Search

Background: In clinical trials, the assessment of safety is traditionally focused on the overall rate of high-grade and serious adverse events (AEs). A new approach to AEs evaluation, taking into account chronic low-grade AEs, single patient's perspective, and time-related information, such as ToxT analysis, should be considered especially for less intense but potentially long-lasting treatments, such as maintenance strategies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Patients and Methods: We applied ToxT (Toxicity over Time) evaluation to a large cohort of mCRC patients enroled in randomised TRIBE, TRIBE2, and VALENTINO studies, in order to longitudinally describe AEs throughout the whole treatment duration and to compare AEs evolution over cycles between induction and maintenance strategies, providing numerical and graphical results overall and per single patient. After 4-6 months of combination therapy, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) + bevacizumab or panitumumab was recommended in all studies except for the 50% of patients in the VALENTINO trial who received panitumumab alone., Results: Out of 1400 patients included, 42% received FOLFOXIRI (5-FU/LV, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan)/bevacizumab, 18% FOLFIRI/bevacizumab, 24% FOLFOX/bevacizumab, 16% FOLFOX/panitumumab. Mean grade of general and haematological AEs was higher in the first cycles, then progressively decreasing after the end of induction (p < 0.001), and always remaining at the highest levels with FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab (p < 0.001). Neurotoxicity became more frequent over the cycles with late high-grade episodes (p < 0.001), while the incidence but not the grade of hand-and-foot syndrome gradually increased (p = 0.91). Anti-VEGF-related AEs were more severe in the first cycles, then setting over at low levels (p = 0.03), while anti-EGFR-related AEs still affected patients during maintenance., Conclusions: Most of chemotherapy-related AEs (except for HFS and neuropathy) reach the highest level in the first cycles, then decrease, probably due to their active clinical management. Transition to maintenance allows relief from most AEs, especially with bevacizumab-based regimens, while anti-EGFR-related AEs may persist., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AR: Honoraria for speaker bureau for Servier and Elma Academy. FM: Honoraria from Servier, Pierre-Fabre and Lilly; Research grant from Incyte.GT: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Merck; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Eli Lilly, Amgen, Roche. MN: Travel expenses from Celgene and AstraZeneca; Speaker honorarium from Accademia della Medicina and Incyte; Honoraria from Sandoz, Medpoint SRL and Servier for editorial collaboration; Consultant honoraria from EMD Serono, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Incyte, MSD Italia, Servier, Astrazeneca and Taiho. AZ: Speaker Bureau for Amgen, Merck-Serono, Servier, Pierre-Fabre. FP: Honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Servier, Merck-Serono, Lilly, MSD, Organon, BMS, Astrazeneca, Pierre-Fabre; Research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Agenus and Incyte. CC: Honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Roche and Servier; Consulting or advisory role: Amgen, Bayer, MSD, Roche; Speakers’ Bureau: Servier; Research funding: Bayer, Merck, Servier; Travel accommodations and expenses: Roche and Servier. All the other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice., Methods: We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR 28 ) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis., Results: By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented ≥ 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR 28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR 28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls., Conclusion: Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Genomics has greatly improved how patients with cancer are being treated; however, clinical-grade genomic biomarkers for chemotherapies are currently lacking. Using whole-genome analysis of 37 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with the chemotherapy trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI), we identified KRAS codon G12 (KRAS G12 ) mutations as a potential biomarker of resistance. Next, we collected real-world data of 960 patients with mCRC receiving FTD/TPI and validated that KRAS G12 mutations were significantly associated with poor survival, also in analyses restricted to the RAS/RAF mutant subgroup. We next analyzed the data of the global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 RECOURSE trial (n = 800 patients) and found that KRAS G12 mutations (n = 279) were predictive biomarkers for reduced overall survival (OS) benefit of FTD/TPI versus placebo (unadjusted interaction P = 0.0031, adjusted interaction P = 0.015). For patients with KRAS G12 mutations in the RECOURSE trial, OS was not prolonged with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 279; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73-1.20; P = 0.85). In contrast, patients with KRAS G13 mutant tumors showed significantly improved OS with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 60; HR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.15-0.55; P < 0.001). In isogenic cell lines and patient-derived organoids, KRAS G12 mutations were associated with increased resistance to FTD-based genotoxicity. In conclusion, these data show that KRAS G12 mutations are biomarkers for reduced OS benefit of FTD/TPI treatment, with potential implications for approximately 28% of patients with mCRC under consideration for treatment with FTD/TPI. Furthermore, our data suggest that genomics-based precision medicine may be possible for a subset of chemotherapies., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Fifteen percent of patients with cancer experience symptomatic sequelae, which impair post-COVID-19 outcomes. In this study, we investigated whether a proinflammatory status is associated with the development of COVID-19 sequelae., Methods: OnCovid recruited 2795 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection between February 27, 2020, and February 14, 2021. This analysis focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent a clinical reassessment after the exclusion of patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated the association of inflammatory markers collected at COVID-19 diagnosis with sequelae, considering the impact of previous systemic anticancer therapy. All statistical tests were 2-sided., Results: Of 1339 eligible patients, 203 experienced at least 1 sequela (15.2%). Median baseline C-reactive protein (CRP; 77.5 mg/L vs 22.2 mg/L, P < .001), lactate dehydrogenase (310 UI/L vs 274 UI/L, P = .03), and the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; 6.0 vs 4.3, P = .001) were statistically significantly higher among patients who experienced sequelae, whereas no association was reported for the platelet to lymphocyte ratio and the OnCovid Inflammatory Score, which includes albumin and lymphocytes. The widest area under the ROC curve (AUC) was reported for baseline CRP (AUC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 0.69), followed by the NLR (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.61) and lactate dehydrogenase (AUC = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.61). Using a fixed categorical multivariable analysis, high CRP (odds ratio [OR] = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.67 to 3.91) and NLR (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.10) were confirmed to be statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of sequelae. Exposure to chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of sequelae (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.91), whereas no associations with immune checkpoint inhibitors, endocrine therapy, and other types of systemic anticancer therapy were found., Conclusions: Although the association between inflammatory status, recent chemotherapy and sequelae warrants further investigation, our findings suggest that a deranged proinflammatory reaction at COVID-19 diagnosis may predict for sequelae development., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe., Methods: In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing., Findings: As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 [47·4%] were women and 1822 [52·6%] were men, with a median age of 68 years [IQR 57-77]). 2033 (58·5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31·0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10·5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33·3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48·7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16·6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2·3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·61) and 28 days (0·34 [0·16-0·79]), complications due to COVID-19 (0·26 [0·17-0·46]), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0·17 [0·09-0·32]), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0·22 [0·15-0·34]) and oxygen therapy (0·24 [0·14-0·43]) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten [25%] of 40 patients vs 114 [17%] of 656) and at 28 days (11 [27%] of 40 vs 184 [28%] of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 [43%] of 42 vs 266 [41%] of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 [31%] of 42 vs 237 [36%] of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase., Interpretation: Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DJP has received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, Eisai, and Falk Foundation; travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, Eisai, Roche, DaVolterra, and Astra Zeneca; and research funding (to their institution) from MSD and BMS. MLa has acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen, and Gilead; and has received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, and Sandoz. FM has received consulting fees from Eli Lilly, MSD, Takeda, and Roche; and travel support from Sanofi. SP reported that their spouse is employed by AstraZeneca. ASa has received consulting fees from Arqule, Sanofi, and Incyte; speaker's fees from Takeda, BMS, Roche, AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Servier, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Arqule, Eli Lilly, Sandoz, Eisai, Novartis, Bayer, and MSD; and participation on data monitoring committees for BMS, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, and MSD. FG has received consulting fees from Novocure, BMS, PharmaMar, and Novartis; speaker's fees from Novocure; travel support from MSD, Novocure, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, PharmaMar, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; and participation on a data safety monitoring board for MSD, BMS, PharmaMar and Novartis. JH has a leadership role with Blood Cancer UK. NS-G has received speakers' fees from Amgen. GG has received consulting fees or had an advisory role for Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Roche, Incyte, and BeiGene, and reported speaker fees from Janssen and AbbVie. LRi has 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, and Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, and 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, and Zymeworks. JT reports consulting fees from Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspirna, 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; speaker's fees from Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Physicians Education Resource; and institutional research support from Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen-Cilag, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus NV, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho Pharma USA, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. MB has received speakers' fee from Eisai pharma, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and ViiV; and has had leadership roles in the European AIDS Clinical Society, UNAIDS, WHO, and The European Hematology Association/ European Society of Medical Oncology. AC has received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, and Eisai. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib showed increased objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated (mut) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Although no formal comparison was planned, addition of binimetinib to encorafenib plus cetuximab did not provide significant efficacy advantage., Patients and Methods: This real-life study was aimed at evaluating safety, activity, and efficacy of encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mut mCRC treated at 21 Italian centers within a nominal use program launched in May 2019., Results: Out of 133 patients included, 97 (73%) received encorafenib plus cetuximab (targeted doublet) and 36 (27%) the same therapy plus binimetinib (targeted triplet). Most patients had Eastern Cooperative Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) of 0 or 1 (86%), right-sided primary tumor (69%), and synchronous disease (66%). Twenty (15%) tumors were DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI)-high. As many as 44 (34%) patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy, 122 (92%) were previously exposed to oxaliplatin, and 109 (82%) to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). Most frequent adverse events were asthenia (62%) and anti-EGFR-related skin rash (52%). Any grade nausea (P = 0.03), vomiting (P = 0.04), and diarrhea (P = 0.07) were more frequent with the triplet therapy, while melanocytic nevi were less common (P = 0.06). Overall, ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were 23% and 69%, respectively, with numerically higher rates in the triplet group (ORR 31% versus 17%, P = 0.12; DCR 78% versus 65%, P = 0.23). Median PFS and OS were 4.5 and 7.2 months, respectively. Worse ECOG-PS, peritoneal metastases, and more than one prior treatment were independent poor prognostic factors for PFS and OS. Clonality of BRAF mutation measured as adjusted mutant allele fraction in tumor tissue was not associated with clinical outcome., Conclusions: Our real-life data are consistent with those from the BEACON trial in terms of safety, activity, and efficacy. Patients in good general condition and not heavily pretreated are those more likely to derive benefit from the targeted treatment., Competing Interests: Disclosure MS reports being on the advisory board and speakers’ bureau for MERCK, MSD, Sanofi, Amgen, BMS, EISAI, and Servier. SL reports being on the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Merck, Roche, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre-Fabre, GSK, and Servier; playing a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, MSD, Merck Serono, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Incyte, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Servier; research funding to institution from Bayer, Merck, Amgen, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CC reports honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Roche, and Servier; performing a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, MSD, and Roche; being on the speakers’ bureau for Servier; receiving/received research funding from Bayer, Merck, and Servier; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Roche and Servier. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed at investigating outcome of systemic treatments in advanced breast PT., Methods: All cases of advanced breast PT treated with systemic treatments from 1999 to 2019, in one of the referral sarcoma centers involved in the study, were retrospectively reviewed., Results: 56 female patients were identified. Median age was 52 (range of 25-76) years. Patients received a median number of 2 systemic treatments (range of 1-4). Best responses according to RECIST were 1 (3.7%) CR, 11 (40.7%) PR, 6 (22.2%) SD, 9 (33.3%) PD with anthracyclines plus ifosfamide (AI); 2 (16.7%) PR, 4 (33.3%) SD, 6 (50.0%) PD with anthracycline alone; 3 (18.8%) PR, 4 (25.0%) SD, 9 (56.3%) PD with high-dose ifosfamide given as a continuous infusion (HD-IFX); 3 (20.0%) SD, 12 (80.0%) PD with a gemcitabine-based regimen (with 2 patients not evaluable); 1 (8.3%) PR, 2 (16.7%) SD, 9 (75.0%) PD with trabectedin (with 1 patient not evaluable); 1 (16.7%) PR, 1 (16.7%) SD, 4 (66.7%) PD with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI). The median PFS were 5.7 (IQR 2.5-9.1) months with AI; 3.2 (IQR 2.2-5.0) months with anthracycline alone; 3.4 (IQR 1.4-6.7) months with HD-IFX; 2.1 (IQR 1.4-5.2) months with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy; 1.8 (IQR 0.7-6.6) months with trabectedin; 3.4 (IQR 3.1-3.8) months with TKI. With a median follow-up of 35.3 (IQR 17.6-66.9) months, OS from the start of first-line systemic treatment was 15.2 (IQR 7.6-39.6) months., Conclusion: In this series of advanced PT (to our knowledge, the largest reported so far), AI was associated with a high rate of responses, however, with a median PFS of 5.7 months. Other systemic treatments were poorly active., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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

Background: The medium-term and long-term impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is not yet known. In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and their impact on the survival of patients with cancer. We also aimed to describe patterns of resumption and modifications of systemic anti-cancer therapy following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection., Methods: OnCovid is an active European registry study enrolling consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with a history of solid or haematological malignancy and who had a diagnosis of RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this retrospective study, patients were enrolled from 35 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Patients who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, and entered into the registry at the point of data lock (March 1, 2021), were eligible for analysis. The present analysis was focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent clinical reassessment at each participating institution. We documented prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and described factors associated with their development and their association with post-COVID-19 survival, which was defined as the interval from post-COVID-19 reassessment to the patients' death or last follow-up. We also evaluated resumption of systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients treated within 4 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis. The OnCovid study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974., Findings: 2795 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, were entered into the study by the time of the data lock on March 1, 2021. After the exclusion of ineligible patients, the final study population consisted of 2634 patients. 1557 COVID-19 survivors underwent a formal clinical reassessment after a median of 22·1 months (IQR 8·4-57·8) from cancer diagnosis and 44 days (28-329) from COVID-19 diagnosis. 234 (15·0%) patients reported COVID-19 sequelae, including respiratory symptoms (116 [49·6%]) and residual fatigue (96 [41·0%]). Sequelae were more common in men (vs women; p=0·041), patients aged 65 years or older (vs other age groups; p=0·048), patients with two or more comorbidities (vs one or none; p=0·0006), and patients with a history of smoking (vs no smoking history; p=0·0004). Sequelae were associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 (p<0·0001), complicated COVID-19 (p<0·0001), and COVID-19 therapy (p=0·0002). With a median post-COVID-19 follow-up of 128 days (95% CI 113-148), COVID-19 sequelae were associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·80 [95% CI 1·18-2·75]) after adjusting for time to post-COVID-19 reassessment, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumour characteristics, anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 severity. Among 466 patients on systemic anti-cancer therapy, 70 (15·0%) permanently discontinued therapy, and 178 (38·2%) resumed treatment with a dose or regimen adjustment. Permanent treatment discontinuations were independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 3·53 [95% CI 1·45-8·59]), but dose or regimen adjustments were not (0·84 [0·35-2·02])., Interpretation: Sequelae post-COVID-19 affect up to 15% of patients with cancer and adversely affect survival and oncological outcomes after recovery. Adjustments to systemic anti-cancer therapy can be safely pursued in treatment-eligible patients., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DJP reports lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eisai, and Falk Foundation; travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees from Mina Therapeutics, Eisai, Roche, DaVolterra, and Astra Zeneca; and research funding (to institution) from Merck Sharp and Dohme and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside of the submitted work. MLa acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work, and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, and Sandoz, outside of the submitted work. EF reports research funding to institution from Pfizer, outside of the submitted work, and travel expenses from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Esai, outside of the submitted work. TN-D reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; speakers fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; and travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZenca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work. JB reports consulting fees for Merck Sharp and Dohme and Astra Zeneca, outside of the submitted work. APr reports personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work; travel, accommodations, and expenses by Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work; research funding (to institution) from Roche and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and consulting fees from NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside of the submitted work. APar reports consulting fees from Takeda and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. MT reports travel grants from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; and honoraria as a medical writer from Novartis and Amgen, outside the submitted work. AG reports consulting fees from Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, and Daichii Sankyo, outside the submitted work; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo, outside the submitted work; research funds (to institution) from Eisai, Eli Lilly, and Roche, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Roche, outside the submitted work; and personal research funding from Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation UPO aging project, outside the submitted work. GG reports personal research funding outside of the submitted work from Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Janssen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from Janssen and Abbvie, outside the submitted work. LR reports consulting fees from Servier, Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zymeworks, outside the submitted work; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; travel expenses from Ipsen, outside the submitted work; and institutional research funding (to institution) from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, and Zymeworks, outside the submitted work. JT reports having a scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, and TheraMyc, outside of the submitted work; educational collaboration with Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource, outside of the submitted work; and institutional financial interest in form of financial support for clinical trials or contracted research for Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen-Cilag, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Healt, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merus, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation, and Cancer Research UK, outside the submitted work. ACo reports consulting fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Roche, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Astellas, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents one of the most frequent malignancies in terms of incidence and mortality, thus representing the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. In the last decade, few drugs have enriched the treatment landscape of metastatic CRC and have significantly affected prognosis. Unlike other neoplasms, metastatic CRC patients who have exhausted treatment options often still maintain a good performance status. There are many challenges to increasing potential treatment options, notably a better understanding of disease biology and the mechanisms of resistance underlying cancer treatment failure. The development of new drugs for metastatic CRC certainly represents one of the most important challenges in medical oncology. This article discusses the main limitations in the development of new drugs and potential future scenarios. In particular, we addressed three questions: (1) The main limitations of targeted therapy in the treatment of metastatic CRC (mCRC); (2) New target armamentarium that could escape primary and secondary resistance and lead to more personalized mCRC therapy; and (3) Future directions., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer patients are at higher risk of COVID-19 complications and mortality than the rest of the population. Breast cancer patients seem to have better prognosis when infected by SARS-CoV-2 than other cancer patients., Methods: We report a subanalysis of the OnCovid study providing more detailed information in the breast cancer population., Results: We included 495 breast cancer patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mean age was 62.6 years; 31.5% presented more than one comorbidity. The most frequent breast cancer subtype was luminal-like ( n  = 245, 49.5%) and 177 (35.8%) had metastatic disease. A total of 332 (67.1%) patients were receiving active treatment, with radical intent in 232 (47.6%) of them. Hospitalization rate was 58.2% and all-cause mortality rate was 20.3%. One hundred twenty-nine (26.1%) patients developed one COVID-19 complication, being acute respiratory failure the most common ( n  = 74, 15.0%). In the multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years, presence of COVID-19 complications, and metastatic disease were factors correlated with worse outcomes, while ongoing anticancer therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis appeared to be a protective factor. No particular oncological treatment was related to higher risk of complications. In the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 73 (18.3%) patients had some kind of modification on their oncologic treatment. At the first oncological reassessment (median time: 46.9 days ± 36.7), 255 (51.6%) patients reported to be fully recovered from the infection. There were 39 patients (7.9%) with long-term SARS-CoV-2-related complications., Conclusion: In the context of COVID-19, our data confirm that breast cancer patients appear to have lower complications and mortality rate than expected in other cancer populations. Most breast cancer patients can be safely treated for their neoplasm during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Oncological treatment has no impact on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 complications, and, especially in the curative setting, the treatment should be modified as little as possible., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: D.J. Pinato reports personal fees from BMS (travel fees, grant to institution, and lecture fees), Eisai (consultancy, lecture fees, and occasional advisory board), H3B (consultancy and occasional advisory board), Astrazeneca (consultancy and occasional advisory board), MiNa therapeutics (consultancy), Roche (lecture fees), Viiv Healthcare (lecture fees), Bayer Healthcare (lecture fees), and Falk Foundation (lecture fees). A. Zambelli reports personal fees from Lilly (occasional advisory board and travel fees), Novartis (occasional advisory board and travel fees), Pfizer (occasional advisory board), Astrazeneca (occasional advisory board), and Roche (occasional advisory board). M. Bower reports personal fees from Gilead (lecture fees), ViiV (lecture fees), BMS (lecture fees), MSD (lecture fees), and Janssen (lecture fees). M. Lambertini reports personal fees from Roche (consultancy and travel fees), Novartis (consultancy and travel fees), Lilly (consultancy and travel fees), Astrazeneca (consultancy), Pfizer (travel fees), Sandoz (travel fees), and Takeda (travel fees). E. Felip reports personal fees from Pfizer (grant to institution) and Instituto Carlos III (research grant). A. Cortellini reports personal fees from BMS (consultancy), MSD (consultancy), Astrazeneca (consultancy and lecture fees), Roche (consultancy), Astellas (lecture fees), and Novartis (Lecture fees). F. Mazzoni reports personal fees from Roche (lecture fees), Takeda (lecture fees), MSD (lecture fees), BMS (lecture fees), Lilly (lecture fees), and Boehringer (lecture fees). M. Romeo reports personal fees from MSD (consultancy), Pfizer (travel fees), and GSK (occasional advisory board). A. Gennari reports personal fees from Astrazeneca (lecture fees), Lilly (lecture fees), Eisai (lecture fees), Pfizer (lecture fees), Novartis (lecture fees), Teva (lecture fees), and Daiichi Sankyo (lecture fees)., (© The Author(s), 2021.)

Background: Preclinical and clinical data indicate that p53 expression might modulate the activity of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), influencing response/resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. However, the association between p53 status and clinical outcome has not been clarified yet., Objective: In our study, we evaluated the role of p53 expression in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving irinotecan/cetuximab in an exploratory and a validation cohort., Patients and Methods: p53 expression was analysed in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC receiving second-line or third-line irinotecan/cetuximab. Survival distribution was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method, while the log-rank test was used for survival comparison., Results: Among 120 patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC included in our analysis, 52 (59%) and 19 (59%) patients showed p53 overexpression in the exploratory and validation cohort, respectively. In the exploratory cohort, low p53 expression was correlated with better median progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.39; p < 0.0001), median overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.23; p < 0.0001) and response rate (p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed by data of the validation cohort where we observed better median progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.48; p = 0.0399), median overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.26; p = 0.0027) and response rate (p =0.0007) in patients with p53 normal expression mCRC., Conclusions: In our study, p53 overexpression was associated with anti-EGFR treatment resistance in patients with RAS/BRAF WT mCRC, as confirmed in a validation cohort. Larger studies are needed to validate the role of p53 and investigate EGFR cross-talk in these patients.

Background: Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100,000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of death in UK patients with cancer versus those in continental EU., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of patients with cancer consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from 27th February to 10th September 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline including oncological and COVID-19-specific therapy across UK and EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk of adverse outcomes in multivariable Cox regression models., Findings: Compared with EU (n = 924), UK patients (n = 468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%; p < 0.0001; HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often men, were of older age and have more comorbidities than EU counterparts (p < 0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK than in EU patients (p < 0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK patients with cancer were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, antivirals and interleukin-6 antagonists (p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, independent of the patient's age, gender, tumour stage and status; number of comorbidities; COVID-19 severity and receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy after COVID-19 were similar in the UK and EU cohorts., Interpretation: UK patients with cancer have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anticancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK patients with cancer highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement D.J.P. received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for MiNA Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche and AstraZeneca and research funding (to the institution) from MSD and BMS. A.P. 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 a consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb. T.N-D. has declared a consulting/advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Takeda and travel, accommodations and expenses paid by AstraZenca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Otsuka, Roche and Takeda. J.B. has declared a consulting/advisory role for MSD and AstraZeneca. PPS has declared a consulting/advisory role for Sanofi and AbbVie. A.P. has declared a consulting/advisory role for Takeda and Sanofi. MP has declared a consulting/advisory role for Gilead and Bayer. A.G. has declared a consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI and Daiichi Sankyo; is on the speaker's bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene and Daiichi Sankyo and declared research funds from EISAI, Eli Lilly and Roche. C.M.-V. has received travel grants and other honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche. L.R. received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi and Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche and 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 and Zymeworks. J.T. reports personal financial interest in form of a scientific consultancy role for Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Genentech, Inc., HalioDX SAS, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Imedex, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, NeoPhore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics and TheraMyc. A.C. received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche and speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Astellas. All the remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with cancer are particularly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The systemic inflammatory response is a pathogenic mechanism shared by cancer progression and COVID-19. We investigated systemic inflammation as a driver of severity and mortality from COVID-19, evaluating the prognostic role of commonly used inflammatory indices in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer accrued to the OnCovid study., Methods: In a multicenter cohort of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer in Europe, we evaluated dynamic changes in neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR); platelet:lymphocyte ratio (PLR); Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), renamed the OnCovid Inflammatory Score (OIS); modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS); and Prognostic Index (PI) in relation to oncological and COVID-19 infection features, testing their prognostic potential in independent training (n=529) and validation (n=542) sets., Results: We evaluated 1071 eligible patients, of which 625 (58.3%) were men, and 420 were patients with malignancy in advanced stage (39.2%), most commonly genitourinary (n=216, 20.2%). 844 (78.8%) had ≥1 comorbidity and 754 (70.4%) had ≥1 COVID-19 complication. NLR, OIS, and mGPS worsened at COVID-19 diagnosis compared with pre-COVID-19 measurement (p<0.01), recovering in survivors to pre-COVID-19 levels. Patients in poorer risk categories for each index except the PLR exhibited higher mortality rates (p<0.001) and shorter median overall survival in the training and validation sets (p<0.01). Multivariable analyses revealed the OIS to be most independently predictive of survival (validation set HR 2.48, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.20, p=0.001; adjusted concordance index score 0.611)., Conclusions: Systemic inflammation is a validated prognostic domain in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and can be used as a bedside predictor of adverse outcome. Lymphocytopenia and hypoalbuminemia as computed by the OIS are independently predictive of severe COVID-19, supporting their use for risk stratification. Reversal of the COVID-19-induced proinflammatory state is a putative therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DJP received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. AP has declared personal honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, 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. TND 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. JB has declared consulting/advisory role for MSD and Astra Zeneca. PPS has declared consulting/advisory role for Sanofi and Abbvie. AP has declared consulting/advisory role for Takeda and Sanofi. MP has declared consulting/advisory role for Gilead and Bayer. AG 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. LR reports receiving consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, and Sanofi; lectures fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Roche, and Sanofi; travel fees from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Gynecological sarcomas represent 3% to 4% of all gynecological malignancies and 13% of all sarcomas. The uterus is the most frequent primary site (83%); less frequently sarcomas are diagnosed originating from the ovary (8%), vulva and vagina (5%), and other gynecologic organs (2%). As the classification of gynecologic sarcomas continues to diversify, so does the management. Accurate histopathologic diagnosis, utilizing appropriate ancillary immunohistochemical and molecular analysis, could lead to a more personalized approach. However, there are subtypes that require further definition, with regard to putative predictive markers and optimal management. The aim of this review is to highlight the importance of accurate diagnosis and classification of gynecologic sarcoma subtypes by the surgical pathologist in order to provide more tailored systemic treatment, and to highlight the increasing importance of close collaboration between the pathologist and the oncologist.

The SARS-Cov-2 pandemic significantly impacted on oncology practice across the globe. There is uncertainty as to the contribution of patients' demographics and oncological features on severity and mortality from Covid-19 and little guidance as to the role of anti-cancer and anti-Covid-19 therapy in this population. In a multi-center study of 890 cancer patients with confirmed Covid-19 we demonstrated a worsening gradient of mortality from breast cancer to haematological malignancies and showed that male gender, older age, and number of co-morbidities identifies a subset of patients with significantly worse mortality rates from Covid-19. Provision of chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy did not worsen mortality. Exposure to antimalarials was associated with improved mortality rates independent of baseline prognostic factors. This study highlights the clinical utility of demographic factors for individualized risk-stratification of patients and support further research into emerging anti-Covid-19 therapeutics in SARS-Cov-2 infected cancer patients., (Copyright ©2020, American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: In the last decade, a series of analyses failed to identify predictive biomarkers of resistance/susceptibility for anti-angiogenic drugs in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted an exploratory preplanned analysis of serum pro-angiogenic factors (SErum aNgiogenesis-cenTRAL) in 72 mCRC patients enrolled in the phase II CENTRAL (ColorEctalavastiNTRiAlLdh) trial, with the aim to identify potential predictive factors for sensitivity/resistance to first line folinic acid-fluorouracil-irinotecan regimen (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab., Methods: First-line FOLFIRI/bevacizumab patients were prospectively assessed for the following circulating pro-angiogenic factors, evaluated with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay)-based technique at baseline and at every cycle: Vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), stromal derived factor-1 (SDF-1), placental derived growth factor (PlGF), fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2), monocyte chemotactic protein-3 (MCP-3), interleukin-8 (IL-8)., Results: Changes in circulating FGF-2 levels among different blood samples seemed to correlate with clinical outcome. Patients who experienced an increase in FGF-2 levels at the second cycle of chemotherapy compared to baseline, had a median Progression Free Survival (mPFS) of 12.85 vs. 7.57 months (Hazard Ratio-HR: 0.73, 95% Confidence Interval-CI: 0.43-1.27, p = 0.23). Similar results were seen when comparing FGF-2 concentrations between baseline and eight-week time point (mPFS 12.98 vs. 8.00 months, HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.46-1.33, p = 0.35)., Conclusions: Our pre-planned, prospective analysis suggests that circulating FGF-2 levels' early increase could be used as a marker to identify patients who are more likely to gain benefit from FOLFIRI/bevacizumab first-line therapy.

Background: The phase III TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies randomized metastatic colorectal cancer patients to first-line FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab or a doublet (FOLFIRI or FOLFOX)/bevacizumab. The studies demonstrated a significant benefit from the triplet at the price of an increased incidence of chemotherapy-related adverse events (AEs). In both trials, males and females aged between 18 and 70 years with ECOG PS ≤2 and between 71 and 75 years with ECOG PS = 0 were eligible. We investigated the effect of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab versus doublets/bevacizumab according to age and gender., Patients and Methods: Subgroup analyses according to age (<70 versus 70-75 years) and gender were carried out for overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and AE rates., Results: Of 1187 patients, 1005 (85%) were aged <70 years and 182 (15%) 70-75 years; 693 (58%) were males and 494 (42%) females. There was no evidence of interaction between age or gender and the benefit provided by the intensification of the upfront chemotherapy in terms of ORR and PFS, or the increased risk of experiencing G3/4 AEs. Elderly patients and females experienced higher rates of overall G3/4 AEs (73% versus 60%, P < 0.01 and 69% versus 57%, P < 0.01, respectively). Notably, in the FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab subgroup, G3/4 diarrhea and febrile neutropenia occurred in 27% and 16% of elderly patients, respectively, while females reported high incidences of any grade nausea (67%) and vomiting (50%)., Conclusions: The improvements in terms of ORR and PFS of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab versus doublets/bevacizumab are independent of gender and age, with a similar relative increase in AEs among elderly patients and females. Initial dose reductions and possibly primary G-CSF prophylaxis should be recommended for patients between 70 and 75 years old treated with FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab, and a careful management of antiemetic prophylaxis should be considered among females., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

(1) Background: The optimal timing of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in gastrointestinal malignancies is still a matter of debate. For colorectal cancer, it is recommended to start post-operative treatment within eight weeks. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical effects of starting adjuvant CT within or after 6-8 weeks post-surgery in colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer. (2) Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched in December 2018. Publications comparing the outcomes of patients treated with adjuvant CT administered before (early) or after (delayed) 6-8 weeks post-surgery for colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer were identified. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). (3) Results: Out of 8752 publications identified, 34 comparative studies assessing a total of 141,853 patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant increased risk of death with delayed CT (>6-8 weeks post-surgery) in colorectal cancer (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-1.33; p <0.001). Similarly, for gastric cancer, delaying adjuvant CT was associated with inferior overall survival (HR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.04-1.38; p = 0.01). Conversely, the benefit of earlier CT was not evident in pancreatic cancer (HR = 1, 95% CI 1-1.01; p = 0.37). Conclusions: Starting adjuvant CT within 6-8 weeks post-surgery is associated with a significant survival benefit for colorectal and gastric cancer, but not for pancreatic cancer., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.