Search

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Purpose: The efficacy of cetuximab is poor in metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Cetuximab initiates natural killer (NK) cell–mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, with resultant recruitment of immune cells and suppression of antitumor immunity. We hypothesized that adding an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) could overcome this and lead to an enhanced antitumor response. Patients and Methods: A phase II study of cetuximab and durvalumab in metastatic HNSCC was conducted. Eligible patients had measurable disease. Patients who had received both cetuximab and an ICI were excluded. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1 at 6 months. Results: As of April 2022, 35 patients enrolled, of whom 33 received at least 1 dose of durvalumab and were included in the response analysis. Eleven patients (33%) had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy, 10 an ICI (30%), and 1 patient (3%) cetuximab. ORR was 39% (13/33) with a median duration of response of 8.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5–16.8]. Median progression-free and overall survivals were 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.7–14.1) and 9.6 months (95% CI: 4.8–16.3), respectively. There were 16 grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) and one grade 4 TRAE, with no treatment-related deaths. Overall and progression-free survival did not correlate with PD-L1 status. NK cell cytotoxic activity was increased by cetuximab and further increased with the addition of durvalumab in responders. Conclusions: The combination of cetuximab and durvalumab demonstrated durable activity with a tolerable safety profile in metastatic HNSCC and warrants further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin for treating cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH. DESIGN: Cohort-state transition decision analytic model. DATA SOURCES: Network meta-analysis comparing DOACs versus LMWH. TARGET POPULATION: Adult patients with cancer at the time they develop thrombosis. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector. INTERVENTION: Strategies of 1) enoxaparin, 2) apixaban, 3) edoxaban, and 4) rivaroxaban for treatment of CAT. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: In the base-case scenario, using drug prices from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, apixaban dominated enoxaparin and edoxaban by being less costly and more effective. Rivaroxaban was slightly more effective than apixaban, with an ICER of $493246. In a scenario analysis using “real-world” drug prices from GoodRx, rivaroxaban was cost-effective with an ICER of $50053 per QALY. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were highly sensitive to monthly drug costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, apixaban was preferred in 80% of simulations. However, sensitivity analyses also demonstrated that apixaban only remained cost-effective if monthly medication costs were below $530. Above this, rivaroxaban became cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: An assumption was made that patients would continue anticoagulation indefinitely unless they suffered a major bleed. Nonmedical costs such as patient and caregiver loss of productivity were not accounted for, and long-term thrombotic complications were not explicitly modeled. CONCLUSION: The 3 DOACs are more effective and more cost-effective than LMWH. The most cost-effective DOAC depends on the relative cost of each of these agents. These are important considerations for treating physicians and health policymakers.

Supplementary Figure 5. Comparison of outcomes between patients that were PD-L1 positive vs. negative A) Progression-free survival and B) Overall survival comparison

Purpose:The efficacy of cetuximab is poor in metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Cetuximab initiates natural killer (NK) cell–mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, with resultant recruitment of immune cells and suppression of antitumor immunity. We hypothesized that adding an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) could overcome this and lead to an enhanced antitumor response.Patients and Methods:A phase II study of cetuximab and durvalumab in metastatic HNSCC was conducted. Eligible patients had measurable disease. Patients who had received both cetuximab and an ICI were excluded. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1 at 6 months.Results:As of April 2022, 35 patients enrolled, of whom 33 received at least 1 dose of durvalumab and were included in the response analysis. Eleven patients (33%) had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy, 10 an ICI (30%), and 1 patient (3%) cetuximab. ORR was 39% (13/33) with a median duration of response of 8.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5–16.8]. Median progression-free and overall survivals were 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.7–14.1) and 9.6 months (95% CI: 4.8–16.3), respectively. There were 16 grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) and one grade 4 TRAE, with no treatment-related deaths. Overall and progression-free survival did not correlate with PD-L1 status. NK cell cytotoxic activity was increased by cetuximab and further increased with the addition of durvalumab in responders.Conclusions:The combination of cetuximab and durvalumab demonstrated durable activity with a tolerable safety profile in metastatic HNSCC and warrants further investigation.

All adverse events on trial

Study protocol

Purpose: Locoregional relapse in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is common, approaching 50% for some subsites despite multimodality therapy. Salvage surgery is the standard of care, but able to achieve durable control in only a minority of patients. While adjuvant radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy is offered to select patients, this approach can be prohibitively toxic. Given the activity and tolerability of programmed death-1 inhibitors in metastatic HNSCC, we investigated the safety and efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab after salvage surgical resection. Patients and Methods: This was an open-label, multi-institutional phase II clinical trial (NCT03355560). Patients with recurrent, resectable HNSCC were enrolled within 6 weeks of salvage surgery. Six 28-day cycles of adjuvant nivolumab were planned. The primary endpoint was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) more than 58%, based on an institutional historical control group of 71 patients with recurrent HNSCC who underwent salvage surgery. Results: Between February 2018 and February 2020, 39 patients were enrolled. At a median follow-up of 22.1 months, 2-year DFS was 71.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 57.8–88.1] and the 2-year overall survival (OS) was 73% (95% CI, 58–91.8). Three of 39 (8%) patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events and 3 of 39 (8%) discontinued treatment due to side effects. Ten of 39 had locoregional recurrence, while 2 of 10 also had synchronous metastatic disease. There was no difference in DFS between PD ligand-1 (PD-L1)–positive and PD-L1–negative patients. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved DFS in patients with high tumor mutational burden (P = 0.083). Conclusions: Adjuvant nivolumab after salvage surgery in locally recurrent HNSCC is well tolerated and showed improved DFS compared with historical controls.

BACKGROUND: The gene that encodes BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) has been reported to be dysregulated in several human cancers such as uveal melanoma, malignant pleural mesothelioma, hepatocellular carcinoma, thymic epithelial tumors, and clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). The gene is located on the human chromosome 3p21.3, encoding a deubiquitinase and acts as a classic two-hit tumor suppressor gene. BAP1 predominantly resides in the nucleus, where it interacts with several chromatin-associated factors, as well as regulates calcium signaling in the cytoplasm. As newer therapies continue to evolve for the management of RCC, it is important to understand the role of BAP1 mutation as a prognostic and predictive biomarker. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically evaluate the role of BAP1 mutations in patients with RCC in terms of its impact on prognosis and its role as a predictive biomarker. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic literature search using PubMed and Embase through March 2021. Titles and abstracts were screened to identify articles for full-text and then a descriptive review was performed. RESULTS: A total of 490 articles were initially identified. Ultimately 71 articles that met our inclusion criteria published between 2012–2021 were included in the analysis. Data were extracted and organized to reflect the role of BAP1 alterations as a marker of prognosis as well as a marker of response to treatments, such as mTOR inhibitors, VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Alterations in BAP1 appear to be uniformly associated with poor prognosis in patients with RCC. Knowledge gaps remain with regard to the predictive relevance of BAP1 alterations, especially in the context of immunotherapy. Prospective studies are required to more precisely ascertain the predictive value of BAP1 alterations in RCC.

Supplementary Figure from Phase II Trial of Adjuvant Nivolumab Following Salvage Resection in Patients with Recurrent Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

Supplementary Figure from Phase II Clinical Trial of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Resectable Local–Regionally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Supplementary Data from Phase II Clinical Trial of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Resectable Local–Regionally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Purpose:Patients with resected, local–regionally advanced, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have a one-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 65%–69% despite adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. Neoadjuvant PD-1 immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated clinical activity, but biomarkers of response and effect on survival remain unclear.Patients and Methods:Eligible patients had resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx, hypopharynx, or oropharynx (p16-negative) and clinical stage T3-T4 and/or two or more nodal metastases or clinical extracapsular nodal extension (ENE). Patients received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg 1–3 weeks prior to surgery, were stratified by absence (intermediate-risk) or presence (high-risk) of positive margins and/or ENE, and received adjuvant radiotherapy (60–66 Gy) and concurrent pembrolizumab (every 3 weeks × 6 doses). Patients with high-risk HNSCC also received weekly, concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m2). Primary outcome was one-year DFS. Secondary endpoints were one-year overall survival (OS) and pathologic response (PR). Safety was evaluated with CTCAE v5.0.Results:From February 2016 to October 2020, 92 patients enrolled. The median age was 59 years (range, 27–80), 30% were female, 86% had stage T3–T4, and 69% had ≥N2. At a median follow-up of 28 months, one-year DFS was 97% (95% CI, 71%–90%) in the intermediate-risk group and 66% (95% CI, 55%–84%) in the high-risk group. Patients with a PR had significantly improved one-year DFS relative to patients without response (93% vs. 72%, hazard ratio 0.29; 95% CI, 11%–77%). No new safety signals were identified.Conclusions:Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab increased one-year DFS rate in intermediate-risk, but not high-risk, HNSCC relative to historical control. PR to neoadjuvant ICB is a promising surrogate for DFS.

Supplementary Table from Phase II Clinical Trial of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Resectable Local–Regionally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Purpose:Locoregional relapse in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is common, approaching 50% for some subsites despite multimodality therapy. Salvage surgery is the standard of care, but able to achieve durable control in only a minority of patients. While adjuvant radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy is offered to select patients, this approach can be prohibitively toxic. Given the activity and tolerability of programmed death-1 inhibitors in metastatic HNSCC, we investigated the safety and efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab after salvage surgical resection.Patients and Methods:This was an open-label, multi-institutional phase II clinical trial (NCT03355560). Patients with recurrent, resectable HNSCC were enrolled within 6 weeks of salvage surgery. Six 28-day cycles of adjuvant nivolumab were planned. The primary endpoint was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) more than 58%, based on an institutional historical control group of 71 patients with recurrent HNSCC who underwent salvage surgery.Results:Between February 2018 and February 2020, 39 patients were enrolled. At a median follow-up of 22.1 months, 2-year DFS was 71.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 57.8–88.1] and the 2-year overall survival (OS) was 73% (95% CI, 58–91.8). Three of 39 (8%) patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events and 3 of 39 (8%) discontinued treatment due to side effects. Ten of 39 had locoregional recurrence, while 2 of 10 also had synchronous metastatic disease. There was no difference in DFS between PD ligand-1 (PD-L1)–positive and PD-L1–negative patients. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved DFS in patients with high tumor mutational burden (P = 0.083).Conclusions:Adjuvant nivolumab after salvage surgery in locally recurrent HNSCC is well tolerated and showed improved DFS compared with historical controls.

Correlative studies’ methodology

Management of kidney cancer has undergone a paradigm shift with the approval of new therapies over the last two decades. Although these drugs have improved clinical outcomes in patients with kidney cancer, there are still a large number of patients who do not show objective responses. A multitude of investigators, including those for The Cancer Genome Atlas have biologically characterized and sub-classified kidney cancer. However, we have not been able to identify molecular targets to effectively treat patients with kidney cancer. As we familiarize ourselves with newer drugs for patients with kidney cancer, it is important to understand that these drugs may not work in every patient and instead may expose patients to unnecessary toxic effects along with burdening society with the financial impact. As we head toward the era of "precision medicine", validated biomarkers are being utilized to guide treatment choices and help identify pathways of resistance in other tumor types. The current review aims at evaluating the progress made so far in this realm for patients with kidney cancer.

BackgroundMetformin slows tumor growth and progression in vitro, and in combination with chemoradiotherapy, resulted in high overall survival in patients with head and neck cancer squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in our phase 1 clinical trial (NCT02325401). Metformin is also postulated to activate an antitumor immune response. Here, we investigate immunologic effects of metformin on natural killer (NK) and natural killer T cells, including results from two phase I open-label studies in patients with HNSCC treated with metformin (NCT02325401,NCT02083692).MethodsPeripheral blood was collected before and after metformin treatment or from newly diagnosed patients with HNSCC. Peripheral immune cell phenotypes were evaluated using flow cytometry, cytokine expression by ELISA and/or IsoLight, and NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity was determined with a flow-based NK cell cytotoxicity assay (NKCA). Patient tumor immune infiltration before and after metformin treatment was analyzed with immunofluorescence. NK cells were treated with either vehicle or metformin and analyzed by RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). NK cells were then treated with inhibitors of significant pathways determined by RNA-seq and analyzed by NKCA, ELISA, and western blot analyses.ResultsIncreased peripheral NK cell activated populations were observed in patients treated with metformin. NK cell tumor infiltration was enhanced in patients with HNSCC treated with metformin preoperatively. Metformin increased antitumorigenic cytokines ex vivo, including significant increases in perforin. Metformin increased HNSCC NK cell cytotoxicity and inhibited the CXCL1 pathway while stimulating the STAT1 pathway within HNSCC NK cells. Exogenous CXCL1 prevented metformin-enhanced NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Metformin-mediated NK cell cytotoxicity was found to be AMP-activated protein kinase independent, but dependent on both mechanistic target of rapamycin and pSTAT1.ConclusionsOur data identifies a new role for metformin-mediated immune antitumorigenic function through NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity and downregulation of CXCL1 in HNSCC. These findings will inform future immunomodulating therapies in HNSCC.

American Society of Hematology conducts an annual meeting, where investigators from around the globe presented ground-breaking research in the fields of malignant and non-malignant hematology. We provide a summary of non-malignant hematology abstracts from the 2020 meeting. Topics included range from those related to thrombosis, including thrombotic complications of COVID-19, bleeding and novel therapies such as gene therapies. Readers are encouraged to access meeting materials for a more detailed coverage of the event.

Purpose: Patients with resected, local–regionally advanced, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have a one-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 65%–69% despite adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. Neoadjuvant PD-1 immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated clinical activity, but biomarkers of response and effect on survival remain unclear. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx, hypopharynx, or oropharynx (p16-negative) and clinical stage T3-T4 and/or two or more nodal metastases or clinical extracapsular nodal extension (ENE). Patients received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg 1–3 weeks prior to surgery, were stratified by absence (intermediate-risk) or presence (high-risk) of positive margins and/or ENE, and received adjuvant radiotherapy (60–66 Gy) and concurrent pembrolizumab (every 3 weeks × 6 doses). Patients with high-risk HNSCC also received weekly, concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m2). Primary outcome was one-year DFS. Secondary endpoints were one-year overall survival (OS) and pathologic response (PR). Safety was evaluated with CTCAE v5.0. Results: From February 2016 to October 2020, 92 patients enrolled. The median age was 59 years (range, 27–80), 30% were female, 86% had stage T3–T4, and 69% had ≥N2. At a median follow-up of 28 months, one-year DFS was 97% (95% CI, 71%–90%) in the intermediate-risk group and 66% (95% CI, 55%–84%) in the high-risk group. Patients with a PR had significantly improved one-year DFS relative to patients without response (93% vs. 72%, hazard ratio 0.29; 95% CI, 11%–77%). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab increased one-year DFS rate in intermediate-risk, but not high-risk, HNSCC relative to historical control. PR to neoadjuvant ICB is a promising surrogate for DFS.

Introduction: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 may have increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Cancer and anti-cancer therapies are well-known additional risk factors for VTE. Nonetheless, the VTE risk in patients with both cancer and COVID-19 infection remains unknown as recent studies have not found an association due to sample size limitations. We report the incidence of and risk factors for VTE and PE among hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) developed an international retrospective cohort study (NCT04354701) to investigate the clinical course and complications of COVID-19 among adult patients with an active or previous history of cancer. For the current study, cumulative incidences of clinically detected VTE and PE were analyzed among hospitalized patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Pre-specified subgroup analysis was performed to examine the interaction between intensive care unit (ICU) admission and recent anti-cancer therapy on VTE outcomes. Bivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between baseline variables and VTE; unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. These variables included age, sex, obesity (BMI>30), race/ethnicity, performance status, comorbidities, blood type, history of VTE, recent surgery, recent anti-cancer therapy, cancer subtype VTE risk grouping (adapted from Khorana Score), pre-admission anticoagulant or antiplatelet use, and ICU admission status. Results: From March 17, 2020 to July 31, 2020, 3914 patients were enrolled in the CCC19 registry. For the present analysis, patients were excluded if they had inadequate follow-up The overall incidence of inhospital VTE and PE was 9.3% and 5.2%, respectively. The corresponding estimates were 13.4% and 7.9% among the ICU subgroup. On bivariable analysis, significant predictors of VTE included ICU admission, recent anti-cancer therapy, active cancer status, cancer subtype VTE risk grouping, and pre-admission antiplatelet use (Table 1). Pre-admission anticoagulant use had significant associations with PE but not VTE. Multivariable adjustment is ongoing to identify independent risk factor for VTE and clarify the impact of pre-admission anticoagulant/antiplatelet use controlled for other potential confounders. Both ICU admission status and anti-cancer therapy increased the risk of VTE independently. Non-ICU patients not on anti-cancer therapy had the lowest incidence of VTE (4.5%), whose estimate was similar to that reported in the non-cancer hospitalized population with COVID-19 infection. Patients with either ICU admission or recent anti-cancer therapy had the intermediate risk (11.0%), whereas ICU patients with recent anti-cancer therapy had the highest risk (16.7%). We did not observe confounding or effect modification by the ICU subgroup on the association between anti-cancer therapy and VTE. Conclusion: In this cohort study of hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19, recent anti-cancer therapy, active disease, high-risk VTE cancer subtypes, and ICU admission have increased risk of VTE and PE, while pre-admission anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy may reduce the risk. This information will aid in developing a risk prediction tool for VTE in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19. Disclosures Kuderer: G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Total Health: Consultancy; Invitae: Consultancy; Beyond Springs: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; celldex: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Warner:HemOnc.orgLLC: Other: Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options; IBM Watson Health: Consultancy; Westat: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding. Shah:American Cancer Society and the Hope Foundation for Cancer Research: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding. Zon:Amagma Therapeutics.: Consultancy, Other: stockholder. Shah:Aspen Pharma: Research Funding. Gulati:Puma Biotechnology: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Isoray: Research Funding. Khaki:Merck: Other: share/stockholder; Pfizer: Other: share/stockholder. Thompson:AIM Specialty Health, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Via Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Synapse Precision Medical Council: Other: Travel expenses; Doximity: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Grivas:Oncogenex: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Debiopharm: Research Funding; Bavarian Nordic,: Research Funding; QED Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mirati Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Heron Therapeutics: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Genzyme: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Foundation Medicine: Honoraria; Exelixis: Honoraria; EMD Serono: Honoraria; Driver: Honoraria; Clovis Oncology: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb,: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Biocept: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. de Lima Lopes:Bavarian Nordic: Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Research Funding; Tesaro: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; G1 Therapeutics: Research Funding; adaptimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; rgenix: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Research Funding. Shyr:Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Speakers Bureau. Pennell:Merck: Consultancy; Cota: Consultancy; Inivata: Consultancy; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Friese:Eli Lilly: Consultancy; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Merck Foundation: Research Funding; National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Consultancy. Patel:reast Cancer Research Foundation: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Odonate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Radius: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding. Halmos:Foundation Medicine: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guardant Health: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli-Lilly: Research Funding; Advaxis: Research Funding; Mirati: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; TPT: Consultancy. Choueiri:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pionyr: Consultancy, Other; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Products Limited: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Lilly: Consultancy, Research Funding; Peloton: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Tempest: Consultancy, Other; Lilly Ventures: Consultancy; International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/12209, entitled "PBRM1 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint Response," filed January 3, 2018, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/445,094, filed January 11, 2017: Patents & Royalties; Prometheus Labs: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Corvus: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cerulean: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; oundation Medicine Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/058430, entitled "Biomarkers of Clinical Response and Benefit to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy," filed October 31, 2018, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/581,175, filed N: Patents & Royalties; Calithera: Research Funding; Analysis Group: Research Funding; Sanofi/Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Consultancy, Honoraria; Up-to-Date: Consultancy, Honoraria; NCCN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lilly Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Heron Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lancet Oncology: Honoraria; NEJM: Honoraria; American Society of Medical Oncology: Honoraria; Harborside Press: Honoraria; Navinata Healthcare: Honoraria; Platform Q: Honoraria; L-path, Kidney Cancer Journal, Clinical Care Options: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Honoraria; PeerView and PER: Honoraria; OnClive: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ipsen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Tracon: Research Funding; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Analysis Group: Consultancy, Honoraria; Michael J. Hennessy (MJH) Associates, Inc: Honoraria. Peters:Debiopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bioinvent: Consultancy, Honoraria; Biocartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Eli Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy, Honoraria; Illumina: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck Sharp and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Serono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merrimack: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharma Mar: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vaccibody: Consultancy, Honoraria; Biodesix: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Clovis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Painter:Roche: Other: stock or other ownership; OPKO Health Inc: Other: stock or other ownership; Inovio: Other: stock or other ownership; Epizyme: Other: stock or other ownership; Pfizer: Other: stock or other ownership. Rini:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; PTC Therapeutics: Other: Sotckholder/stock options; Surface Oncology: Consultancy; Synthorx: Consultancy; 3D Medicine: Consultancy; Arravive: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; AVEO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lyman:Amgen: Research Funding; Mylan: Consultancy; Beyond Spring: Consultancy; Samsung: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Invitae: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy. Connors:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Portola: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbott: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rosovsky:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dova: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy.

Summary Background Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. Methods In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. Findings Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57–76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53–2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07–2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03–2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33–15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11–7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77–9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79–4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07–0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28–0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. Interpretation Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. Funding American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

Treatment paradigm for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has changed dramatically over the recent decades. From cytokines, interleukin-2 and interferon-α to tyrosine kinase inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, during the last decade, combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors have taken over first-line treatment of mccRCC. These combinations are approved based on results from large phase III clinical trials, all of which used sunitinib as the comparator. These trials include CheckMate214 (ipilimumab plus nivolumab), KEYNOTE 426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), JAVELIN Renal 101 (avelumab plus axitinib), CheckMate 9ER (nivolumab plus cabozantinib), and the CLEAR study (lenvatinib and pembrolizumab). Results from these studies constitute milestones for newer therapeutic approaches in mccRCC. The broadening spectrum of treatment options for patients with mccRCC with multiple first-line options currently available also means that treating physicians will need to consider each option carefully, balance clinical factors, financial considerations, and weigh toxicity profiles of each drug before deciding the optimal treatment regimen for each individual patient. We describe each frontline treatment option in detail through this review to aid the decision-making process.

Older age is associated with poorer outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the heterogeneity of ageing results in some older adults being at greater risk than others. The objective of this study was to quantify the association of a novel geriatric risk index, comprising age, modified Charlson comorbidity index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality among older adults with cancer.In this cohort study, we enrolled patients aged 60 years and older with a current or previous cancer diagnosis (excluding those with non-invasive cancers and premalignant or non-malignant conditions) and a current or previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) multinational, multicentre, registry between March 17, 2020, and June 6, 2021. Patients were also excluded for unknown age, missing data resulting in unknown geriatric risk measure, inadequate data quality, or incomplete follow-up resulting in unknown COVID-19 severity. The exposure of interest was the CCC19 geriatric risk index. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity and the secondary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; both were assessed in the full dataset. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated from ordinal and binary logistic regression models.5671 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were included in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 56 days (IQR 22-120), and median age was 72 years (IQR 66-79). The CCC19 geriatric risk index identified 2365 (41·7%) patients as standard risk, 2217 (39·1%) patients as intermediate risk, and 1089 (19·2%) as high risk. 36 (0·6%) patients were excluded due to non-calculable geriatric risk index. Compared with standard-risk patients, high-risk patients had significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR 7·24; 95% CI 6·20-8·45). 920 (16·2%) of 5671 patients died within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis, including 161 (6·8%) of 2365 standard-risk patients, 409 (18·5%) of 2217 intermediate-risk patients, and 350 (32·1%) of 1089 high-risk patients. High-risk patients had higher adjusted odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 10·7; 95% CI 8·54-13·5) than standard-risk patients.The CCC19 geriatric risk index was strongly associated with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality. Our CCC19 geriatric risk index, based on readily available clinical factors, might provide clinicians with an easy-to-use risk stratification method to identify older adults most at risk for severe COVID-19 as well as mortality.US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Background The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. Methods We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. Results Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33–1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28–3.76) coinfections. Conclusions Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

722 Background: Previous large scale genomic studies have described somatic alterations that affect tumor progression. However, metabolic and immune pathway changes that occur with advancing disease stage are not well characterized. Herein, we performed transcriptomic profiling of clear-cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC) tumors across clinical stages to define these changes. Methods: TCGA Firehose Legacy cohort was used to determine differential gene expression between stage 3 ccRCCs from patients who remained disease free (S3DF) vs. those who relapsed (S3RL) within two years of nephrectomy. Single cell RNA-seq (scRNAseq) analysis was performed on primary ccRCCs from nine patients (stage 1 n=4, stage 3 n=4, metastatic n=1). Seurat V4 package and module score was used to analyze patterns of gene expression associated with tumor progression at the single cell level. Results: Transcriptomic comparison of ccRCCs from TCGA Firehose Legacy cohort revealed induction of genes encoding mitochondrial respiratory complexes and mitochondrial ribosomal proteins (MRPs) and decrease in expression of immune genes in S3RL as compared to S3DF tumors. Using a set of 23 differentially regulated mitochondrial and immune genes we established a transcriptomic signature that stratified patients into those at risk of relapse vs. not. ScRNA-seq data analysis determined increased expression of mitochondrial respiratory complexes’ gene-sets, and decreased levels of glycolytic genes and HIF targets during tumor progression from stage-I to metastatic. This was supported by spatial transcriptomics of cancer cells, which revealed clusters of cells with high mitochondrial activity and decreased MHC class I and II gene expression. Conclusions: The data support a model of progressive metabolic reprogramming from glycolysis and HIF-regulated pathways to mitochondrial respiration in parallel with diminished immune expression of antigens on cancer cells with advancing disease stage in ccRCC. Identification of targetable mitochondrial vulnerability could be a therapeutic option in patients who progress on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

562 Background: Recent data suggest that patients with liver metastases (mets) are resistant to immune checkpoint inhibition (CPI) independent of historical biomarkers of CPI efficacy, raising the question of whether liver mets may be associated with an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). We investigated the immune TME of hepatic and non-hepatic mets compared to primary tumors in advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) tissue samples. Methods: NextGen sequencing (NGS) of DNA (592-gene/whole exome) and RNA (whole transcriptome) from UC tissue samples (N=4746) was performed at Caris Life Sciences (Phoenix, AZ). Immune cell infiltration was estimated by RNA expression deconvolution (MCP-counter). PD-L1 expression (SP142: immune cell stain ≥ 5%; 22c3: CPS ≥ 10) was assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Deficient mismatch repair/high microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI-H) was tested by IHC/NGS. Real-world overall survival (OS) information was obtained from insurance claims data and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Mann–Whitney U and X2/Fischer-Exact tests were applied where appropriate, with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons (Benjamini-Hochberg). *P+ T and B cells (0.55* and 0.29-fold*) but increased monocytic lineage cells (1.23-fold*), while non-hepatic mets had increased CD8+ T, NK, and monocytic lineage cells (1.28*, 1.27*, 1.31-fold*) with no difference in B cells (1.05-fold). Hepatic mets had decreased expression of integrin LFA-1/ ITGAL (0.77-fold*), as well as hyaluronic acid (HA) receptor CD44 and synthase HAS2 (0.61 and 0.61-fold*), compared to primary tumors, whereas expression of these genes and LFA-1 ligand ICAM1 was increased in non-hepatic mets (1.08 to 1.30-fold*). Hepatic mets had increased expression of immunosuppressive cytokines CCL2 and CXCL2 (1.72* and 2.32-fold*) and decreased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines CCL5 and CXCL10 (0.63* and 0.79-fold*) compared to primary tumors. PD-L1+ IHC was less frequent in hepatic mets compared to primary tumors and non-hepatic mets. TMB-High (≥10 mut/MB) and dMMR/MSI-H rates were similar across tumor sites. Hepatic mets (N=40) were associated with worse OS from the start of pembrolizumab compared to non-hepatic mets (N=177) (19.6 vs 4.4 months, HR 3.01, 95% CI 1.91-4.75, p

IntroductionSurgery is the primary treatment for resectable, non-metastatic recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We explore the safety and oncologic benefit of intraoperative Cesium-131 (Cs-131) brachytherapy combined with salvage local and/or regional surgical resection.Methods and MaterialsFindings were reported from a single arm multi-institutional prospective phase 1/2 trial involving surgery plus Cs-131 (surgery + Cs-131) treatment. The results of two retrospective cohorts—surgery alone and surgery plus intensity modulated radiation therapy (surgery + ReIMRT)—were also described. Included patients had recurrent HNSCC and radiation history. Safety, tumor re-occurrence, and survival were evaluated.ResultsForty-nine patients were enrolled in the surgery + Cs-131 prospective study. Grade 1 to 3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 18 patients (37%), and grade 4 AEs occurred in 2 patients. Postoperative percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes were needed in 10 surgery + Cs-131 patients (20%), and wound and vascular complications were observed in 12 patients (24%). No cases of osteoradionecrosis were reported in the surgery + Cs-131 cohort. We found a 49% 2-year disease-free survival at the site of treatment with a substantial number of patients (31%) developing metastatic disease, which led to a 31% overall survival at 5 years.ConclusionsAmong patients with local/regional recurrent HNSCC status-post radiation, surgery + Cs-131 demonstrated acceptable safety with compelling oncologic outcomes, as compared to historic control cohorts.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers NCT02794675 and NCT02467738.

Key Points Question Given the higher COVID-19–related mortality rate observed among men than among women, is androgen deprivation therapy associated with decreased rate of 30-day mortality from COVID-19 among patients with prostate cancer? Findings In this cohort study of 1106 patients, no statistically significant difference was found in the rates of all cause 30-day mortality following COVID-19 infection among men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy (15%) vs those not receiving androgen deprivation therapy (14%). Meaning The findings of this cohort study do not support an association between androgen deprivation therapy and 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 infection., Importance Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been theorized to decrease the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with prostate cancer owing to a potential decrease in the tissue-based expression of the SARS-CoV-2 coreceptor transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2). Objective To examine whether ADT is associated with a decreased rate of 30-day mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study analyzed patient data recorded in the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry between March 17, 2020, and February 11, 2021. The consortium maintains a centralized multi-institution registry of patients with a current or past diagnosis of cancer who developed COVID-19. Data were collected and managed using REDCap software hosted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Initially, 1228 patients aged 18 years or older with prostate cancer listed as their primary malignant neoplasm were included; 122 patients with a second malignant neoplasm, insufficient follow-up, or low-quality data were excluded. Propensity matching was performed using the nearest-neighbor method with a 1:3 ratio of treated units to control units, adjusted for age, body mass index, race and ethnicity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, smoking status, comorbidities (cardiovascular, pulmonary, kidney disease, and diabetes), cancer status, baseline steroid use, COVID-19 treatment, and presence of metastatic disease. Exposures Androgen deprivation therapy use was defined as prior bilateral orchiectomy or pharmacologic ADT administered within the prior 3 months of presentation with COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality after COVID-19 diagnosis for patients receiving ADT compared with patients not receiving ADT after propensity matching. Results After exclusions, 1106 patients with prostate cancer (before propensity score matching: median age, 73 years [IQR, 65-79 years]; 561 (51%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White) were included for analysis. Of these patients, 477 were included for propensity score matching (169 who received ADT and 308 who did not receive ADT). After propensity matching, there was no significant difference in the primary end point of the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.42-1.42). Conclusions and Relevance Findings from this cohort study suggest that ADT use was not associated with decreased mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, large ongoing clinical trials will provide further evidence on the role of ADT or other androgen-targeted therapies in reducing COVID-19 infection severity., This cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry examines whether androgen deprivation therapy is associated with decreased rates of mortality within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with prostate cancer.

Background The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate remains at 50% for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC), thereby underscoring the need for improved treatments. An antidiabetic agent, metformin, was found in retrospective studies to improve survival in patients with HNSCC. Therefore, the authors conducted a phase 1 dose escalation study combining metformin with chemoradiotherapy in patients with LAHNSCC. Methods Nondiabetic patients with LAHNSCC were enrolled in the current study to receive escalating doses of metformin and CRT based on the modified toxicity probability interval design. Metformin cohort doses included 2000 mg, 2550 mg, and 3000 mg daily in divided doses in addition to cisplatin (at a dose of 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43) and standard radiotherapy (70 grays). Adverse events were categorized as per the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03). Results Twenty patients were enrolled, 2 of whom withdrew consent. The median age of the patients was 56 years and the majority were male (83%), were white (88%), had p16-positive disease (72%), and were tobacco users (61%). The median length of metformin exposure was 28.5 days. The most common grade ≥3 toxicities were nausea (11%), vomiting (11%), mucositis (6%), acute kidney injury (17%), anemia (6%), and leukopenia (11%). Dose-limiting toxicities included diarrhea and acute kidney injury. After a median follow-up of 19 months, the 2-year overall survival and progression-free survival rates were 90% and 84%, respectively. No hypoglycemia events or lactic acidosis were observed. Cisplatin administration did not appear to affect metformin pharmacokinetics. The maximum tolerated dose for metformin could not be determined given the limited number of patients who tolerated metformin during chemoradiotherapy. Conclusions To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first phase 1 trial combining metformin with chemoradiotherapy. Rates of overall survival and progression-free survival were encouraging in this limited patient population, and warrant further investigation in a phase 2 trial.

Background Hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 have increased risks of venous (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Active cancer diagnosis and treatment are well‐known risk factors; however, a risk assessment model (RAM) for VTE in patients with both cancer and COVID‐19 is lacking. Objectives To assess the incidence of and risk factors for thrombosis in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID‐19. Methods Among patients with cancer in the COVID‐19 and Cancer Consortium registry (CCC19) cohort study, we assessed the incidence of VTE and ATE within 90 days of COVID‐19–associated hospitalization. A multivariable logistic regression model specifically for VTE was built using a priori determined clinical risk factors. A simplified RAM was derived and internally validated using bootstrap. Results From March 17, 2020 to November 30, 2020, 2804 hospitalized patients were analyzed. The incidence of VTE and ATE was 7.6% and 3.9%, respectively. The incidence of VTE, but not ATE, was higher in patients receiving recent anti‐cancer therapy. A simplified RAM for VTE was derived and named CoVID‐TE (Cancer subtype high to very‐high risk by original Khorana score +1, VTE history +2, ICU admission +2, D‐dimer elevation +1, recent systemic anti‐cancer Therapy +1, and non‐Hispanic Ethnicity +1). The RAM stratified patients into two cohorts (low‐risk, 0–2 points, n = 1423 vs. high‐risk, 3+ points, n = 1034) where VTE occurred in 4.1% low‐risk and 11.3% high‐risk patients (c statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.63–0.71). The RAM performed similarly well in subgroups of patients not on anticoagulant prior to admission and moderately ill patients not requiring direct ICU admission. Conclusions Hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID‐19 have elevated thrombotic risks. The CoVID‐TE RAM for VTE prediction may help real‐time data‐driven decisions in this vulnerable population.

This study aimed to assess inequities in the clinical trial participation for the selected patient groups. We searched the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database and extracted phase-III clinical trial data from MEDLINE for each approved drug by the FDA between January 1st, 2006, and June 30th, 2020. We analyzed the inclusion/exclusion criteria, participation according to gender, race, performance score, the positivity of HBV and HCV, and HIV, having comorbidities and brain metastasis. We compared the findings with that of the general population by retrieving data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We identified 142 phase III pivotal oncology trials that enrolled 105,397 patients. The proportion of female patients in trials was lower than their relative prevalence in the general population from SEER region (36% vs. 49.6%, p

Highlights • Data from large registries such as COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19), Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) and NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (N-CCaPS) will hopefully provide granularity on the outcomes of patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19. • The management of intermediate-poor risk disease patients should remain unchanged in the COVID-19 era, with measures (e.g. growth factor) to reduce the risk of complications and hospitalization incorporated as part of treatment. • Among patients with IMDC intermediate or poor risk disease, treatment with an ICI/VEGF combination (pembrolizumab/axitinib or avelumab/axitinib) might lower the risk of cytokine release syndrome as compared to dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab. • Much of the data presented is based on the assumption that the virus will peak, however the current trends in both Europe and the US illustrate otherwise. As such, there is an urgent need to report cases to national registries so that information concerning clinical outcomes in the context of each cancer type and treatment can accumulate., As the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 related pandemic- Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged, decision making in the context of cancer treatment has become more complex. The apprehension of using drugs that could adversely affect infected patients, the risk of not using life-saving treatments and the complexities related to the type of cancer itself, all must be taken into consideration before proceeding with treatment. Data from large registries such as COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19), Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) and NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (N-CCaPS) will hopefully provide granularity on the outcomes of patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19. As these efforts are underway, this review aims to shed light on the management of patients with genitourinary malignancies being treated with systemic therapies while infected with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients). RESULTS: A total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT04354701.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, formal frameworks to collect data about affected patients were lacking. The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) was formed to collect granular data on patients with cancer and COVID-19 at scale and as rapidly as possible. CCC19 has grown from five initial institutions to 125 institutions with >400 collaborators. More than 5,000 cases with complete baseline data have been accrued. Future directions include increased electronic health record integration for direct data ingestion, expansion to additional domestic and international sites, more intentional patient involvement, and granular analyses of still-unanswered questions related to cancer subtypes and treatments.

Background The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has increased significantly in the past five years, along with the number of available drugs and regimens. ICIs have dramatically increased survival in cancer patients, however, there has been data to show that they have reduced efficacy in the presence of antibiotics.1 Antibiotic use prior and during ICI therapy was associated with worsening clinical outcomes in patients with renal cell carcinoma,2 melanoma,3 and non-small-cell-lung-cancer.4 Specifically, exposure within 60 days of initiation of ICIs in NSCLC seemed most detrimental, however, some studies have suggested that antibiotics disrupt intestinal microflora for up to six months.5 6 Therefore, we hypothesized that the duration of the antibiotic effect on ICI efficacy may be present for a longer duration. Methods The electronic medical record was queried at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center for the administration of ICIs and antibiotics. Data was collected on the use, type, and duration of antibiotics before ICI use after administration with relevant demographic and clinicopathologic variables including treatment type, cancer type, staging information, and clinical course including subsequent antibiotic use. Univariant (Fischer’s Exact) and multivariant analysis (multiple logistic regression) were conducted and survival analysis was determined according to log-rank testing. Results 217 patients were examined. The median age was 64 (range 22-93), 38% were female, 73% had ECOG 0-1, and 77% were white. Cancer types included melanoma 24%, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) 34%, small cell lung cancer 2%, renal cancer 11%, urothelial cancer 10%, head and neck cancers 11%, and 16% other primaries. 20% remained on ICI at the time of data entry. The most common ICIs were pembrolizumab, nivolumab, followed by ipilimumab-nivolumab, ipilimumab, and durvalumab. 81 patients of 218 received antibiotics within 6 months of receiving checkpoint inhibitors. Of antibiotics administered, the most common classes were cephalosporins (86%), fluoroquinolones (28%), and glycopeptides (23%) with substantial overlap. Overall survival and progression-free survival was improved for those who did not receive antibiotics prior to ICI therapy (median OS 6.5 vs. 2.3 years, HR 0.36, p Conclusions This data adds to the growing body of knowledge that the use of antibiotics prior to ICI treatment leads to inferior overall and progression-free survival. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Roman Jandarov, UC Cancer Center, the University of Cincinnati Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine of the University of Cincinnati, and the University of Cincinnati Medical Center for their continued support. Ethics Approval IRB 2019-0610 References Pinato DJ, Gramenitskaya D, Altmann DM, Boyton RJ, Mullish BH, Marchesi JR, et al. Antibiotic therapy and outcome from immune-checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer 2019;7:287. Ueda K, Yonekura S, Ogasawara N, Matsunaga Y, Hoshino R, Kurose H, et al. The impact of antibiotics on prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in japanese patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Anticancer Res 2019;39:6265–71. Elkrief A, El Raichani L, Richard C, Messaoudene M, Belkaid W, Malo J, et al. Antibiotics are associated with decreased progression-free survival of advanced melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Oncoimmunology 2019;8:e1568812. Ruiz-Patino A, Barron F, Cardona AF, Corrales L, Mas L, Martin C, et al. Antibiotics impair immune checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness in Hispanic patients with non-small cell lung cancer (AB-CLICaP). Thorac Cancer 2020;(9):2552-2560. Pinato DJ, Howlett S, Ottaviani D, Urus H, Patel A, Mineo T, et al. Association of prior antibiotic treatment with survival and response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with cancer. JAMA Oncol 2019;5(12):1774-1778. Panda S, Khader IE, Casellas F, Vivancos JL, Cors MG, Santiago A, et al. Short-term effect of antibiotics on human gut microbiota. PLoS ONE 2014;9.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now approved for several cancer types due to superior outcomes compared to chemotherapy. PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors reactivate T-cell mediated anti-tumor immunity but may also lead to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Growing evidence suggests the onset of irAEs could be correlated with the efficacy of ICIs.1. 2 In this study, we investigated patterns and incidence of irAEs and their relationship to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple cancer types. Methods The electronic medical record was queried at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center for the administration of ICIs for the identification of irAEs. Data on new irAEs diagnosed after administration of at least one dose of ICI was collected along with relevant demographic and clinicopathologic variables including treatment type, cancer type, staging information, and the administration of immune suppression following the identification of an IRAE either inpatient or outpatient. Univariant and multivariant analysis were conducted and survival analysis was determined according to log-rank testing. Results Of our 210 initial patients, the median age was 64 (range 22–93), 37% were female, 72% had ECOG 0-1, and 79% were white. Cancer types included melanoma 24%, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) 34%, small cell lung cancer 2%, renal cancer 12%, urothelial cancer 11%, head and neck cancers 12%, and 16% other primaries while 19% remained on ICI at the time of data entry. The most common ICIs were pembrolizumab, nivolumab, followed by ipilimumab-nivolumab, ipilimumab, and durvalumab. The overall incidence of irAEs was 22.6%. Overall survival and progression-free survival was improved for those who suffered an IRAE (median OS 8.3 vs. 3.5 years, HR 0.56, p=0.0092; median PFS 5.0 vs 2.5 years, HR 0.57, p=0.0052) (figure 1 and 2 respectively). ICI treatment in NSCLC was associated with decreased overall IRAE events by univariant analysis (Odds Ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 - 0.86). Our multivariate analysis showed ICI treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma to be significantly associated with irAEs, however, this was likely due to low enrollment (n=4) and was not significant by univariant analysis. The most common IRAE overall was diarrhea/colitis (figure 3). Conclusions In our data set, irAEs were associated with increased OS and PFS regardless of disease site. ICI treatment of NSCLC was associated with significantly fewer irAEs compared to other malignancies. Further research is needed to determine irAE type-specific incidence, the incidence of multiple irAEs in a single patient, and response to corticosteroid therapy. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Department of Hematology/Oncology of the University of Cincinnati, the University of Cincinnati Cancer Center, and the Department of Internal Medicine of the University of Cincinnati for their support. Ethics Approval Considered and Approved by the University IRB Approval #2019-0610. References Weber JS, Hodi FS, Wolchok JD, et al. Safety Profile of Nivolumab Monotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of Patients With Advanced Melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2017;35(7):785–792. Yamauchi I, Yasoda A, Matsumoto S, et al. Incidence, features, and prognosis of immune-related adverse events involving the thyroid gland induced by nivolumab. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(5):e0216954.