Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CDK 4/6 inhibitors (CDK 4-6i) according to HER2 status (low/zero), and endocrine resistance/sensitivity, as well as the efficacy of second-line treatments, in a large real-world cohort., Methods: The GIM14/BIOMETA study (NCT02284581) is a retrospective/prospective study of the Gruppo Italiano Mammella evaluating treatment patterns and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We retrieved data on patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative MBC receiving first-line CDK 4/6i., Results: Among 3832 patients enrolled in the GIM14-BIOMETA study, 701 were eligible. At a median follow-up of 24.80 months, no significant differences were found between HER2-zero and HER2-low subgroups in terms of first-line time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) (26.16 months [IQR 12.84-NR] vs. 27.60 months [IQR 12.12-64.44], p = 0.972) or overall survival (OS) (mOS>60 months for both groups, p = 0.398). Median TTD was 33.24 months (IQR 16.32-NR) for the endocrine sensitive subgroup, 19.92 months (IQR 8.88-51.24) for the secondary endocrine resistant subgroup and 17.40 months (IQR 7.44-24.72) for the primary endocrine resistant subset, respectively (p < 0.001). Among 239 patients receiving second-line treatment, no significant difference (p = 0.188) was found in terms of second-line TTD between those treated with capecitabine (6.11 months, IQR 2.96-11.47), taxane-based chemotherapy (5.06 months, IQR 2.99-9.99), everolimus plus exemestane (5.39 months, IQR 2.53-9.03) or fulvestrant (6.44 months, IQR 3.38-NR)., Conclusions: Endocrine therapy plus CDK 4/6i represents an effective treatment, regardless of HER2 status (low/zero). Second-line agents did not differ significantly in terms of TTD. Endocrine resistant cancers exhibit poor response to CDK 4/6i., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Chiara Molinelli reports honoraria for consultancy and consulting fees from Daiichi Sankyo, travel support to attend conferences from Gilead, Menarini and fees for medical writing from Lilly and Seagen. Eva Blondeaux reports honoraria from Eli Lilly and research funding (to institution) from Gilead. Michelino De Laurentiis reports honoraria or consultation fees for speaker, consultancy or advisory roles from Eli Lilly, Seagen, Therapeutics, GSK, Roche, Novartis, Genetic, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Menarini Stemline, Sophos Biotech, Max Farma, Celltrion Healthcare, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo; institutional financial interests, financial support for clinical trials or contracted research, from: Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline Therapeutics. Alessandra Fabi reports consulting fees and honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo. Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD. Grazia Arpino reports research and medical writing from AstraZeneca; advisory boards, travel grants, activities as a speaker, consultancy from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Exact Science, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Viatris. Andrea Fontana reports advisory boards from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Gilead, Seagen, Astra Zeneca, Exact Sciences; consulting fees from Dompé Farmaceutici S.p.A. D.G. Research funding from Menarini, Seagen, Novartis, AstraZeneca; advisory boards, activities as a speaker, consultancy from Seagen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Exact Sciences. Fabio Puglisi reports advisory role for and receiving speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Ipsen, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, and Viatris. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Novartis, Roche. Research grants (to his institution) from Astrazeneca, Eisai, Roche. Claudia Bighin reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Gilead, and Daiichi. Matteo Lambertini reports advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Menarini; speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Menarini, AstraZeneca; travel Grants from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche; research funding (to the Institution) from Gilead all outside the submitted work. Lucia Del Mastro reports grants from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre; receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Ipsen, GSK, and Agendia-Stemline; receiving travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca; and having an advisory role for Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sakyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Agendia, GSK, and Seagen. All the other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The incidence of early-onset cancers in adolescents and young adults (AYA) has been increasing worldwide since the 1990s. In Italy, a significant increased rate of 1.6 % per year has been reported for early-onset cancers among females between 2008 and 2016. This is mainly attributable to melanoma, thyroid, breast and endometrial cancer. The aim of our work was to describe temporal trends of the main established lifestyle risk factors (tobacco use, alcohol consumption, obesity, physical inactivity, dietary westernization and reproductive factors) over the last 20 years in the Italian AYA population. Available data on behavioural risk factors, individual and household daily life have been obtained and elaborated from PASSI, ISTAT and Eurostat reports. Lowering age of smoking initiation, an increase in alcohol drinkers among young females, and an obesity and overweight epidemic, particularly among children and adolescents as a result of physical inactivity and dietary habits, may be contributing factors behind this cancer epidemic, especially among females. In-depth investigations are needed to understand the exact role of each contributing factor, the effects of exposure to nicotine-containing products and environmental factors such as endocrine disruptors that could play a role in this phenomenon., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In randomized clinical trials (RCTs), blinded independent central review (BICR) is used to minimize heterogeneity and bias associated with radiological response evaluation by local investigators. However, BICR adds costs and complexity to the trial management. We assessed the discrepancy index between progression-free survival (PFS) assessment by local investigators and by BICR in RCTs conducted in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane databases and conference proceedings (ASCO, SABCS, ESMO) was performed up to January 4, 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD42021229865). All RCTs published from 2000 to 2022, including MBC patients treated in first- or second-line, and reporting PFS assessed by local investigators and BICR were included. A discrepancy index between BICR-assessed and investigator-assessed HR was calculated for each trial and an overall combined DI was obtained using a fixed-effects model. The agreement between hazard ratios (HR) of PFS assessed by local investigators and BICR was measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)., Results: We analyzed 24 studies including 13,168 patients. Among them, 19 (79%) were in first-line, 18 (75%) were phase III trials and 23 (96%) had PFS as primary endpoint. The overall combined discrepancy index was 0.97 (95%CI 0.85-1.10; ICC 0.831, p < 0.001) suggesting no statistically significant difference in PFS assessment between local investigators and BICR. This result was consistent across all analyzed subgroups., Conclusions: The good concordance between local investigator and BICR assessments supports the reliability of local investigator-assessed PFS as primary endpoint for RCTs in MBC and questions the practical utility of implementing BICR in all RCTs., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients with breast cancer (BC) harbouring a germinal BRCA pathogenic variant (gBRCA-PV) may have an enhanced sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) and PARP inhibitors (PARPi). As reported in ovarian cancer, however, sensitivity and resistance to these treatments could partially overlap. In patients with a gBRCA-PV and advanced BC (aBC), it remains unclear whether prior exposure to PARPi/PBC affects tumour response to subsequent PBC/PARPi, respectively., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study to investigate the clinical benefit of post-PBC PARPi and vice versa in patients with a gBRCA-PV and aBC. Patients included had received (neo)adjuvant PBC and then PARPi in advanced setting (group 1), PBC followed by PARPi (group 2) or PARPi followed by PBC (group 3), both in advanced setting. We reported median progression-free survival (mPFS) and disease control rate (DCR) in each group., Results: A total of 67 patients from six centres were included. PARPi-mPFS in advanced setting was 6.1 months in patients in group 1 (N = 12), while PARPi-DCR was 67%. In group 2 (N = 36), PARPi-mPFS was 3.4 months and PARPi-DCR was 64%. Age < 65 years and platinum-free interval (PFI) > 6 months were associated with longer PARPi-PFS; previous PBC-PFS > 6 months and PBC in first to second line were associated with longer PARPi-DCR. Patients in group 3 (N = 21) reported a PBC-mPFS of 1.8 months and a PBC-DCR of 14%. PARPi-PFS ≥ 9 months and PARPi-FI ≥ 6 months were associated with better PBC-DCR., Conclusions: Sensitivity and resistance to PARPi and PBC partially overlap in patients with a gBRCA-PV and aBC. Evidence of PARPi activity emerged in patients who progressed on previous PBC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: GC reports honoraria for speaker's engagement: Roche, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, NanoString, Samsung, Celltrion, BMS, MSD; honoraria for providing consultancy: Roche, Seattle Genetics, NanoString; Honoraria for participating in Advisory Board: Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Samsung, Celltrion, Mylan; honoraria for writing engagement: Novartis, BMS; Honoraria for participation in Ellipsis Scientific Affairs Group; institutional research funding for conducting phase I and II clinical trials: Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene, Servier, Orion, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, AbbVie, Tesaro, BMS, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp Dome, Janssen-Cilag, Philogen, Bayer, Medivation, Medimmune. LM reports honoraria for speakers engagement: Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Daichii Sankyo, Novartis. Honoraria for participating in Advisory Board: EISAI, Pfizer, Roche. ML reports advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD and Exact Sciences; speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo and Takeda; Travel Grants from Gilead; research support (to the Institution) from Gilead, all outside the submitted work. AZ reports advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD and Exact Sciences; speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; Travel Grants from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo; all outside the submitted work. MP reports advisory role for Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Gilead; speaker honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo; Travel Grants from Gilead; all outside the submitted work. CVe reports honoraria for speaker's engagement: Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Istituto Gentili, Accademia di Medicina, Fenix; honoraria for participating in advisory boards: Pfizer, Novartis, lilly, Daichi Sankyo; research grants: Roche. All the competing interests were outside the submitted work. All other authors have no potential conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment options for advanced melanoma have increased with the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the anti-LAG3 plus anti-PD-1 relatlimab/nivolumab combination. To date, ipilimumab/nivolumab is the benchmark of overall survival, despite a high toxicity profile. Furthermore, in BRAF-mutant patients, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and the atezolizumab/vemurafenib/cobimetinib triplet are also available treatments, making the first-line therapy selection more complex. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the available first-line treatment options in advanced melanoma., Methods: Randomised clinical trials of previously untreated, advanced melanoma were included if at least one intervention arm contained a BRAF/MEK or an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). The aim was to indirectly compare the ICIs combinations ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab, and these combinations with all the other first-line treatment options for advanced melanoma (irrespective of BRAF status) in terms of activity and safety. The coprimary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (≥ G3 TRAEs) rate, defined according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events., Results: A total of 9070 metastatic melanoma patients treated in 18 randomised clinical trials were included in the network meta-analysis. No difference in PFS and ORR was observed between ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab (HR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.75-1.31] and RR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.78-1.27], respectively). The PD-(L)1/BRAF/MEK inhibitors triplet combinations were superior to ipilimumab/nivolumab in terms of both PFS (HR = 0.56 [95% CI 0.37-0.84]) and ORR (RR = 3.07 [95% CI 1.61-5.85]). Ipilimumab/nivolumab showed the highest risk of developing ≥ G3 TRAEs. Relatlimab/nivolumab trended to a lower risk of ≥ G3 TRAEs (RR = 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.67]) versus ipilimumab/nivolumab., Conclusion: Relatlimab/nivolumab showed similar PFS and ORR compared to ipilimumab/nivolumab, with a trend for a better safety profile., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Prof. Genova reported receipt of Grants from Italian Ministry of Health and BMS, and Honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, ThermoFisher. Prof. Del Mastro reported receipt of speaker Honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly and MSD; Travel Grants from Roche, Pfizer and Celgene; participation on Advisory Board for Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Eli Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, and Daiichi Sankyo. Prof. Lambertini reported receipt of personal fees (advisory role and/or speaker honoraria) from Roche, Takeda, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis Exact Sciences and Ipsen. Prof. Spagnolo reported receipt of Honoraria for presentations or lectures from Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Merk, Sun Pharma, MSD, Pierre Fabre; participation on Advisory Board for Novartis, Philogen SunPharma, and MSD. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The early crossing of survival curves in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with immune checkpoint blockers suggests an excess of mortality in the first months of treatment. However, the exact estimation of the early death (ED) rate, the comparison between ED upon immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) alone or in combination with other agents and the impact of tumour type, and PD-L1 expression on ED are unknown., Methods: RCTs comparing ICI alone (ICI-only group) or in combination with other non-ICI therapies (ICI-OT group) (experimental arms) versus non-ICI treatments (control arm) were included. ED was defined as death within the first 3 months of treatment. The primary outcome was the comparison of ED between experimental and control arms, and the secondary outcome was the comparison of ED risk between ICI-only and ICI-OT. ED rates estimated by risk ratio (RR) were pooled by random effect model., Results: A total of 56 RCTs (40,215 participants, 14 cancer types) were included. ED occurred in 14.2% and 6.7% of patients in ICI-only and ICI-OT groups, respectively. ED risk significantly increased with ICI-only (RR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.57) versus non-ICI therapies, while it was lower with ICI-OT versus non-ICI treatments (RR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.90). ED risk was significantly higher upon ICI-only compared to ICI-OT (RR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.26-1.95). Gastric and urothelial carcinoma were at higher risk of ED. PD-L1 expression and ICI drug classes were not associated with ED., Conclusions: ED upon first-line ICI is a clinically relevant phenomenon across solid malignancies, not predictable by PD-L1 expression but preventable through the addition of other treatments to ICI., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Prof Matteo Lambertini: advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Astrazeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead and speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight. Dr Raimondo Di Liello: consultant Janssen, educational Astellas. Dr Martina Imbimbo: independent safety board member for Immatics. Dr Carminia Maria Della Corte: advisory board for MSD and Astrazeneca. Prof Floriana Morgillo: BMS, MSD, Astrazeneca, Incyte (Consultory/Advisory relationship). Dr Giuseppe Lo Russo: personal fees from AstraZeneca, Italfarmaco, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; support for attending meetings/travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Italfarmaco, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; and participation as a DSMB or advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi. Dr Claudia Proto: personal fees from BMS and MSD. Dr Arsela Prelaj: personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca and BMS. Dr Diego Signorelli: personal fees from Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche. Prof Fortunato Ciardiello: Merck, Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, Symphogen, Pfizer (Consultant/Avisory relationship), Roche, Merck, Amgen, Bayer, Ipsen (Research funding). Dr Nathalie Chaput: sponsored research from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, Sanofi, Cytune Pharma, Gilead, Servier. Lectures and educational activities: Gilead and Servier. Dr Jordi Remon: advisory board: MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Astrazeneca, Roche; Bayer, Janssen. Speaker: Pfizer, Janssen; travel reimbursement: Ose immunotherapeutics, BMS, Astrazeneca, Roche. Prof Benjamin Besse: grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Onxeo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Inivata, AbbVie, Amgen, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Ignyta, Ipsen, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Nektar, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Therapeutics, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Oncology, OSE Immunotherapeutics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Servier, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. Prof Filippo De Braud: Consultant Advisory Board: Roche, EMD Serono, NMS Nerviano Medical Science, Sanofi, MSD, Novartis, Incyte, BMS, Menarini. Speaker: BMS, Healthcare Research & Pharmacoepidemiology, Merck Group, ACCMED, Nadirex, MSD, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi, Roche, AMGEN, Incyte, Dephaforum. Principal Investigator for Novartis, F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd, BMS, Ignyta Operating INC, Merck Sharp & Dohme Spa, Kymab, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD, MedImmune LCC, Exelixis Inc., LOXO Oncology Incorporated, DAICHI SANKIO Dev. Limited, Basilea Pharmaceutica International AG, Janssen-Cilag International NV, Merck KGAA. Prof Marina Chiara Garassino: personal financial interests with the following organisations: AstraZeneca, MSD International GmbH, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S. p.A, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; institutional financial interests with the following organisations: Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer (MISP), AstraZeneca, MSD International GmbH, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S. p.A, Celgene, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tiziana, Foundation Medicine; funding from the following organisations: AIRC, AIFA, Italian Moh, TRANSCAN. All the other authors have no conflicts to declare. Dr Roberto Ferrara: advisory board for Beigene and MSD. All the other authors (Dr Giuseppe Viscardi, Dr Antonino Carmelo Tralongo, Dr Francesco Massari, Dr Veronica Mollica, Dr Alessandro Rizzo, Dr Francesca Comito, Dr Salvatore Alfieri, Dr Vittorio Simeon, Dr Alessandro De Toma, Dr Giulia Galli, Dr Valter Torri, Dr Michela Cinquini) have no conflicts to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: There remains a considerable concern among both patients and oncologists that having a live birth (LB) after breast cancer might adversely impact survival., Methods: analysis of survival in a national cohort of women with breast cancer diagnosed at age 20-39 years between 1981 and 2017 (n = 5181), and subsequent LB using Scottish Cancer Registry and national maternity records. Cases had at least one subsequent LB, each was matched with up to six unexposed cases without subsequent LB, accounting for guaranteed time bias., Results: In 290 women with a LB after diagnosis, overall survival was increased compared to those who did not have a subsequent LB, HR 0.65 (95%CI 0.50-0.85). Women with subsequent LB who had not had a pregnancy before breast cancer showed increased survival (HR 0.56, 0.38-0.82). There was a progressively greater interaction of subsequent LB with survival with younger age, thus for women aged 20-25 years, HR 0.30 (0.12-0.74) vs. those aged 36-39, HR 0.89 (0.42-1.87). In women with LB within five years of diagnosis, survival was also increased (HR 0.66; 0.49-0.89). Survival following LB was similar to unexposed women by ER status (both positive and negative) and in those known to have been exposed to chemotherapy., Conclusions: This analysis provides further evidence that for the growing number of women who wish to have children after breast cancer, LB does not have a negative impact on overall survival. This finding was confirmed within subgroups, including the youngest women and those not previously pregnant., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: RAA has undertaken consultancy work for Roche Diagnostics. ML has undertaken consultancy work for Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis; and has received speaker honoraria from Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and Novartis. The other authors report no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusions: 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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: As corresponding author of the abovementioned manuscript, I declare on behalf of my co-authors the following conflict of interests: David J Pinato received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, EISAI, Falk Foundation, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, DaVolterra and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS.Aleix Prat has declared personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo; travel, accommodations, and expenses paid by Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from Roche and Novartis; and consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb.Matteo Lambertini acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, Ipsen and Sandoz outside the submitted work.Joan Brunet has declared consulting/advisory role for MSD and Astra Zeneca.Alessandra Gennari has declared consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, and Daichii Sankyo; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo; research funds: EISAI, Eli Lilly, and Roche. CMV has received travel grants and other honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche.Gianluca Gaidano has declared consulting/advisory role for Janssen, Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca and BeiGene, and speaker fees from Janssen and Abbvie.Lorenza Rimassa received consulting fees from Taiho Oncology, Servier, Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks.Joseph Tabernero reported consulting fees from Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspirna Inc, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Ona Therapeutics, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Scandion Oncology, Servier, Sotio Biotech, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics and TheraMyc. He also reported speaker's fees from Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource (PER). He also declared institutional research support from Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International SA, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen-Cilag SA, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Health KGAA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus NV, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica SA, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho Pharma USA Inc, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation and Cancer Research UK.Alessio Cortellini received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche; speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Eisai.All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.London, April 18th, 2022., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A significant proportion of patients with cancer who recover from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience COVID-19 sequelae in the early post-infection phase, which negatively affect their continuity of care and oncological outcome. The long-term prevalence and clinical impact of the post-COVID-19 syndrome in patients with cancer are largely unknown., Methods: In this study, we describe the time course of COVID-19 sequelae in patients with non-advanced cancers enrolled in the OnCovid registry., Results: Overall, 186 patients were included, with a median observation period of 9.9 months (95%CI:8,8-11.3) post-COVID-19 resolution. After a median interval of 2.3 months post-COVID-19 (interquartile range: 1.4-3.7), 31 patients (16.6%) reported ≥1 sequelae, including respiratory complications (14, 7.6%), fatigue (13, 7.1%), neuro-cognitive sequelae (7, 3.8%). The vast majority of the patients were not vaccinated prior to COVID-19. COVID-19-related sequelae persisted in 9.8% and 8% of patients 6 and 12 months after COVID-19 resolution. Persistence of sequelae at first oncological follow-up was associated with history of complicated COVID-19 (45.2% vs 24.8%, p = 0.0223), irrespective of oncological features at COVID-19 diagnosis., Conclusion: This study confirms for the first time that, in a largely unvaccinated population, post-COVID-19 syndrome can affect a significant proportion of patients with non-advanced cancer who recovered from the acute illness. COVID-19 sequelae may persist up to 12 months in some patients, highlighting the need for dedicated prevention and supportive strategies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Alessio Cortellini received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche; speakers’ fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Eisai. David J Pinato received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, EISAI, Falk Foundation, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, DaVolterra and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. Aleix Prat has declared personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo; travel, accommodations and expenses paid by Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from Roche and Novartis; and consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Matteo Lambertini acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, Ipsen and Sandoz outside the submitted work. Thomas Newsom-Davis has declared consulting/advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; speakers fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Takeda and travel, accommodations and expenses paid by AstraZenca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Joan Brunet has declared consulting/advisory role for MSD and Astra Zeneca. Alessandra Gennari has declared consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, and Daichii Sankyo; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo; research funds: EISAI, Eli Lilly, and Roche. CMV has received travel grants and other honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche. Gianluca Gaidano has declared consulting/advisory role for Janssen, Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca and BeiGene, and speaker fees from Janssen and Abbvie. Lorenza Rimassa received consulting fees from Servier, Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with cancer are considered a priority group for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination given their high risk of contracting severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, limited data exist regarding the efficacy of immunisation in this population. In this study, we assess the immunologic response after COVID-19 vaccination of cancer versus non-cancer population., Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases were searched from 01st March 2020 through 12th August 12 2021. Primary end-points were anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroconversion rates, T-cell response, and documented SARS-CoV-2 infection after COVID-19 immunisation. Data were extracted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Overall effects were pooled using random-effects models., Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 35 original studies. Overall, 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-62) and 73% (95% CI, 64-81) of patients with cancer developed anti-S IgG above the threshold level after partial and complete immunisation, respectively. Patients with haematologic malignancies had a significantly lower seroconversion rate than those with solid tumours after complete immunisation (65% vs 94%; P < 0.0001). Compared with non-cancer controls, oncological patients were less likely to attain seroconversion after incomplete (risk ratio [RR] 0.45 [95% CI 0.35-0.58]) and complete (RR 0.69 [95% CI 0.56-0.84]) COVID-19 immunisation schemes. Patients with cancer had a higher likelihood of having a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection after partial (RR 3.21; 95% CI 0.35-29.04) and complete (RR 2.04; 95% CI 0.38-11.10) immunisation., Conclusions: Patients with cancer have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccination compared with controls. Strategies that endorse the completion of vaccination schemes are warranted. Future studies should aim to evaluate different approaches that enhance oncological patients' immune response., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionised clinical practice in oncology in the last years, leading to a survival benefit in several tumour types. To investigate whether these benefits are associated with improved quality of life, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between ICIs and standard chemotherapy (CT) in patients with advanced solid tumours., Methods: Clinical trials comparing the efficacy of ICIs (either programmed death receptor-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitors, as single agent or in combination) versus CT were included. Trials evaluating treatment with ICIs plus CT versus CT alone were also included, whereas studies in which the control arm included other anticancer agents (such as targeted therapy and other ICIs) or placebo alone were excluded. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare PROs in subjects treated with ICIs or ICIs plus CT (intervention) with those reported by patients receiving CT (control). The co-primary endpoints were time from baseline to first deterioration in PROs, defined as the time from baseline to the first clinically significant deterioration in PROs, and the changes in PROs from baseline to follow-up between ICI and CT treatment groups (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021247440)., Results: A total of 8341 patients from 17 randomised trials of ICI versus CT were included in the analysis. Treatment with ICI delayed clinical deterioration over standard CT in Global Health Status/QoL EORTC QLQ-C30 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.89), and in both EQ-5D utility index (HR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82) and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS; HR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80). The difference in mean change between the ICI-treated group and the CT-treated group was 5.82 (95% CI, 4.11-7.53) in favour of ICI. Similarly, in the EQ-5D, the mean change differences favoured treatment with ICIs in both Utility Index and VAS, with differences of 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03-0.07) and 5.41 (95% CI, 3.39-7.43), respectively., Conclusions: ICIs are associated with higher levels of quality of life and longer time to clinical deterioration on several PROs scales compared with CT in different types of solid tumours., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement F.S. received honoraria for presentations or lectures from Sanofi, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Merk, SunPharma, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and served on advisory boards of Novartis, Philogen, SunPharma and MSD; M.L. received honoraria for advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis and AstraZeneca and speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda outside the submitted work. All other authors disclosed no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may cause potentially life-threatening adverse events (AEs), but the risk of cardiotoxicity has not been fully investigated. It is also unknown whether ICI combinations increase cardiotoxicity compared with single ICI. We aimed to assess the cardiotoxicity of ICI in a range of tumour types., Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020183524). A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase databases, and conference proceedings was performed up to 30 June 2020. All randomised clinical trials comparing ICI with other treatments (primary objective) or dual-agent ICI versus single-agent ICI (secondary objective) in any solid tumour were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for cardiotoxicity events were calculated using random effect models., Results: Eighty studies including 35,337 patients were included in the analysis (66 studies with 34,664 patients for the primary endpoint and 14 studies with 673 patients for the secondary endpoint). No significant differences in terms of cardiac AEs were observed between ICI and non-ICI groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.48, p = 0.326) nor between dual ICI and single ICI groups (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.52-7.01, p = 0.329). Myocarditis incidence did not significantly differ between ICI and non-ICI groups (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.64-1.92, p = 0.701) nor between dual ICI and single ICI groups (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.31-3.87, p = 0.881). No differences were observed in subgroup analyses according to tumour type, setting of disease, treatment line, and type of treatment., Conclusion: The use of ICI as single or combination regimens is not associated with increased risk of cardiotoxicity., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article. EA, MC, and MB have no conflicts of interest to declare. DEF funding for his ESMO fellowship (2018–2019) from Novartis and received honoraria from Janssen for speaking (outside the submitted work). ML acted as a consultant for Roche and Novartis and received honoraria from Theramex, Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis (outside the submitted work). NP acted as a consultant for Lilly and has received honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, and AstraZeneca (outside the submitted work). CP has received honoraria for speaking at educational meetings from Amgen, Ferring, Incyte, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche (outside the submitted work). AHA received advisory role, speaker fees, and research funding for his institute from Roche, Lilly, Amgen, EISAI, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Leo Pharma (outside the submitted work). AS is a member of the advisory boards at BMS, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, and MSD; participated in conference at Takeda, Roche, AbbVie and Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, BMS, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, ArQule, and Eisai; and was a consultant at ArQule (outside the submitted work). MP was a board member (Scientific Board) at Oncolytics, Radius; was a consultant (honoraria) at AstraZeneca, Camel-IDS, Crescendo Biologics, Debiopharm, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Huya, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Oncolytics, Periphagen, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; and received grants to her institute from AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Roche-Genentech, Servier, and Synthon (outside the submitted work). EdA received honoraria from and was a member of advisory board at Roche/GNE, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Zodiacs, Libbs, and Pierre Fabre; received travel grants from Roche/GNE and GSK/Novartis; received grant for his institute from Roche/GNE, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, and Servier (outside the submitted work)., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

It is well established that cancer and its treatment, whether by chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, or surgery, can adversely impact reproductive function in both women and men. The effects of cancer treatment on reproductive function in both sexes may lead to loss of fertility, sexual desire and function, and hormone deficiency, which results in additional long-term morbidity in more than a third of patients. Given the importance of reproductive function to most people, and the often devastating effect of cancer treatment on it, we propose that proactive assessment of the functional and endocrinological impact of treatment be made a vital component of the assessment of modern cancer treatment, and should be a routine part of discussions with patients before and after treatment, both in trials and in routine care. Reproductive counselling should be proactive and encouraged, as implementation of such counselling has been shown to be beneficial to patient mental health, quality of life, and adherence to treatment. Similarly, efforts should be made to provide more adequate and accurate information to patients, as well as to offer appropriate fertility preservation approaches, which may potentially influence their treatment decisions., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement D.C. reports no financial competing interests. D.C. reports participating in an advisory board for, and acting as a consultant for, Roche Diagnostics. Both positions involved reimbursement to his employer. FC. reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Lilly, Merck and Roche Diagnostics, and his institution receiving research funding from Roche Diagnostics and AstraZeneca. F.P. reports receiving honoraria in the last three years from AstraZeneca, Ipsen and Roche Diagnostics. I.D. reports acting as a consultant for Roche Diagnostics, and receiving speaker honoraria from Novartis. I.D. reports receiving support for congress participation from Ferring and Theramex. M.L. reports acting as a consultant for Novartis, Roche and AstraZeneca, and receiving honoraria from Theramex, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and Lilly. R.A.A. reports acting as a consultant for Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Ferring, NeRRE Therapeutics and Sojournix Inc. S.M.N. reports participating in advisory boards and receiving speaker or consultancy fees from Access Fertility, Beckman Coulter, Ferring, Finox, Merck, MSD, Roche Diagnostics and The Fertility Partnership. S.M.N. reports receiving grant funding from government, charity and industry funders, including Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. A.M. reports no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Skin rash and diarrhoea are known side-effects of pertuzumab. Studies with other anti-HER2 agents suggested that adverse events correlate with patient outcomes. In this exploratory cohort of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer included in the CLEOPATRA trial we evaluated the value of rash and diarrhoea as prognostic markers and as predictors of pertuzumab benefit., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomised CLEOPATRA trial. We defined two analytic cohorts: cohort 1 (C1) included patients from treatment initiation, and cohort 2 (C2) included patients after discontinuation of docetaxel. A landmark analysis was introduced to deal with immortal-time bias. Study endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used., Results: Of the 808 patients and after application of the landmark analysis, C1 and C2 included 777 and 518 patients, respectively. In C1, rash occurred in 271 patients (34.9%) and diarrhoea in 470 (60.5%). Rash was prognostic for PFS and OS (C1: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.66 [95% CI = 0.48-0.91], p = 0.010]; C2: aHR 0.52 [95% CI = 0.30-0.89], p = 0.018) in both cohorts, while diarrhoea was only prognostic for PFS in cohort 2 (aHR = 0.65 [95% CI = 0.46-0.91], p = 0.011). Rash and diarrhoea were not predictive of pertuzumab benefit (in terms of PFS/OS) in the two cohorts., Conclusions: In patients treated with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, rash is prognostic whenever it occurs during treatment, while diarrhoea only has prognostic value when occurring after docetaxel discontinuation. However, neither rash nor diarrhoea predict pertuzumab benefit., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement AF reports travel grants from Novartis and Roche outside the submitted work. CM reports travel grants from Amgen outside the submitted work. EA reports honoraria from Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Seattle Genetics, Zodiacs and Libbs and travel grants from Roche and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. ML reports consultant role for Roche and Novartis and honoraria from Theramex, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Lilly outside the submitted work. NP reports travel grants from Lilly and Novartis, research grants from Daichii Sankyo and Novartis, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Roche/GNE and Novartis, all outside the submitted work. SM reports honoraria from Novartis, Genomic Health and Knight Therapeutics and travel grants from Pfizer outside the submitted work. All other authors report no possible conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who have underlying malignancy have a higher mortality rate compared with those without cancer, although the magnitude of such excess risk is not clearly defined. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis to provide precise estimates of the mortality rate among patients with both cancer and COVID-19., Methods: A systematic literature search involving peer-reviewed publications, preprints and conference proceedings up to July 16, 2020, was performed. The primary end-point was the case fatality rate (CFR), defined as the rate of death among patients with cancer and COVID-19. The CFR was assessed with a random effects model, which was used to derive a pooled CFR and its 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: Fifty-two studies, involving a total of 18,650 patients with both COVID-19 and cancer, were selected for the pooled analysis. A total of 4243 deaths were recorded in this population. The probability of death was 25.6% (95% CI: 22.0%-29.5%; I 2  = 48.9%) in this patient population., Conclusions: Patients with cancer who develop COVID-19 have high probability of mortality. Appropriate and aggressive preventive measures must be taken to reduce the risk of COVID-19 in patients with cancer and to optimally manage those who do contract the infection., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Luminal A-like and luminal B-like subtypes have different sensitivity to (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, but their role in predicting dose-dense (DD) efficacy in the high-risk setting is unknown. In this exploratory analysis of the Gruppo Italiano Mammella 2 (GIM2) trial, we investigated DD efficacy according to luminal-like subtypes., Methods: Patients with node-positive early breast cancer were randomised to receive either DD or standard-interval (SI) anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by paclitaxel. In our analysis, luminal A-like cohort was identified as having a Ki67 < 20% and a progesterone receptor (PgR) ≥ 20%; luminal B-like cohort as having a Ki67 ≥ 20% and/or a PgR < 20%., Results: Out of 2003 patients enrolled in the GIM2 trial, 412 had luminal A-like and 638 luminal B-like breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 7.9 years, disease-free survival (DFS) was 80.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76.4-84.5) and 70.5% (66.5-74.2) in luminal A-like and luminal B-like cohorts; overall survival (OS) was 91.6% (88.2-94.1) and 85.1% (81.7-87.9), respectively. We found no significant interaction between treatment and luminal subtype (interaction p = 0.603 and 0.535 for DFS and OS, respectively). When DD efficacy was investigated separately in each cohort, luminal-B like cohort appeared to benefit more from the DD schedule both in terms of DFS (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.72 [95% CI 0.54-0.96]) and OS (unadjusted HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.40-0.94]), compared with the luminal A-like cohort (unadjusted HR for DFS 0.89 [95% CI 0.59-1.33]; unadjusted HR for OS 0.83 [95% CI 0.45-1.54])., Conclusions: No significant interaction between luminal-like subtype and treatment was observed. Patients in the luminal B-like cohort seemed to benefit more from DD schedule., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement L.D.M. declares honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, Takeda and MSD and Seattle Genetics; a consulting and advisory role for Roche and Eli Lilly and fees for travel, accommodation and expenses from Roche, Pfizer and Celgene outside the submitted work. M.L. served as a consultant for Teva and received speaker honoraria from Theramex outside the submitted work. O.G. received personal fees from Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Novartis; travel and accommodation expenses from Celgene, Roche and Pfizer and research funding from Eisai outside the submitted work. F.P. received honoraria for advisory boards, activities as a speaker, travel grants, research grants from Agmen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer and Takeda and received research funding from Astrazeneca, Eisai and Roche outside the submitted work. M.D.L. declares consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Eisai and Celgene outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: T-DM1 has been approved for the treatment of HER2+ breast cancer. Cardiac dysfunction is a side effect of trastuzumab, a component of T-DM1. However, little is known about T-DM1-associated cardiotoxicity., Methods: We have conducted a pooled analysis of T-DM1 trials in advanced HER2+ breast cancer cases to understand the incidence, clinical presentation as well as to establish possible risk factors for T-DM1-associated cardiotoxicity. The primary endpoint was the incidence of cardiac events (CEs). CEs were categorized as follows: (1) congestive heart failure (CHF) or grade 3/4 LVEF drop; (2) cardiac ischemia, (3) cardiac arrhythmia, (4) grade 1/2 LVEF drop. Secondary endpoints included CE recovery rate and impact of CEs on treatment discontinuation. Logistic regression was used to assess possible risk factors for CEs., Results: Individual patient-level data from 1961 patients exposed to T-DM1 in seven trials were pooled. Of these, 1544 received T-DM1 and 417 T-DM1 + pertuzumab. CHF/LVEF drop grade 3/4 was reported in 0.71%, cardiac ischemia in 0.1%, cardiac arrhythmia in 0.71% and grade 1/2 LVEF drop in 2.04%. The total CE rate was 3.37% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6%-4.3%). Multivariate analysis showed patient's age ≥65 (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.77-5.14; P-value <0.001) and baseline LVEF<55% (OR 2.62; 95% CI, 1.29-5.32; P-value 0.008) as risk factors. CEs resolved in most (79%) patients after treatment discontinuation., Conclusion: The incidence of CEs in patients receiving T-DM1 was low. Older patients receiving T-DM1 should be carefully followed for cardiac safety during treatment., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Noam Pondé has received fees from Mundipharma and AstraZeneca, and travel grants from Novartis, Roche/Genentech and Mundipharma. Lieveke Ameye has no conflicts to report. Matteo Lambertini has received honoraria from Theramex, Takeda and Roche and served as consultant for Roche Diagnostic. Marianne Paesmans has no conflicts to report. Martine Piccart is a board member for Oncolytics and Radius. She has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Camel-IDS, Crescendo Biologics, Debiopharm, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Huya, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Oncolytics, Periphagen, Pfizer, Roche PharmaMar, and Seattle Genetics. Her institute has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Roche-Genentech, Servier and Synthon. Evandro de Azambuja has received honoraria and is a member of advisory boards for Roche/Genetench; she received travel grants from Novartis, GSK and Roche/Genentech. The institution she works for has received research grants for Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis and Servier., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: No evidence exists to recommend a specific chemotherapy regimen in young breast cancer patients. We performed a pooled analysis of two randomised clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy in premenopausal breast cancer patients and its impact on the risk of treatment-induced amenorrhoea., Patients and Methods: In the MIG1 study, node-positive or high-risk node-negative patients were randomised to 6 cycles of fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide every 2 (dose-dense) or 3 (standard-interval) weeks. In the GIM2 study, node-positive patients were randomised to 4 cycles of dose-dense or standard-interval EC or FEC followed by 4 cycles of dose-dense or standard-interval paclitaxel. Using individual patient data, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival by means of a Cox proportional hazards model and the odds ratio for treatment-induced amenorrhoea through a logistic regression model were calculated for each study. A meta-analysis of the two studies was performed using the random effect model to compute the parameter estimates., Results: A total of 1,549 patients were included. Dose-dense chemotherapy was associated with a significant improved overall survival as compared to standard-interval chemotherapy (HR, 0.71; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.54-0.95; p = 0.021). The pooled HRs were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.54-1.12) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.40-1.06) for patients with hormone receptor-positive and -negative tumours, respectively (interaction p = 0.330). No increased risk of treatment-induced amenorrhoea was observed with dose-dense chemotherapy (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80-1.25; p = 0.989)., Conclusion: Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy may be considered the preferred treatment option in high-risk premenopausal breast cancer patients., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The development of premature ovarian failure and subsequent infertility are possible consequences of chemotherapy use in pre-menopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Among the available strategies for fertility preservation, pharmacological protection of the ovaries using luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues (LHRHa) during chemotherapy has the potential to restore ovarian function and fertility after anticancer treatments; however, the possible efficacy and clinical application of this strategy has been highly debated in the last years. Following the availability of new data on this controversial topic, the Panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Clinical Practice Guideline on fertility preservation in cancer patients decided to apply the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology around the relevant and current question on the clinical utility of temporary ovarian suppression with LHRHa during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in breast cancer patients. To answer this question, preservation of ovarian function and fertility were judged as critical outcomes for the decision-making. Three possible outcomes of harm were identified: LHRHa-associated toxicities, potential antagonism between concurrent LHRHa and chemotherapy, and lack of the prognostic impact of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure. According to the GRADE evaluation conducted, the result was a strong positive recommendation in favour of using this option to preserve ovarian function and fertility in breast cancer patients. The present manuscript aims to update and summarise the evidence for the use of this strategy in light of the new data published up to January 2016, according to the GRADE process., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)