM-SIAPEC/IAP-SIBioC-SICO-SIF-SIGE-SIGU-SIU-SIURO-UROP Italian Scientific Societies, and a patient association (aBRCAdaBRA Onlus). The working group included medical, surgical and radiation oncologists, medical and molecular geneticists, clinical molecular biologists, surgical and molecular pathologists, organ specialists such as gynecologists, gastroenterologists and urologists, and pharmacologists. The manuscript is based on the expert consensus and reports the best available evidence, according to the current eligibility criteria for BRCA testing and counseling, it also harmonizes with current Italian National Guidelines and Clinical Recommendations.

We aimed to overcome intratumoral heterogeneity in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (clearRCC). One hundred cases of clearRCC were sampled. First, usual standard sampling was applied (1 block/cm of tumor); second, the whole tumor was sampled, and 0.6 mm cores were taken from each block to construct a tissue microarray; third, the residual tissue, mapped by taking pieces 0.5 × 0.5 cm, reconstructed the entire tumor mass. Precisely, six randomly derived pieces of tissues were placed in each cassette, with the number of cassettes being based on the diameter of the tumor (called multisite 3D fusion). Angiogenic and immune markers were tested. Routine 5231 tissue blocks were obtained. Multisite 3D fusion sections showed pattern A, homogeneous high vascular density (10%), pattern B, homogeneous low vascular density (8%) and pattern C, heterogeneous angiogenic signatures (82%). PD-L1 expression was seen as diffuse (7%), low (33%) and absent (60%). Tumor-infiltrating CD8 scored high in 25% (pattern hot), low in 65% (pattern weak) and zero in 10% of cases (pattern desert). Grading was upgraded in 26% of cases (G3–G4), necrosis and sarcomatoid/rhabdoid characters were observed in, respectively, 11 and 7% of cases after 3D fusion (p = 0.03). CD8 and PD-L1 immune expressions were higher in the undifferentiated G4/rhabdoid/sarcomatoid clearRCC subtypes (p = 0.03). Again, 22% of cases were set to intermediate to high risk of clinical recurrence due to new morphological findings of all aggressive G4, sarcomatoid/rhabdoid features by using 3D fusion compared to standard methods (p = 0.04). In conclusion, we propose an easy-to-apply multisite 3D fusion sampling that negates bias due to tumor heterogeneity.

Approximately 10–20% of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbor an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) [...]

688 Background: Pembrolizumab/axitinib (PAXI) combination is an approved option as first-line therapy of mRCC. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate safety profile of PAXI combo in the real-world experience in Italy. Methods: This is a prospective study including patients (pts) diagnosed with mRCC who received PAXI as first-line therapy in recruiting Italian Centers. Safety data about clinically significant adverse events (AEs), defined as AE requiring corticosteroids, hormone replacement, drug delay, discontinuation or dose reduction were collected. Results: Data from 122 pts treated from January 2021 to September 2022 have been analyzed. With a median follow-up of 10 mos (range 0.2 - 21) and treatment interruption in 35 pts (29%), at landmark 6-mos and 12-mos the treatment was ongoing in 76% (95%CI 0.67-0.83) and 66% of pts (95%CI 0.56-0.75) respectively. In 11% of pts a starting dose of Axi

469 Background: In the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432), avelumab (anti–PD-L1) 1LM plus best supportive care (BSC) in patients (pts) with la/mUC whose disease did not progress after 1L platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) significantly extended overall survival (OS) vs BSC alone, and it is now recommended internationally as standard of care with level 1 evidence. We report real-world descriptive pt characteristics and outcomes data from a large, multicenter, Italian compassionate use program (CUP) assessing avelumab 1LM in pts with la/mUC. Methods: This prospective, noninterventional CUP was initiated on Jan 18, 2021, to provide early access to avelumab before reimbursement by the Italian Medicines Agency for pts with la/mUC. Avelumab was provided upon physician request and after approval by local ethics committees in accordance with the Italian compassionate use regulation. Avelumab 800 mg IV was administered every 2 weeks per local prescribing information to adult pts aged ≥18 years with la/mUC who were progression-free following PBC (4-6 cycles, starting 4-10 weeks after last dose of PBC). Pts who had a relapse within 12 months of prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant systemic therapy, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, were not eligible. Results: As of Aug 16, 2022, 464 pts (78.4% male, 21.6% female) were included from 140 Italian centers from Jan 2021-Mar 2022. Median age at inclusion was 70 years (IQR, 63-76 years). At the start of 1L PBC, 346 pts (73.9%) had metastatic disease and 40 (8.6%) had unresectable locally advanced disease (disease stage not defined [N/D] in 78 pts [16.8%]). ECOG PS was 0 in 321 pts (69.2%), 1 in 140 (30.2%), and N/D in 3 (0.7%). Primary tumor site was upper tract in 148 pts (31.9%) and lower tract in 309 (66.6%) (N/D in 7 [1.5%]). 1L PBC comprised carboplatin + gemcitabine in 241 pts (51.9%), cisplatin + gemcitabine in 214 (46.1%), and other PBC in 9 (1.9%); 225 pts (48.5%) received 4 cycles of PBC, 54 (11.6%) received 5 cycles, and 177 (38.2%) received 6 cycles (other or N/D in 8 [1.7%]). Complete response to 1L PBC was achieved in 51 pts (11.0%), partial response in 266 (57.3%), and stable disease in 147 (31.7%). For 391 pts currently evaluable for OS and progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of avelumab, the 12-month OS rate was 69.1% (95% CI, 64.4%-73.6%), while median OS was not reached. The 12-month PFS rate was 38.9% (95% CI, 34.0%-43.7%) and median PFS was 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.6-8.9 months). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 33 pts (7.1%). Conclusions: This CUP included a large pt population representative of daily clinical practice in 140 Italian oncology centers and the results are consistent with those of previous studies. Overall, these real-world data strengthen the findings of JAVELIN Bladder 100 and provide further support for avelumab 1LM as a standard of care in eligible pts with la/mUC.

439 Background: The EV-103 Cohort K trial evaluated 1L EV+P or EV alone (NCT03288545) in pts with la/mUC who were cisplatin-ineligible. EV+P showed a clinically meaningful objective response rate (64.5%; 95% CI, 52.7–75.1) with a manageable safety profile. Because la/mUC is associated with symptoms with a frequent impact on quality of life (QOL) and functioning (Mamtani et al. JCO 2021), we describe the impact of EV+P or EV alone on QOL and symptoms. Methods: In this open-label, Phase 1b/2 trial, cisplatin-ineligible pts with la/mUC were randomized 1:1 to EV+P or EV alone. For exploratory PRO endpoints, pts completed EORTC QLQ-C30 and the BPI-SF at baseline, weekly for cycles 1–3, and once every cycle for the remainder of treatment period. The PRO analysis set included only pts who were treated and completed the questionnaire at baseline. Mixed effect models for repeated measures (MMRM; least squares [LS] mean, standard error [SE]) not adjusted for multiplicity, estimated change vs baseline until Week 24; established thresholds (EORTC QLQ-C30: 10-point change; BPI-SF: 2-point change) were applied to determine clinically meaningful change. Results: Of the 76 pts treated with EV+P, 65 were included in the PRO analysis set. EORTC QLQ-C30 and BPI-SF were completed by 100% and 95%, respectively, at baseline; compliance rates were ≥84% for both instruments through Week 24. In the EORTC QLQ-C30 MMRM analyses, QOL was maintained through Week 24 for EV+P; functioning and symptom scores remained stable over time, with improvements in emotional functioning, pain and sleep disturbance vs observed baseline. In the EV+P arm, clinically meaningful reductions in pain were seen at Week 12 (-12.64 [3.208]) vs baseline and persisted through Week 24 (-13.20 [3.406]). In the BPI-SF MMRM analyses, worst and average pain, pain interference and severity consistently showed improved scores from Week 4–24 for EV+P; clinically meaningful change in worst pain was seen at Week 21 (-2.08 [0.361]). Similar completion and compliance rates were seen for the EV alone PRO analysis set (n=63). EV alone demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in pain at Week 24 in the EORTC QLQ-C30 (-10.63 [4.110]) and consistent small-to-moderate improvements in the BPI worst and average pain, and pain severity (0.5–1.0 points). Sleep disturbances demonstrated improvement, and other symptom scales, QOL and functional domains remained stable. Conclusions: PRO data showed that EV+P in cisplatin-ineligible pts with la/mUC was associated with preservation or improvement of QOL, functioning, and symptoms. Improvement in pain was demonstrated consistently in both PRO instruments and treatment arms. These PRO data complement the clinical outcomes of EV+P in 1L cisplatin-ineligible pts with la/mUC. Clinical trial information: NCT03288545 .

Background: A subset of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), deemed as primary refractory, shows progressive disease as the best response to first-line therapy even when treated with novel immune-based combos. Objective: We aimed to assess the outcome of patients treated with second-line cabozantinib for mRCC primary refractory to first-line therapy defined as Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) progression in the computed tomography scan as the best response to the upfront treatment. Design, setting, and participants: We retrospectively collected data from 11 worldwide centers. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox proportional models were used at univariate and multivariate analyses. Results and limitations: We collected data from 108 patients with mRCC primary refractory to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (17%), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (36%), or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs; 31% sunitinib and 16% pazopanib). The median OS with cabozantinib was 9.11 mo, and it was 8.84 and 9.11 mo in patients primary refractory to immunocombinations and TKIs, respectively (p = 0.952). A significant difference was found between patients primary refractory to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (OS not reached) and those primary refractory to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (median OS 8.12 mo, p = 0.024). The median PFS with cabozantinib was 7.30 mo, without significant differences between patients primary refractory to immunocombinations and those primary refractory to TKIs (6.90 vs 7.59 mo, p = 0.435) or between patients primary refractory to pembrolizumab plus axitinib and those primary refractory to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (7.92 and 6.02, p = 0.509). Investigator-assessed overall response rates were 21% and 12% in patients primary refractory to first-line immunocombinations and TKIs, respectively, with a clinical benefit of 48% in the overall population. Conclusions: Our data show that cabozantinib is active in primary refractory mRCC patients regardless of which treatment is received as first-line therapy. Systemic options and prognosis of primary refractory patients with mRCC, particularly those treated with novel immune-based combos, are among the major challenges that we need to face in this field. Patient summary: Patients primary refractory to first-line therapy are characterized by a poor prognosis. Herein, we aimed to assess the outcome of patients treated with second-line cabozantinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) primary refractory to first-line therapy. Our results suggest that cabozantinib is active in primary refractory mRCC patients.

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