LBA71 Systemic cancer treatment-related outcomes in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A CCC19 registry analysis

Seroprevalence study prior and post vaccination in cancer patients in principality of Andorra (COVONCO study)

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 serologic response in patients with cancer may be lower than in the general population and may be influenced by the type of tumor or anticancer treatment. This study aims to analyze serological response prior and after vaccination of COVID-19 within the oncological population in Andorra. We set out to identify risk factors for a higher or lower serological response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Observational, unicentric, prospective cohort study of oncologic patients in Andorra. We calculated the seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (May 2020-June 2021) and analyzed the main demographic, oncologic features and factors associated with being seropositive.

RESULTS

A total of 373 patients were analyzed, mainly with solid tumours (n = 334, 89.5%). At baseline, seroprevalence was 13%, increasing during follow-up to 19%; lower seroprevalence was observed in patients with hematologic malignancies (2.6% vs 14.2%; p = 0.041) and patients receiving biological therapies (0% vs 15%, p = 0.005). In the overall seroprevalence analysis, women (23% vs 11.9%; p = 0.006) and tumour-free patients (p = 0.034) showed higher seroprevalence. The multivariable analysis showed that odds of being seropositive were higher among women (OR: 2.44, 95% CI 1.28-4.64), and patients who underwent surgery (OR: 3.35, 95% CI 1.10-10.20). About 80% of the cohort received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, showing a higher seroprevalence of patients who received ChAdOx1-S than those who received BNT162b2 (24.4% vs 6.4%: p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-COV-2 in oncologic patients in Andorra was higher among females and patients who received hormonal therapy and surgery while patients with hematologic malignancies and biologic therapies showed lower seropositivity without finding differences in the type of tumour or anticancer treatment.

Oncology During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Lockdown Perspective

Purpose for Review

This perspective piece aims to understand the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the field of oncology, exploring the factors provoking a fall in cancer diagnostic rates, interruption of cancer screening programmes, disruption of oncological treatment and adjuvant care, and the necessary adaption oncological practice has undergone (and will be required to undergo) post-pandemic, including the shift to digital consultations.

Recent Findings

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the field of oncological research has faced significant challenges. Yet, innovation has prevailed with new developments being made across the globe. Looking to the future of oncology, this piece will also suggest potential solutions to overcome the late-stage ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a global health crisis, the ramifications of which have reached every corner of the world and overwhelmed already overburdened healthcare systems. However, we are still yet to see the full domino effect of the pandemic as it continues to reveal and exacerbate pre-existing weaknesses in healthcare systems across the world.

Mental Health and Adherence to COVID-19 Protective Behaviors among Cancer Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International, Multinational Cross-Sectional Study

A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted during the first COVID-19 wave, to examine the impact of COVID-19 on mental health using an anonymous online survey, enrolling 9565 individuals in 78 countries. The current sub-study examined the impact of the pandemic and the associated lockdown measures on the mental health, and protective behaviors of cancer patients in comparison to non-cancer participants. Furthermore, 264 participants from 30 different countries reported being cancer patients. The median age was 51.5 years, 79.9% were female, and 28% had breast cancer. Cancer participants reported higher self-efficacy to follow recommended national guidelines regarding COVID-19 protective behaviors compared to non-cancer participants (p < 0.01). They were less stressed (p < 0.01), more psychologically flexible (p < 0.01), and had higher levels of positive affect compared to non-cancer participants. Amongst cancer participants, the majority (80.3%) reported COVID-19, not their cancer, as their priority during the first wave of the pandemic and females reported higher levels of stress compared to males. In conclusion, cancer participants appeared to have handled the unpredictable nature of the first wave of the pandemic efficiently, with a positive attitude towards an unknown and otherwise frightening situation. Larger, cancer population specific and longitudinal studies are warranted to ensure adequate medical and psychological care for cancer patients.

Impact of androgen deprivation therapy on mortality of prostate cancer patients with COVID-19: a propensity score-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies hypothesized that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV2) infectivity. However, it is unknown whether there is an association between ADT and a higher survival in prostate cancer patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of prostate cancer (PC) patients hospitalized to treat COVID-19 in Brazil's public health system. We compared patients with the active use of ADT versus those with non-active ADT, past use. We constructed propensity score models of patients in active versus non-active use of ADT. All variables were used to derive propensity score estimation in both models. In the first model we performed a pair-matched propensity score model between those under active and non-active use of ADT. To the second model we initially performed a multivariate backward elimination process to select variables to a final inverse-weight adjusted with double robust estimation model.

RESULTS

We analyzed 199 PC patients with COVID-19 that received ADT. In total, 52.3% (95/199) of our patients were less than 75 years old, 78.4% (156/199) were on active ADT, and most were using a GnRH analog (80.1%; 125/156). Most of patients were in palliative treatment (89.9%; 179/199). Also, 63.3% of our cohort died from COVID-19. Forty-eight patients under active ADT were pair matched against 48 controls (non-active ADT). All patients (199) were analyzed in the double robust model. ADT active use were not protective factor in both inverse-weight based propensity score (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38-1.31, P = 0.263), and pair-matched propensity score (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.27-1.63, P = 0.374) models. We noticed a significant imbalance in the propensity score of patients in active and those in non-active ADT, with important reductions in the differences after the adjustments.

CONCLUSIONS

The active use of ADT was not associated with a reduced risk of death in patients with COVID-19.

Association Between Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Mortality Among Patients With Prostate Cancer and COVID-19

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.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of urothelial cancer

A number of immunotherapies have been developed and adopted for the treatment of urothelial cancer (encompassing cancers arising from the bladder, urethra, or renal pelvis). For these immunotherapies to positively impact patient outcomes, optimal selection of agents and treatment scheduling, especially in conjunction with existing treatment paradigms, is paramount. Immunotherapies also warrant specific and unique considerations regarding patient management, emphasizing both the prompt identification and treatment of potential toxicities. In order to address these issues, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts in the field of immunotherapy for urothelial cancer. The expert panel developed this clinical practice guideline (CPG) to inform healthcare professionals on important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for urothelial cancer, including diagnostic testing, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers treating patients with urothelial cancer.

Hairy cell leukemia and COVID-19 adaptation of treatment guidelines

Standard treatment options in classic HCL (cHCL) result in high response rates and near normal life expectancy. However, the disease itself and the recommended standard treatment are associated with profound and prolonged immunosuppression, increasing susceptibility to infections and the risk for a severe course of COVID-19. The Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation (HCLF) has recently convened experts and discussed different clinical strategies for the management of these patients. The new recommendations adapt the 2017 consensus for the diagnosis and management with cHCL to the current COVID-19 pandemic. They underline the option of active surveillance in patients with low but stable blood counts, consider the use of targeted and non-immunosuppressive agents as first-line treatment for cHCL, and give recommendations on preventive measures against COVID-19.

Rapid real-world data analysis of patients with cancer, with and without COVID-19, across distinct health systems

Background

The understanding of the impact of COVID‐19 in patients with cancer is evolving, with need for rapid analysis.

Aims

This study aims to compare the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with cancer (with and without COVID‐19) and characterize the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID‐19 and cancer.

Methods and Results

Real‐world data (RWD) from two health systems were used to identify 146 702 adults diagnosed with cancer between 2015 and 2020; 1267 COVID‐19 cases were identified between February 1 and July 30, 2020. Demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics were extracted. Incidence of all‐cause mortality, hospitalizations, and invasive respiratory support was assessed between February 1 and August 14, 2020. Among patients with cancer, patients with COVID‐19 were more likely to be Non‐Hispanic black (NHB), have active cancer, have comorbidities, and/or live in zip codes with median household income <$30 000. Patients with COVID‐19 living in lower‐income areas and NHB patients were at greatest risk for hospitalization from pneumonia, fluid and electrolyte disorders, cough, respiratory failure, and acute renal failure and were more likely to receive hydroxychloroquine. All‐cause mortality, hospital admission, and invasive respiratory support were more frequent among patients with cancer and COVID‐19. Male sex, increasing age, living in zip codes with median household income <$30 000, history of pulmonary circulation disorders, and recent treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy were associated with greater odds of all‐cause mortality in multivariable logistic regression models.

Conclusion

RWD can be rapidly leveraged to understand urgent healthcare challenges. Patients with cancer are more vulnerable to COVID‐19 effects, especially in the setting of active cancer and comorbidities, with additional risk observed in NHB patients and those living in zip codes with median household income <$30 000.

Safety of systemic anti-cancer treatment in oncology patients with non-severe COVID-19: a cohort study

Background

The viral pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disrupted cancer patient management around the world. Most reported data relate to incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe COVID-19. The safety of systemic anti-cancer therapy in oncology patients with non-severe COVID-19 is an important matter in daily practice.

Methods

ONCOSARS-1 was a single-center, academic observational study. Adult patients with solid tumors treated in the oncology day unit with systemic anti-cancer therapy during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium were prospectively included. All patients (n = 363) underwent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological testing after the first peak of the pandemic in Belgium. Additionally, 141 of these patients also had a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test during the pandemic. The main objective was to retrospectively determine the safety of systemic cancer treatment, measured by the rate of adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative patients.

Results

Twenty-two (6%) of the 363 eligible patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and/or serology. Of these, three required transient oxygen supplementation, but none required admission to the intensive care unit. Hematotoxicity was the only adverse event more frequently observed in SARS-CoV-2 -positive patients than in SARS-CoV-2-negative patients: 73% vs 35% (P < 0.001). This association remained significant (odds ratio (OR) 4.1, P = 0.009) even after adjusting for performance status and type of systemic treatment. Hematological adverse events led to more treatment delays for the SARS-CoV-2-positive group: 55% vs 20% (P < 0.001). Median duration of treatment interruption was similar between the two groups: 14 and 11 days, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, infections unrelated to COVID-19, and bleeding events occurred at a low rate in the SARS-CoV-2-positive patients.

Conclusion

Systemic anti-cancer therapy appeared safe in ambulatory oncology patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were, however, more treatment delays in the SARS-CoV-2-positive population, mainly due to a higher rate of hematological adverse events.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08349-8.

Overlap of immunotherapy-related pneumonitis and COVID-19 pneumonia: diagnostic and vaccine considerations

The clinically indistinguishable overlap between pneumonitis caused due to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and pneumonia associated with COVID-19 has posed considerable challenges for patients with cancer and oncologists alike. The cancer community continues to face the challenges that lay at the complex immunological intersection of immune-based cancer therapy and immune dysregulation that results from COVID-19. Is there compounded immune dysregulation that could lead to poor outcomes? Could ICIs, in fact, ameliorate SARS-CoV-2-driven T-cell exhaustion?A little more is known about the kinetics of the viral replication in immunocompromised patients now as compared with earlier during the pandemic. Working knowledge of the diagnostic and therapeutic nuances of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with active cancers, issues related to viability and replication potential of the virus, unclear role of corticosteroids among those with diminished or dysfunctional effector T-cell repertoire, and the type of immunotherapy with differential risk of pneumonitis will inform decision making related to immunotherapy choices and decision for ICI continuation in the era of COVID-19.

COVID-19 and cancer registries: learning from the first peak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

The SARS-Cov-2 pandemic in 2020 has caused oncology teams around the world to adapt their practice in the aim of protecting patients. Early evidence from China indicated that patients with cancer, and particularly those who had recently received chemotherapy or surgery, were at increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-Cov-2 infection. Many registries of cancer patients infected with SARS-Cov-2 emerged during the first wave. We collate the evidence from these national and international studies and focus on the risk factors for patients with solid cancers and the contribution of systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACT-chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted and hormone therapy) to outcomes following SARS-Cov-2 infection. Patients with cancer infected with SARS-Cov-2 have a higher probability of death compared with patients without cancer. Common risk factors for mortality following COVID-19 include age, male sex, smoking history, number of comorbidities and poor performance status. Oncological features that may predict for worse outcomes include tumour stage, disease trajectory and lung cancer. Most studies did not identify an association between SACT and adverse outcomes. Recent data suggest that the timing of receipt of SACT may be associated with risk of mortality. Ongoing recruitment to these registries will enable us to provide evidence-based care.

Outcomes of Patients with Sarcoma and COVID-19 Infection: A Single Institution Cohort Analysis

Outcomes for patients (pts) with sarcoma and COVID-19 are unknown. This is a single institution retrospective study of adults with sarcoma and COVID-19. Ten pts [median age 60 (range 24-69)] were identified. Five were hospitalized; two died from COVID-19 complications; another died from sarcoma. Time between last systemic treatment dose and COVID-19 diagnosis was 6-41 days in pts who died. 5 underwent prior radiation (RT); time between RT and COVID-19 diagnosis was 20-62 days for pts who died. All three pts with WBC differential data (two died) were lymphopenic. Efforts to capture outcomes for a larger cohort are urgently needed.

Severity of COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer: evidence and challenges

Cancer patients are highly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infections due to frequent contacts with the healthcare system, immunocompromised state from cancer or its therapies, supportive medications such as steroids and most importantly their advanced age and comorbidities. Patients with lung cancer have consistently been reported to suffer from an increased risk of death compared with other cancers. This is possibly due to the combination of specific pathophysiological aspects, including underlying pulmonary compromise due to smoking history and the increased specific pressures on respiratory healthcare services caused by the related pandemic. Rationally and safely treating patients with lung cancer during the pandemic has become a continuous challenge over the last year. Deciding whether to offer, modify, postpone or even cancel treatments for this particular patient's population has become the crucial recurrent dilemma for lung cancer professionals. Chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted agents represent distinct risks factors in the context of COVID-19 that should be balanced with the short-term and long-term consequences of delaying cancer care. Despite the rapid and persistent trend of the pandemic, declared by WHO on March 11, 2020, and still ongoing at the time of writing (January 2021), various efforts were made by oncologists worldwide to understand the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer. Adapted recommendations of our evidence-based practice guidelines have been developed for all stakeholders. Different small and large-scale registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration quickly collected data, supporting cancer care decisions under the challenging circumstance created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Several recommendations were developed as guidance for prioritizing the various aspects of lung cancer care in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 healthcare crisis, potentially reducing the morbidity and mortality of our patients from COVID-19 and from cancer. These recommendations helped inform decisions about treatment of established disease, continuation of clinical research and lung cancer screening. In this review, we summarize available evidence regarding the direct and indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and patients.

At the Crossroads: COVID-19 and Immune-Checkpoint Blockade for Cancer

The immunomodulatory effects of immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy for cancer may act at the crossroads between the need to increase antiviral immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and to decrease the inflammatory responses in severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is evidence from preclinical models that blocking programmed death receptor 1 (PD1) protects against RNA virus infections, which suggests that patients with cancer receiving ICB may have lower rates of viral infection. However, given the heterogeneity of patient characteristics, this would be difficult to demonstrate using population-based registries or in clinical trials. Most studies of the impact of ICB therapy on the course of COVID-19 have centered on studying its potential detrimental impact on the course of the COVID-19 infection, in particular on the development of the most severe inflammatory complications. This is a logical concern as it is becoming clear that complications of COVID-19 such as severe respiratory distress syndrome are related to interferon signaling, which is the pathway that leads to expression of the PD1 ligand PD-L1. Therefore, PD1/PD-L1 ICB could potentially increase inflammatory processes, worsening the disease course for patients. However, review of the current evidence does not support the notion that ICB therapy worsens complications from COVID-19, and we conclude that it supports the continued use of ICB therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic provided that we now collect data on the effects of such therapy on COVID-19 vaccination.

Challenges and Opportunities for COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Cancer

Given the rapidly expanding global spread of the SARS-Co-V-2 virus and the expanding number of individuals with the serious and potentially fatal illness, COVID-19, there is an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines. Based on compelling evidence that patients with cancer are at increased risk for greater morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, several professional organizations have provided early guidance on the role of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with malignant disease. In this commentary we review the available data on the efficacy and safety of the approved and forthcoming vaccines in patients with cancer. Based on a review of the totality of available evidence, we recommend that most patients with cancer should receive the recommended dose and schedule of one of the COVID-19 vaccines when available. We encourage industry, regulators and professional research organizations to carefully track the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer in the real world setting and routinely report unanticipated adverse events and signs of loss of efficacy. Particular attention is needed for patients on active cancer therapy to carefully evaluate efficacy and safety in relationship to the timing of vaccination relative to that of active cancer treatment and immunosuppression.

Infections and Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: A Bad Relationship?

Infectious diseases represent a relevant issue in lung cancer patients. Bacterial and viral infections might influence the patients’ prognosis, both directly affecting the immune system and indirectly impairing the outcome of anticancer treatments, mainly immunotherapy. In this analysis, we aimed to review the current evidence in order to clarify the complex correlation between infections and lung cancer. In detail, we mainly explored the potential impact on immunotherapy outcome/safety of (1) bacterial infections, with a detailed focus on antibiotics; and (2) viral infections, discriminating among (a) human immune-deficiency virus (HIV), (b) hepatitis B/C virus (HBV-HCV), and (c) Sars-Cov-2. A series of studies suggested the prognostic impact of antibiotic therapy administration, timing, and exposure ratio in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, probably through an antibiotic-related microbiota dysbiosis. Although cancer patients with HIV, HBV, and HCV were usually excluded from clinical trials evaluating immunotherapy, some retrospective and prospective trials performed in these patient subgroups reported similar results compared to those described in not-infected patients, with a favorable safety profile. Moreover, patients with thoracic cancers are particularly at risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes and mortality. Few reports speculated about the prognostic implications of anticancer therapy, including immunotherapy, in lung cancer patients with concomitant Sars-Cov-2 infection, showing, to date, inconsistent results. The correlation between infectious diseases and immunotherapy remains to be further explored and clarified in the context of dedicated trials. In clinical practice, the accurate and prompt multidisciplinary management of lung cancer patients with infections should be encouraged in order to select the best treatment options for these patients, avoiding unexpected toxicities, while maintaining the anticancer effect.