Search

Background: Tumour immunoprofiling captures tumour-microenvironment interactions and enables precision medicine. Multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) imaging can provide comprehensive quantitative and spatial information for multiple immune markers. However, application at scale to clinical trial samples sourced from multiple institutions is challenging due to pre-analytical heterogeneity. Methods: We analysed 12'592 tissue microarray (TMA) spots from 3'545 colorectal cancers (CRC) sourced from more than 240 institutions in two clinical trials (QUASAR 2 and SCOT) stained for CD4, CD8, CD20, CD68, FoxP3, pan-cytokeratin and DAPI by mIF. TMA cores were multi-spectrally imaged by digital pathology and analysed by cell-based and pixel-based marker analysis. We developed and validated an adaptive thresholding method to account for inter- and intra-slide intensity variation in TMA analysis, compared the numerical results between analysis approaches and validated against the current gold standard of single-plex chromogenic immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: Adaptive thresholding at a slide and spot level effectively ameliorated inter- and intra-slide intensity variation enabling high-throughput analysis of mIF-stained TMA cores by digital pathology and improving the image analysis results compared to methods using a single global threshold. Comparison of our mIF approach with CD8 IHC data derived from subsequent sections indicates the validity of our method (Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (SCC) between 0.63 and 0.66, p-value << 0.01). Evaluation of correlation between cell-based and pixel-based analysis results confirms equivalency (SCC > 0.8, p<< 0.01, except for CD20 in epithelium region) of both analytical approaches for precision immunoprofiling by mIF. Conclusions: This study reports an analytical approach to the largest multiparameter immunoprofiling study of clinical trial samples to date and establishes an adaptive thresholding method to account for inter- and intra-slide variation introduced by pre-analytical heterogeneity. This approach can enable the application of mIF immunoprofiling of clinical trial TMA datasets at scale.

People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated.This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population.The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p lt; 0.001 for both).Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

Background People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2.Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthroughSARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level.Methods In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project(UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all S ARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the SecondGeneration Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service),patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England’s Rapid Cancer RegistrationDataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control populationcohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid CancerRegistration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness ag ainst breakthrough infectionsafter the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vacci ne effectiveness against breakthrough infections at3–6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population.Findings The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.The control population consisted of 28 010 955 in dividuals, of wh om 5 748 708 had SARS- CoV-2 breakthroughinfections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8–69·9) in the control population and 65·5%(65·1–65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at3–6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3–47·6)than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4–61·5).Interpretation COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protectionagainst breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the generalpopulation. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacologicalstrategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patientswith cancer

ImportanceAccurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK’s third-dose vaccination booster program.InterventionsAnti–SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche).Main Outcomes and MeasuresOdds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization.ResultsThe evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P P P Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

Background: Advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC) has a poor prognosis for which cisplatin-gemcitabine is the reference first-line chemotherapy. No robust evidence is available for second-line chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with ABC who progressed on first-line cisplatin-gemcitabine were randomised to active symptom control (ASC) and oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or ASC alone. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS); recruitment of 162 patients was required, to deliver 148 events (hypothesised hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 80% power; 5% two-sided alpha). Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (ASC+FOLFOX arm only). Results: A total of 162 patients were randomised (81 in each arm) between 27-Mar-2014 and 04-Jan-2018). The median age was 65 years (range 26-84); 80 (49%) were male and the primary tumour sites were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) 72 (44%), extrahepatic CCA 45 (28%), gallbladder 34 (21%) and ampullary cancer 11 (7%). After 150 OS events, the adjusted HR was 0.69 (95%CI-0.50-0.97; p=0.031; ASC+FOLFOX vs ASC). Median OS (months (m)), 6m and 12m OS-rate (%) were 6.2m, 50.6% and 25.9% for the ASC+FOLFOX and 5.3m, 35.5%, 11.4% for the ASC arm, respectively. The median PFS was 4.0 months (95%-CI 3.2-5.0); the response rate was 5% and the disease control rate 33%. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported in 56 (69%) and 42 (52%) patients in the ASC+FOLFOX and ASC arm, respectively, including two chemotherapy-related deaths. Conclusion: FOLFOX improved OS after progression to cisplatin-gemcitabine with a clinically-meaningful increase in 6m and 12m OS rate. FOLFOX should become standard-of-care in second-line for ABC. Trial Registration: NCT01926236, EudraCT: 2013-001812-30. Funding Statement: The study was sponsored by The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. The ABC-6 study was funded by Cancer Research UK (CRUK/13/004), StandUpToCancer, AMMF (The UK Cholangiocarcinoma Charity) and The Christie Charity. The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation provided funding translational research. Dr Angela Lamarca received funding from ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology), SEOM (Sociedad Espanola de Oncologia Medica) and Conquer Cancer Foundation (Young Investigator Award) fellowship programs and from The Christie Charity. Declaration of Interests: Dr Angela Lamarca received travel and educational support from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, SirtEx, Novartis, Mylan and Delcath; speaker honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen and Incyte; advisory honoraria from EISAI, Nutricia Ipsen, QED and Roche; she is also a member of the Knowledge Network and NETConnect Initiatives funded by Ipsen. Prof Daniel H Palmer declares research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Nucana, Sirtex; and Consulting or Advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, MSD, Servier, Roche. Harpreet Singh Wasan declares no conflict of interest associated to this work. Dr Paul J Ross declares research grants from research grants from Sanofi, Bayer; Consulting or Advisory roles for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Sirtex, Roche; speaker fees from Amgen, Roche, Servier; Travel grants from Bayer, Roche, Servier. Dr Yuk Ting Ma declares speaker honoraria and advisory roles for Bayer, Eisai and Roche. Dr Arvind Arora declares no conflict of interest. Dr Stephen Flak declares no conflict of interest. Dr Roopinder Gilmore declares no conflict of interest. Prof Jon Wadsley declares research grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Genzyme and Consulting or Advisory roles for Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Genyme, Eisai, AAA, Roche, Novartis, Ipsen. Dr Kinnari Patel declares no conflict of interest. Alan Anthony declares no conflict of interest. Prof Anthony Maraveyas declares research grants from Pfizer, BMS and Bayer. Speaker fees from BMS. Bayer Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer and advisory roles for Bayer ,BMS, Leo, Pfizer, Merck and Ipsen. Dr Tim Iveson declares no conflict of interest. Dr Justin S Walters received educational support for travel and conference attendance from Mylan and Ipsen, and speaker honoraria from Mylan. Dr Claire Hobbs declares no conflict of interest. Safia Barber declares no conflict of interest. David Ryder declares no conflict of interest. Prof John Ramage declares research grants, speaker fees and advisory roles for Ipsen, Novartis and AAA. Linda M Davies declares no conflict of interest. Prof John Bridgewater declares Consulting or Advisory role for Merck Serono, SERVIER, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Incyte and Basilea; travel support from MSD oncology, Merck Serono, Servier and BMS. Prof Juan W Valle declares Consulting or Advisory role for Agios, AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Keocyt, Genoscience Pharma, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Mundipharma EDO, Novartis, PCI Biotech, Pfizer, PierisPharmaceuticals, QED and Wren Laboratories; Speakers’ Bureau for Imaging Equipment Limited Ipsen Novartis Nucana; and Travel Grants from Celgene and Nucana. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by a research ethics committee and all patients were required to provide written informed consent.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in multidisciplinary management, patients with biliary tract cancer have a poor outcome. Only 20% of patients are eligible for surgical resection with curative intent, with 5-year overall survival of less than 10% for all patients. To our knowledge, no studies have described a benefit of adjuvant therapy. We aimed to determine whether adjuvant capecitabine improved overall survival compared with observation following surgery for biliary tract cancer.METHODS: This randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study was done across 44 specialist hepatopancreatobiliary centres in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer who had undergone a macroscopically complete resection (which includes liver resection, pancreatic resection, or, less commonly, both) with curative intent, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of less than 2. Patients who had not completely recovered from previous surgery or who had previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy for biliary tract cancer were also excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1–14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation commencing within 16 weeks of surgery. Treatment was not masked, and allocation concealment was achieved with a computerised minimisation algorithm that stratified patients by surgical centre, site of disease, resection status, and performance status. The primary outcome was overall survival. As prespecified, analyses were done by intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-003318-13.FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2006, and Dec 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with biliary tract cancer resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. The data cutoff for this analysis was March 6, 2017. The median follow-up for all patients was 60 months (IQR 37–60). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was 51·1 months (95% CI 34·6–59·1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36·4 months (29·7–44·5) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·63–1·04; p=0·097). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimisation factors and nodal status, grade, and gender, the overall survival HR was 0·71 (95% CI 0·55–0·92; p=0·010). In the prespecified per-protocol analysis (210 patients in the capecitabine group and 220 in the observation group), median overall survival was 53 months (95% CI 40 to not reached) in the capecitabine group and 36 months (30–44) in the observation group (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·58–0·97; p=0·028). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 24·4 months (95% CI 18·6–35·9) in the capecitabine group and 17·5 months (12·0–23·8) in the observation group. In the per-protocol analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 25·9 months (95% CI 19·8–46·3) in the capecitabine group and 17·4 months (12·0–23·7) in the observation group. Adverse events were measured in the capecitabine group only, and of the 213 patients who received at least one cycle, 94 (44%) had at least one grade 3 toxicity, the most frequent of which were hand-foot syndrome in 43 (20%) patients, diarrhoea in 16 (8%) patients, and fatigue in 16 (8%) patients. One (INTERPRETATION: Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, the prespecified sensitivity and per-protocol analyses suggest that capecitabine can improve overall survival in patients with resected biliary tract cancer when used as adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery and could be considered as standard of care. Furthermore, the safety profile is manageable, supporting the use of capecitabine in this setting.FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Roche.

There is no established standard chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer. We initially conducted a randomized, phase 2 study involving 86 patients to compare cisplatin plus gemcitabine with gemcitabine alone. After we found an improvement in progression-free survival, the trial was extended to the phase 3 trial reported here.We randomly assigned 410 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or ampullary cancer to receive either cisplatin (25 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for eight cycles) or gemcitabine alone (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks for six cycles) for up to 24 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival.After a median follow-up of 8.2 months and 327 deaths, the median overall survival was 11.7 months among the 204 patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 8.1 months among the 206 patients in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.80; P0.001). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 5.0 months in the gemcitabine-only group (P0.001). In addition, the rate of tumor control among patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group was significantly increased (81.4% vs. 71.8%, P=0.049). Adverse events were similar in the two groups, with the exception of more neutropenia in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group; the number of neutropenia-associated infections was similar in the two groups.As compared with gemcitabine alone, cisplatin plus gemcitabine was associated with a significant survival advantage without the addition of substantial toxicity. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is an appropriate option for the treatment of patients with advanced biliary cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262769.)