Search

Supplementary Tables and Figures

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic significantly affected oncology practice across the globe. There is uncertainty as to the contribution of patients' demographics and oncologic features to severity and mortality from COVID-19 and little guidance as to the role of anticancer and anti–COVID-19 therapy in this population. In a multicenter study of 890 patients with cancer with confirmed COVID-19, we demonstrated a worsening gradient of mortality from breast cancer to hematologic malignancies and showed that male gender, older age, and number of comorbidities identify a subset of patients with significantly worse mortality rates from COVID-19. Provision of chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy did not worsen mortality. Exposure to antimalarials was associated with improved mortality rates independent of baseline prognostic factors. This study highlights the clinical utility of demographic factors for individualized risk stratification of patients and supports further research into emerging anti–COVID-19 therapeutics in SARS-CoV-2–infected patients with cancer.Significance:In this observational study of 890 patients with cancer diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, mortality was 33.6% and predicted by male gender, age ≥65, and comorbidity burden. Delivery of cancer therapy was not detrimental to severity or mortality from COVID-19. These patients should be the focus of shielding efforts during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426

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.

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

Background: The medium-term and long-term impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is not yet known. In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and their impact on the survival of patients with cancer. We also aimed to describe patterns of resumption and modifications of systemic anti-cancer therapy following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: OnCovid is an active European registry study enrolling consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with a history of solid or haematological malignancy and who had a diagnosis of RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this retrospective study, patients were enrolled from 35 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Patients who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, and entered into the registry at the point of data lock (March 1, 2021), were eligible for analysis. The present analysis was focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent clinical reassessment at each participating institution. We documented prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and described factors associated with their development and their association with post-COVID-19 survival, which was defined as the interval from post-COVID-19 reassessment to the patients’ death or last follow-up. We also evaluated resumption of systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients treated within 4 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis. The OnCovid study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings: 2795 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, were entered into the study by the time of the data lock on March 1, 2021. After the exclusion of ineligible patients, the final study population consisted of 2634 patients. 1557 COVID-19 survivors underwent a formal clinical reassessment after a median of 22·1 months (IQR 8·4–57·8) from cancer diagnosis and 44 days (28–329) from COVID-19 diagnosis. 234 (15·0%) patients reported COVID-19 sequelae, including respiratory symptoms (116 [49·6%]) and residual fatigue (96 [41·0%]). Sequelae were more common in men (vs women; p=0·041), patients aged 65 years or older (vs other age groups; p=0·048), patients with two or more comorbidities (vs one or none; p=0·0006), and patients with a history of smoking (vs no smoking history; p=0·0004). Sequelae were associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 (p

We sought to determine parameters of the acute phase response, a feature of innate immunity activated by infectious noxae and cancer, deranged by Covid-19 and establish oncological indices’ prognostic potential for patients with concomitant cancer and Covid-19. Between 27/02 and 23/06/2020, OnCovid retrospectively accrued 1,318 consecutive referrals of patients with cancer and Covid-19 aged 18 from the U.K., Spain, Italy, Belgium, and Germany. Patients with myeloma, leukemia, or insufficient data were excluded. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), and prognostic index (PI) were evaluated for their prognostic potential, with the NLR, PLR, and PNI risk stratifications dichotomized around median values and the pre-established risk categorizations from literature utilized for the mGPS and PI. 1,071 eligible patients were randomly assorted into a training set (TS, n=529) and validation set (VS, n=542) matched for age (67.9±13.3 TS, 68.5±13.5 VS), presence of 1 comorbidity (52.1% TS, 49.8% VS), development of 1 Covid-19 complication (27% TS, 25.9% VS), and active malignancy at Covid-19 diagnosis (66.7% TS, 61.6% VS). Among all 1,071 patients, deceased patients tended to categorize into poor risk groups for the NLR, PNI, mGPS, and PI (P6 (44.6% vs 28%, P6 30 days 95%CI 1-63, PNI Citation Format: Gino M. Dettorre, Saoirse Dolly, Angela Loizidou, John Chester, Amanda Jackson, Uma Mukherjee, Alberto Zambelli, Juan Aguilar-Company, Mark Bower, Christopher C. T. Sng, Ramon Salazar, Alexia Bertuzzi, Joan Brunet, Ricard Mesia, Ailsa Sita-Lumsden, Elia Seguí, Federica Biello, Daniele Generali, Salvatore Grisanti, Pavetha Seeva, Gianpiero Rizzo, Michela Libertini, Antonio Maconi, Charlotte Moss, Beth Russell, Josep Tabernero, Nadia Harbeck, Bruno Vincenzi, Rossella Bertulli, Diego Ottaviani, Andrea Marrari, M. Carmen Carmona-García, Neha Chopra, Carlo Tondini, Oriol Mirallas, Valeria Tovazzi, Vittoria Fotia, Claudia A. Cruz, Nadia Saoudi-Gonzalez, Eudald Felip, Lorenza Scotti, Alvin J. X. Lee, Thomas Newsom-Davis, Andrea Patriarca, Lorenza Rimassa, Armando Santoro, Alessandra Gennari, Mieke Van Hemelrijck, Nikolaos Diamantis, David J. Pinato. The acute phase response identifies cancer patients with adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection as quantified by the OnCovid Inflammatory Score [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2021 Feb 3-5. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(6_Suppl):Abstract nr S01-03.

COVID-19; Cancer; End-of life care (EOLC) COVID-19; Cáncer; Cuidados al final de la vida COVID-19; Càncer; Cures al final de la vida Background: Specialist palliative care team (SPCT) involvement has been shown to improve symptom control and end-of-life care for patients with cancer, but little is known as to how these have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report SPCT involvement during the first wave of the pandemic and compare outcomes for patients with cancer who received and did not receive SPCT input from multiple European cancer centres. Methods: From the OnCovid repository (N = 1318), we analysed cancer patients aged ⩾18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between 26 February and 22 June 2020 who had complete specialist palliative care team data (SPCT+ referred; SPCT− not referred). Results: Of 555 eligible patients, 317 were male (57.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 20). At COVID-19 diagnosis, 44.7% were on anti-cancer therapy and 53.3% had ⩾1 co-morbidity. Two hundred and six patients received SPCT input for symptom control (80.1%), psychological support (54.4%) and/or advance care planning (51%). SPCT+ patients had more ‘Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’ orders completed prior to (12.6% versus 3.7%) and during admission (50% versus 22.1%, p

IntroductionIn Europe, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had its first epicenter in Italy. Despite a significant mortality rate, the severity of most cases of COVID-19 infection ranges from asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic, and silent infection affects a still-unknown proportion of the general population. No information is available on the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection among patients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment during the pandemic.Materials and MethodsFrom April 1, 2020, to the end of the same month, 560 consecutive patients with cancer, asymptomatic for COVID-19 and on anticancer treatment at Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo, were evaluated and tested for SARS-CoV-2. We implemented a two-step diagnostics, including the rapid serological immunoassay for anti–SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM and the nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test in case of seropositivity to identify SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers.ResultsIn 560 patients, 172 (31%) resulted positive for anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibodies, regardless of different type of cancer, stage, and treatment. The Ig-seropositive patients were then tested with RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swabs, and 38% proved to be SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. At an early follow-up, in the 97 SARS-CoV-2–seropositive/RT-PCR–negative patients who continued their anticancer therapies, only one developed symptomatic COVID-19 illness.ConclusionAmong patients with cancer, the two-step diagnostics is feasible and effective for SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers detection and might support optimal cancer treatment strategies at both the individual and the population level. The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in cases of RT-PCR–negative patients.Implications for PracticeThis is the first study evaluating the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection in actively treated patients with cancer, during the epidemic peak in one of the worst areas of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lacking national and international recommendations for the detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, a pragmatic and effective two-step diagnostics was implemented to ascertain SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. In this series, consisting of consecutive and unselected patients with cancer, the prevalence of both SARS-CoV-2–seropositive patients and silent carriers is substantial (31% and 10%, respectively). The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in case of RT-PCR–negative patients.

Background: Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100,000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of death in UK patients with cancer versus those in continental EU. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of patients with cancer consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from 27th February to 10th September 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline including oncological and COVID-19-specific therapy across UKand EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk of adverse out-comes in multivariable Cox regression models Findings: Compared with EU (n = 924), UK patients (n = 468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher risk of death at 30 days (haz-ard ratio [HR], 1.64 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%; p < 0.0001; HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often men, were of older age and have more comorbidities than EU counterparts (p < 0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK than in EU patients (p < 0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK patients with cancer were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, antivirals and inter leukin-6 antagonists (p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, indepen-dent of the patient's age, gender, tumour stage and status; number of comorbidities; COVID-19 severity and receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessa-tion of anticancer therapy after COVID-19 were similar in the UK and EU cohorts. Interpretation: UK patients with cancer have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anti-cancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK patients with cancer highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

// Lara Paracchini 1, * , Laura Mannarino 1, * , Ilaria Craparotta 1 , Chiara Romualdi 2 , Robert Fruscio 3 , Tommaso Grassi 3 , Vittoria Fotia 4 , Giulia Caratti 1 , Patrizia Perego 5 , Enrica Calura 2 , Luca Clivio 1 , Maurizio D’Incalci 1 , Luca Beltrame 1, § , Sergio Marchini 1, § 1 Department of Oncology, IRCCS Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche “Mario Negri”, Milano, Italy 2 Department of Biology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy 3 Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Milano-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy 4 PhD program in Experimental Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy 5 Pathology Unit University of Milan-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy * both are first authors § both are last co-authors Correspondence to: Maurizio D’Incalci, email: maurizio.dincalci@marionegri.it Keywords: ovarian cancer, temporal heterogeneity, spatial heterogeneity, targeted next generation sequencing, drug resistance Received: March 01, 2016 Accepted: May 23, 2016 Published: July 09, 2016 ABSTRACT Stage III/IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a systemic disease. The clonal relationship among different tumor lesions at diagnosis (spatial heterogeneity) and how tumor clonal architecture evolves over time (temporal heterogeneity) have not yet been defined. Such knowledge would help to develop new target-based strategies, as biomarkers which can adjudge the success of therapeutic intervention should be independent of spatial and temporal heterogeneity. The work described in this paper addresses spatial and temporal heterogeneity in a cohort of 71 tumor biopsies using targeted NGS technology. These samples were taken from twelve high grade serous (HGS) and seven non HSG-EOC, both at the time of primary surgery when the tumor was naive to chemotherapy and after chemotherapy. Matched tumor lesions growing in the ovary or at other anatomical sites show very different mutational landscapes with branched tumor evolution. Mutations in ATM, ATR, TGFB3, VCAM1 and COL3A1 genes were shared across all lesions. BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were frequently mutated in synchronous lesions of non HGS-EOC. Relapsed disease seems to originate from resistant clones originally present at the time of primary surgery rather than from resistance acquired de novo during platinum based therapy. Overall the work suggests that EOC continues to evolve. More detailed mapping of genetic lesions is necessary to improve therapeutic strategies.

Purpose Adjuvant treatment decisions in early breast cancer (eBC) have traditionally been driven by risk stratification based on clinical and pathological risk factors. The 21-gene Oncotype DX® assay has been validated as a predictive test for benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), hence assessing its impact in clinical decisions is of high interest. The objective of this study was to estimate the rate of adjuvant treatment decision modification impacted by the Recurrence Score® result, and the consequent budget impact. Methods The study was a multicentre, prospective, real-life experience in Lombardy (Italy) including consecutive patients with T1–T3, N0–N1a, and ER+/HER2-eBC with clinical-pathologic “intermediate risk” of relapse. The change in treatment recommendations was assessed before and after availability of Recurrence Score result. A budget model evaluated the implications of 21-gene testing in the study population. Results The overall proportion of CT recommendations was reduced from 24.6% to 15.2% after 21-gene testing, with a major impact in patients initially considered for CT plus hormone therapy (CHT). In these patients, the total budget was reduced, leading to a net saving of -€81,017. The greater the physician propensity to prescribe CHT, the higher the potential savings for the health system from sparing CT in most tested patients. Conclusions Our real-life experience suggests that all intermediate-risk ER+/HER2-eBC patients who are initially deemed candidates for CHT should be tested with the 21-gene test. The potential to spare CT in at least half of them offers relevant advantages for patients and national health services., Highlights • The 21-gene assay is validated to guide adjuvant treatment decisions in eBC. • We identify patients in which 21-gene testing led to best performance in CT sparing. • Testing this patient group obtains the best performance in cost-benefit-ratio. • Lombardy approves the 21-gene assay for patients at clinical intermediar risk.

Higher risk of death from COVID-19 among patients with cancer was correlated with male sex, greater age, presence of multiple comorbidities, advanced-stage disease, and active disease; there was no association between risk and anticancer treatment., The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic significantly affected oncology practice across the globe. There is uncertainty as to the contribution of patients' demographics and oncologic features to severity and mortality from COVID-19 and little guidance as to the role of anticancer and anti–COVID-19 therapy in this population. In a multicenter study of 890 patients with cancer with confirmed COVID-19, we demonstrated a worsening gradient of mortality from breast cancer to hematologic malignancies and showed that male gender, older age, and number of comorbidities identify a subset of patients with significantly worse mortality rates from COVID-19. Provision of chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy did not worsen mortality. Exposure to antimalarials was associated with improved mortality rates independent of baseline prognostic factors. This study highlights the clinical utility of demographic factors for individualized risk stratification of patients and supports further research into emerging anti–COVID-19 therapeutics in SARS-CoV-2–infected patients with cancer. Significance: In this observational study of 890 patients with cancer diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, mortality was 33.6% and predicted by male gender, age ≥65, and comorbidity burden. Delivery of cancer therapy was not detrimental to severity or mortality from COVID-19. These patients should be the focus of shielding efforts during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426

Background. Systemic inflammation is a pathogenic mechanism shared by infection and cancer. Mortality from Covid-19 is strongly linked to systemic cytokine excess. We investigated systemic inflammation as a driver of Covid-19 severity in patients with Covid-19 and cancer. Methods. Between 27/02 and 23/06/2020, OnCovid retrospectively accrued 1,318 consecutive European cancer patients with Covid-19. Patients with myeloma, leukemia, or insufficient data were excluded. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), and prognostic index (PI) were evaluated for their prognostic potential, with the NLR, PLR, and PNI risk stratifications dichotomized around median values, and the pre-established risk categorizations from literature utilized for the mGPS and PI. Results. 1,071 eligible patients were randomly assorted into a training set (TS, n=529) and validation set (VS, n=542) matched for age (67.9±13.3 TS, 68.5±13.5 VS), presence of >1 comorbidity (52.1% TS, 49.8% VS), development of >1 Covid-19 complication (27% TS, 25.9% VS), and active malignancy at Covid-19 diagnosis (66.7% TS, 61.6% VS). Among all 1,071 patients, deceased patients tended to categorize into poor risk groups for the NLR, PNI, mGPS, and PI (P6 (44.6% vs 28%, P6 30 days 95%CI 1-63, PNI Conclusion. Systemic inflammation drives mortality from Covid-19. Hypoalbuminemia and lymphocytopenia as measured by the PNI are the most accurate predictors of outcome and enable repurposing of the PNI as the OnCovid Inflammatory Score (OIS) as a readily available biomarker of severity. Citation Format: Gino M. Dettorre, Saoirse Dolly, Angela Loizidou, John Chester, Amanda Jackson, Uma Mukherjee, Alberto Zambelli, Juan Aguilar-Company, Mark Bower, Christopher C. Sng, Ramon Salazar, Alexia Bertuzzi, Joan Brunet, Ricard Mesia, Ailsa Sita-Lumsden, Elia Seguí, Federica Biello, Daniele Generali, Salvatore Grisanti, Pavetha Seeva, Gianpiero Rizzo, Michela Libertini, Antonio Maconi, Charlotte Moss, Josep Tabernero, Beth Russell, Nadia Harbeck, Bruno Vincenzi, Rossella Bertulli, Diego Ottaviani, Raquel Liñan, Andrea Marrari, M. Carmen Carmona-García, Neha Chopra, Carlo Tondini, Oriol Mirallas, Valeria Tovazzi, Vittoria Fotia, Claudia Andrea Cruz, Nadia Saoudi-Gonzalez, Eudald Felip, Ariadna Roqué, Alvin J. Lee, Thomas Newsom-Davis, Andrea Patriarca, Lorenza Rimassa, Armando Santoro, Alessandra Gennari, Nikolaos Diamantis, David J. Pinato. The acute phase response identifies cancer patients with adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection as quantified by the OnCovid Inflammatory Score [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 701.

Background Neovascularisation supports the metastatic switch in many aggressive solid cancers. Tumour neovessels are mostly lined by endothelial cells sprouting from nearby capillaries, but they could also be contributed by circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). However, scant information is available about tumour-derived EPCs. Methods We carried out the first thorough, unbiased comparison of phenotype, function and genotype of normal versus tumour-derived endothelial colony forming cells (ECFCs), a truly endothelial EPC subtype. We used healthy donors–derived ECFCs (N-ECFCs) as control for breast cancer (BC)– and renal cell carcinoma (RCC)–derived ECFCs. Results We found that both BC- and RCC-ECFCs belong to the endothelial lineage. Normal and tumour-derived ECFCs did not differ in terms of proliferative and tubulogenic rates. However, RCC-ECFCs were more resistant to rapamycin-induced apoptosis, whereas BC-ECFCs were more sensitive as compared with N-ECFCs. Gene expression profiling revealed 382 differentially expressed genes (DEGs; 192 upregulated and 150 downregulated) and 71 DEGs (33 upregulated, 38 downregulated) when comparing, respectively, BC- and RCC-ECFCs with N-ECFCs. Nonetheless, BC- and RCC-derived ECFCs shared 35 DEGs, 10 of which were validated by qRT-PCR; such 35 DEGs are organised in a gene network centred on FOS. Conclusion These results provide the first clear-cut evidence that BC- and RCC-derived ECFCs exhibit an altered gene expression profile as compared with N-ECFCs; yet, they share a common gene signature that could highlight novel and more specific targets to suppress tumour vascularisation.

Background Systemic inflammation is a unifying mechanism common to cancer progression and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mortality from Covid-19 strongly relates to systemic inflammatory reaction to SARS-CoV-2. We sought to determine whether inflammatory biomarkers can identify poor outcome in cancer patients with Covid-19. Methods Between 27/02 and 23/06/2020, OnCovid retrospectively accrued 1,318 consecutive Covid-19-infected cancer patients aged >18 from 25 academic centers in the U.K., Spain, Italy, Germany and Belgium. Patients with leukemia, myeloma or insufficient data were excluded. We tested neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), and prognostic index (PI) as prognostic biomarkers. NLR, PLR and PNI were dichotomized around their medians. Results 1,071 eligible patients were sorted into a training set (TS, n=529) and validation set (VS, n=542). TS and VS were matched by age (67.9±13.3 TS, 68.5±13.5 VS), active malignancy at Covid-19 diagnosis (66.7% TS, 61.6% VS), presence of >1 comorbidity (52.1% TS, 49.8% VS) and prevalence of complications including respiratory failure (58.0% TS, 59.0% VS) and ARDS (11.5% TS, 12.9% VS). In the TS, higher mortality rates were associated with NLR>6 (44.6% vs 28%, p 6 30 days 95%CI 1-63, PNI

Background: The European SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had its first epicentre in Italy, particularly in the area of Bergamo In spite of a significant mortality rate, in the majority of cases the spectrum of COVID-19 ranges from asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic infection No information is available on the prevalence and clinical impact of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among actively treated cancer patients during pandemic Methods: From April 1st, 2020 to the end of the month, 560 consecutive and unselected patients, scheduled for anticancer treatment at our facility and without clinical suspicious of COVID-19, were evaluated and tested for SARS-CoV-2 We implemented a two-step diagnostics, including a rapid serological immunoassay for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM and a pharyngeal swab RT-PCR assay in case of IgM seropositivity Results: In 560 patients, 172 (31%) resulted positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibodies, regardless of type of cancer, stage and treatment All IgM-seropositives were then tested with RT-PCR pharyngeal swabs and 55/146 (38%) proved to be SARS-CoV-2 carriers, with slightly difference b/w mildly symptomatic vs asymptomatic patients (38 vs 17) Therefore, the two-step procedure allowed the identification of 55 (10%) silent carriers in the whole study population and magnified the number needed to test (NNT) with the pharyngeal swab RT-PCR assay to detect a silent virus carrier (NNT: 2 6 vs 10, with or without serological selection) At a very early follow up (8 wks), in 114 SARS-CoV-2-seropostive/RT-PCR-negative patients, who continued their anticancer therapies, none but one developed a symptomatic COVID-19 illness Conclusions: Among cancer patients, the two-step diagnostics strategy with serology followed by pharyngeal swab for asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is feasible and effective and can help selecting cancer patients on treatment who might be silent carriers of the virus The early safety outcome of patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 supports the recommendation to continue active treatment, at least in the case of negative RT-PCR test Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors Funding: Has not received any funding Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest

Background The majority of patients with stage III–IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) relapse after initially responding to platinum-based chemotherapy, and develop resistance. The genomic features involved in drug resistance are unknown. To unravel some of these features, we investigated the mutational profile of genes involved in pathways related to drug sensitivity in a cohort of matched tumors obtained at first surgery (Ft-S) and second surgery (Sd-S). Patients and methods Matched biopsies (33) taken at Ft-S and Sd-S were selected from the ‘Pandora’ tumor tissue collection. DNA libraries for 65 genes were generated using the TruSeq Custom Amplicon kit and sequenced on MiSeq (Illumina). Data were analyzed using a high-performance cluster computing platform (Cloud4CARE project) and independently validated. Results A total of 2270 somatic mutations were identified (89.85% base substitutions 8.19% indels, and 1.92% unknown). Homologous recombination (HR) genes and TP53 were mutated in the majority of Ft-S, while ATM, ATR, TOP2A and TOP2B were mutated in the entire dataset. Only 2% of mutations were conserved between matched Ft-S and Sd-S. Mutations detected at second surgery clustered patients in two groups characterized by different mutational profiles in genes associated with HR, PI3K, miRNA biogenesis and signal transduction. Conclusions There was a low level of concordance between Ft-S and Sd-S in terms of mutations in genes involved in key processes of tumor growth and drug resistance. This result suggests the importance of future longitudinal analyses to improve the clinical management of relapsed EOC.