Interplay of Immunosuppression and Immunotherapy Among Patients With Cancer and COVID-19

Importance

Cytokine 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.

Objective

To 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 Participants

This 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.

Exposures

Immunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 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.

Results

The 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 Relevance

This 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 Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701.

Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study

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.

Oxybutynin vs Placebo for Hot Flashes in Women With or Without Breast Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial (ACCRU SC-1603)

BACKGROUND

Hot flashes (HFs) negatively affect quality of life among perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. This study investigated the efficacy of oxybutynin vs placebo in decreasing HFs.

METHODS

In this randomized, multicenter, double-blind study, women with and without breast cancer with 28 or more HFs per week, lasting longer than 30 days, who were not candidates for estrogen-based therapy, were assigned to oral oxybutynin (2.5 mg twice a day or 5 mg twice a day) or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the intrapatient change from baseline in weekly HF score between each oxybutynin dose and placebo using a repeated-measures mixed model. Secondary endpoints included changes in weekly HF frequency, HF-related daily interference scale questionnaires, and self-reported symptoms.

RESULTS

We enrolled 150 women. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Mean (SD) age was 57 (8.2) years. Two-thirds (65%) were taking tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. Patients on both oxybutynin doses reported greater reductions in the weekly HF score (5 mg twice a day: -16.9 [SD 15.6], 2.5 mg twice a day: -10.6 [SD 7.7]), placebo -5.7 (SD 10.2); P < .005 for both oxybutynin doses vs placebo), HF frequency (5 mg twice a day: -7.5 [SD 6.6], 2.5 mg twice a day: -4.8 [SD 3.2], placebo: -2.6 [SD 4.3]; P < .003 for both oxybutynin doses vs placebo), and improvement in most HF-related daily interference scale measures and in overall quality of life. Patients on both oxybutynin arms reported more side effects than patients on placebo, particularly dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain. Most side effects were grade 1 or 2. There were no differences in study discontinuation because of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Oxybutynin is an effective and relatively well-tolerated treatment option for women with HFs.

Abstract GS6-02: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oxybutynin (Oxy) for hot flashes (HF): ACCRU study SC-1603

Background: HF occur in about 75% of midlife women and are associated with quality of life disruption and premature endocrine therapy discontinuation among breast cancer survivors. Estrogen therapy, effective for HF, is contraindicated in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (BC). Previous studies have suggested that Oxy could be effective in managing HF.

Methods: This randomized, placebo (P)-controlled trial enrolled women who had experienced HF ≥28 times per week over &gt;30 days and of sufficient severity to seek treatment. Patients (pts) were randomized to receive oral Oxy at two doses: 2.5mg BID for 6 weeks (Oxy2.5), 2.5mg BID for a week with subsequent increase to 5mg BID (Oxy5), or matching P, in equal ratios. Baseline and monthly questionnaires were administered including a HF diary, the HF related daily interference scale (HFRDIS) and a symptom experience questionnaire. The primary endpoint was intra-patient change in weekly HF score and frequency from baseline to end of study compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests.

Results: 150 pts were accrued between 2/23/2017-3/5/2018. 4 pts cancelled before starting treatment and were excluded from analyses. This interim report includes the first 104 pts for which at least one post-baseline evaluation was available. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the arms. Sixty-two percent were on tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor for the duration of the study. Pts on both Oxy doses had a significantly greater reduction in HF score and frequency compared to P. Pts on Oxy2.5 had a mean change in HF score of -10 (SD 7.4) vs -5.1 (SD 9.7) with P, p=0.003; and a mean change in average weekly number of HF of -4.6 (SD 3.1) vs -2.3 (SD 3.9), p=0.002. Pts on Oxy5 had a mean change in HF score of -16.2 (SD 5.1) vs -5.1 (SD 9.7) with P, p&lt;0.001; and a mean change in average weekly number of HF of -7.0 (SD 4.0) vs -2.3 (SD 3.9), p&lt;0.001. Repeated measures mixed models confirmed that, after adjusting for baseline values, both Oxy arms had significantly lower HF scores and frequency compared to P (p&lt;0.001). HFRDIS revealed that pts in both Oxy arms experienced improvement in the following HF interference measures: work, social activities, leisure activities, sleep, relations, life enjoyment, and overall quality of life. Pts on Oxy5 also had improvement in HF interference with mood. Pts on Oxy2.5 experienced more stomach pain (p=0.031), diarrhea (p=0.007), nausea (p=0.04), headaches (0.032), episodes of confusion (0.012), dry mouth (p=0.003) and dry eyes (0.027) compared to P. Pts on Oxy5 experienced more constipation (0.004), dry mouth (0.001) and difficulty urinating (0.004) compared to P. There were no differences in study discontinuation due to adverse effects between either Oxy arm and P (Oxy2.5 vs P, p=0.653; Oxy5 vs P, p=0.483).

Conclusions: Oxy is superior to P for management of HF. Oxy2.5 and 5 were both associated with significant improvements in HF scores and frequency as well as improvement in HF interference with several quality of life measures. While pts on Oxy experienced more side effects than pts on P, rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were low.

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

Citation Format: Leon-Ferre RA, Novotny PJ, Faubion SS, Ruddy KJ, Flora D, Dakhil C, Rowland KM, Graham ML, Le-Lindqwister N, Loprinzi CL. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oxybutynin (Oxy) for hot flashes (HF): ACCRU study SC-1603 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS6-02.

Randomized, double-blind, phase two study of ruxolitinib plus regorafenib in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) signaling pathway plays a key role in the systemic inflammatory response in many cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC). This study evaluated the addition of ruxolitinib, a potent JAK1/2 inhibitor, to regorafenib in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC.

METHODS

In this two-part, multicenter, phase 2 study, eligible adult patients had metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2; received fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (if no contraindication); and if KRAS wild-type (and no contraindication), an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy; and progressed following the last administration of approved therapy. Patients who received previous treatment with regorafenib, had an established cardiac or gastrointestinal disease, or had an active infection requiring treatment were excluded. The study was conducted in 95 sites in North America, European Union, Asia Pacific, and Israel. After an open-label, safety run-in phase (part 1; ruxolitinib 20 mg twice daily [BID] plus regorafenib 160 mg once daily [QD]), the double-blind, randomized phase (part 2) was conducted wherein patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ruxolitinib 15 mg BID plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [ruxolitinib group] or placebo plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [placebo group]. Part 2 included substudy 1 (patients with high systemic inflammation, ie, C-reactive protein [CRP] >10 mg/L) and substudy 2 (patients with low systemic inflammation, ie, CRP ≤10 mg/L); the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The study was terminated early; substudy 1 was terminated for futility at interim analysis and substudy 2 was terminated per sponsor decision. Ruxolitinib 20 mg BID was well tolerated in the safety run-in (n = 11). Overall, 396 patients were randomized (substudy 1: n = 175 [ruxolitinib group, n = 87; placebo group, n = 88]; substudy 2: n = 221 [ruxolitinib group, n = 110; placebo group, n = 111]). There was no significant difference in OS or progression-free survival (PFS) between treatments in substudy 1 (OS: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.040 [95% confidence interval: 0.725-1.492]; PFS: HR = 1.004 [0.724-1.391]) and substudy 2 (OS: HR = 0.767 [0.478-1.231]; PFS: HR = 0.787 [0.576-1.074]). The most common hematologic adverse event was anemia. No new safety signals with ruxolitinib were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Although addition of ruxolitinib to regorafenib did not show increased safety concerns in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC, this combination did not improve OS/PFS vs. regorafenib plus placebo.

Phase II trial of thalidomide, irinotecan and gemcitabine in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

This study aim was to determine the efficacy and safety of the combination of Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) day 1 & 8 and Irinotecan 100 mg/m(2) day 1 & 8 with escalating dose of thalidomide in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Among the 20 patients who met eligibility criteria and received treatment, two patients (10%) experienced partial response and 14 (70%) experienced stable disease. The median time to disease progression was 4 months (95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The 1 year and 2 year survival rates were 36% and 27%, respectively. This combination is active in advanced NSCLC with manageable toxicity profile.

A phase II trial of thalidomide (T), irinotecan (I) and gemcitabine (G) in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

17068

Background: Chemotherapy with platinum based doublets provides only a modest benefit in advanced NSCLC with a median overall survival (OS) of 8 months and 1-year survival rate of 33% (Schiller JH et al, N Engl J Med 2002). We performed a phase II study to determine the efficacy of thalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent with antiangiogenic activity, in combination with chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. Methods: Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC with ECOG PS≤ 2 and adequate organ function were treated with G (1000 mg/m2) and I (100 mg/m2) IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21 day cycle. Patients also received T (200 mg orally with escalation as tolerated to a maximum of 400 mg daily). Therapeutic anticoagulation with coumadin was given to the last 11 patients. Results: Twenty four patients were enrolled: median age 57 years (41–76); M:F=17:7; ECOG PS 0/1/2=13/7/3; stage IV: IIIB= 21:3 and CNS involvement: 6. Two pts died before treatment, 1 was ineligible and 1 was lost to follow up. The remaining 20 pts received a median of 4 treatment cycles (range 1–6). The regimen was generally well tolerated and the most common grade 3–4 toxicities encountered were: diarrhea (4); pneumonia (3) and thromboembolic events (3). There were no thromboembolic events after anticoagulation was initiated. Two patients (10%) experienced partial response, 14 (70%) experienced stable disease, 1 had progressive disease. Three patients (15%) were not evaluable for response due to early withdrawal. The median OS was 10.8 months (range 0.6–37+) and 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 37% and 16%, respectively. The median time to progression was 3.6 months (range 0.2–11+). Conclusions: The combination of thalidomide and chemotherapy is reasonably well tolerated and active in advanced NSCLC as evidenced by good OS and 1- and 2-year survival rates. The addition of thalidomide to a non-platinum based regimen appears to compare favorably to the results of the traditional platinum based doublets.

[Table: see text]

Physiology: does gut hormone PYY3-36 decrease food intake in rodents?

Batterham et al. report that the gut peptide hormone PYY3-36 decreases food intake and body-weight gain in rodents, a discovery that has been heralded as potentially offering a new therapy for obesity. However, we have been unable to replicate their results. Although the reasons for this discrepancy remain undetermined, an effective anti-obesity drug ultimately must produce its effects across a range of situations. The fact that the findings of Batterham et al. cannot easily be replicated calls into question the potential value of an anti-obesity approach that is based on administration of PYY3-36.