Search

Patients with cancer are currently prioritized in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs globally, which includes administration of mRNA vaccines. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has not been reported with mRNA vaccines and is an extremely rare immune-related adverse event of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We present a case of CRS that occurred 5 d after vaccination with BTN162b2 (tozinameran)—the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine—in a patient with colorectal cancer on long-standing anti-PD-1 monotherapy. The CRS was evidenced by raised inflammatory markers, thrombocytopenia, elevated cytokine levels (IFN-γ/IL-2R/IL-18/IL-16/IL-10) and steroid responsiveness. The close temporal association of vaccination and diagnosis of CRS in this case suggests that CRS was a vaccine-related adverse event; with anti-PD1 blockade as a potential contributor. Overall, further prospective pharmacovigillence data are needed in patients with cancer, but the benefit–risk profile remains strongly in favor of COVID-19 vaccination in this population., A rare case of cytokine release syndrome in a patient on anti-PD-1 blockade that was likely related to BNT162b2 vaccination supports prospective monitoring of patients with cancer after COVID-19 vaccine administration.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionised treating advanced cancers. ICI are administered intravenously every 2-6 weeks for up to 2 years, until cancer progression/unacceptable toxicity. Physiological efficacy is observed at lower doses than those used as standard of care (SOC). Pharmacodynamic studies indicate sustained target occupancy, despite a pharmacological half-life of 2-3 weeks. Reducing frequency of administration may be possible without compromising outcomes. The REFINE trial aims to limit individual patient exposure to ICI whilst maintaining efficacy, with potential benefits in quality of life and reduced drug treatment/attendance costs.REFINE is a randomised phase II, multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive basket trial investigating extended interval administration of ICIs. Eligible patients are those responding to conventionally dosed ICI at 12 weeks. In stage I, patients (n = 160 per tumour-specific cohort) will be randomly allocated (1:1) to receive maintenance ICI at SOC vs extended dose interval. REFINE is currently recruiting UK patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have tolerated and responded to initial nivolumab/ipilimumab, randomised to receive maintenance nivolumab SOC (480 mg 4 weekly) vs extended interval (480 mg 8 weekly). Additional tumour cohorts are planned. Subject to satisfactory outcomes (progression-free survival) stage II will investigate up to 5 different treatment intervals. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, quality-of-life, treatment-related toxicity, mean incremental pathway costs and quality-adjusted life-years per patient. REFINE is funded by the Jon Moulton Charity Trust and Medical Research Council, sponsored by University College London (UCL), and coordinated by the MRC CTU at UCL. Trial Registration ISRCTN79455488. NCT04913025 EUDRACT #: 2021-002060-47. CTA 31330/0008/001-0001; MREC approval: 21/LO/0593. REFINE Protocol version 4.0.

Diabetes and cancer are both common and increasingly prevalent conditions, but emerging epidemiological evidence confirms that the risk of developing a number of common cancers is increased in those with type 2 diabetes. The risk of cancer in type 1 diabetes is less clearly defined, and therefore this review focuses on type 2 diabetes. Emerging evidence also supports an influence of diabetes on outcomes of cancer treatment. However, this relationship is bi-directional, with cancer and its treatment impacting on glucose control, whereas there is also emerging evidence indicating that diabetes care can deteriorate after a cancer diagnosis. Despite these clear links, there is a lack of evidence to guide clinicians in how to manage patients with diabetes during their cancer treatment. Although recent UK guidelines have started to address this, with the development of guidance for the management of hyperglycaemia in cancer, there is a clear need for wider guidance on the management of multi-morbidity during cancer, including diabetes and obesity, to incorporate nutritional management. We have therefore undertaken a narrative review of the evidence of links between type 2 diabetes and cancer incidence and outcomes, and discuss the challenges to diabetes care during cancer treatment.

Patients with cancer have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Here we present the prospective CAPTURE study, integrating longitudinal immune profiling with clinical annotation. Of 357 patients with cancer, 118 were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 94 were symptomatic and 2 died of COVID-19. In this cohort, 83% patients had S1-reactive antibodies and 82% had neutralizing antibodies against wild type SARS-CoV-2, whereas neutralizing antibody titers against the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants were substantially reduced. S1-reactive antibody levels decreased in 13% of patients, whereas neutralizing antibody titers remained stable for up to 329 days. Patients also had detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells and CD4+ responses correlating with S1-reactive antibody levels, although patients with hematological malignancies had impaired immune responses that were disease and treatment specific, but presented compensatory cellular responses, further supported by clinical recovery in all but one patient. Overall, these findings advance the understanding of the nature and duration of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antiviral response in a pan-tumor immune monitoring (CAPTURE) (NCT03226886) is a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 immunity in patients with cancer. Here we evaluated 585 patients following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines, administered 12 weeks apart. Seroconversion rates after two doses were 85% and 59% in patients with solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. A lower proportion of patients had detectable titers of neutralizing antibodies (NAbT) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC) versus wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2. Patients with hematological malignancies were more likely to have undetectable NAbT and had lower median NAbT than those with solid cancers against both SARS-CoV-2 WT and VOC. By comparison with individuals without cancer, patients with hematological, but not solid, malignancies had reduced neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses. Seroconversion showed poor concordance with NAbT against VOC. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection boosted the NAb response including against VOC, and anti-CD20 treatment was associated with undetectable NAbT. Vaccine-induced T cell responses were detected in 80% of patients and were comparable between vaccines or cancer types. Our results have implications for the management of patients with cancer during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Individuals with cancer are at increased risk of developing new-onset diabetes mellitus and hyperglycaemia, and an estimated 20% of people with cancer already have an underlying diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. People with both cancer and diabetes may have an increased risk of toxicities, hospital admissions and morbidity, with hyperglycaemia potentially attenuating the efficacy of chemotherapy often secondary to dose reductions and early cessation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that hyperglycaemia is prognostic of worse overall survival and risk of cancer recurrence. These guidelines aim to provide the oncology/haemato-oncology and diabetes multidisciplinary teams with the tools to manage people with diabetes commencing anti-cancer/glucocorticoid therapy, as well as identifying individuals without a known diagnosis of diabetes who are at risk of developing hyperglycaemia and new-onset diabetes.

We present a case of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) that occurred five days after vaccination with BTN162b2 (tozinameran), an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, in a patient with colorectal cancer on long-standing anti-PD-1 monotherapy. The CRS was evidenced by raised inflammatory markers, thrombocytopenia, elevated cytokine levels (IFN-y/IL-2R/IL-18/IL-16/IL-10), and steroid responsiveness.

Purpose of Review Repurposing established medicines for a new therapeutic indication potentially has important global and societal impact. The high costs and slow pace of new drug development have increased interest in more cost-effective repurposed drugs, particularly in the cancer arena. The conventional drug development pathway and evidence framework are not designed for drug repurposing and there is currently no consensus on establishing the evidence base before embarking on a large, resource intensive, potential practice changing phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT). Numerous observational studies have suggested a potential role for statins as a repurposed drug for cancer chemoprevention and therapy, and we review the strength of the cumulative evidence here. Recent Findings In the setting of cancer, a potential repurposed drug, like statins, typically goes through a cyclical history, with initial use for several years in another disease setting, prior to epidemiological research identifying a possible chemo-protective effect. However, further information is required, including review of RCT data in the initial disease setting with exploration of cancer outcomes. Additionally, more contemporary methods should be considered, such as Mendelian randomization and pharmaco-epidemiological research with “target” trial design emulation using electronic health records. Pre-clinical and traditional observational data potentially support the role of statins in the treatment of cancer; however, randomised trial evidence is not supportive. Evaluation of contemporary methods provides little added support for the use of statin therapy in cancer. Summary We provide complementary evidence of alternative study designs to enable a robust critical appraisal from a number of sources of the go/no-go decision for a prospective phase III RCT of statins in the treatment of cancer.

Background: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19, but have heterogeneous presentations and outcomes. Decision-making tools for hospital admission, severity prediction and increased monitoring for early intervention are critical. We sought to identify features of COVID-19 in cancer patients predicting severe disease and build a decision-support online tool; COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET). Methods: Patients with active cancer (stage I-IV) and laboratory confirmed COVID-19 presenting to hospitals worldwide were included. Discharge (within 24hrs), admission (≥24hrs inpatient), oxygen requirement (O2) and death were combined in a 0-3 point severity scale. Association of features with outcome were investigated using Lasso regression and Random Forest (RF) combined with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). RF was further validated in 4 cohorts, split by geography. The CORONET model was then examined in the entire cohort to build an online CORONET decision-support tool. Admission and severe disease thresholds were established through pragmatically defined cost functions. Findings: The dataset comprised 920 patients; median age 70 (range 5-99), 56% males, 44% females, 81% solid vs. 19% haematological cancers. In derivation, RF demonstrated superior performance over Lasso with lower mean squared error (0.801 vs. 0.807) and was selected for development. During validation, RF achieved mean AUROC 0.77, 0.80 and 0.75 for prediction of admission, O 2 and death, respectively. Using the entire cohort, CORONET cut-offs for admission and mortality of 1.0 and 2.3 were established. The CORONET decision support tool recommended admission for 95% of patients eventually requiring oxygen and 97% of those who died. SHAP explanations revealed National-Early-Warning-Score-2, C-reactive protein and albumin were the most important features contributing to COVID-19 severity prediction in patients with cancer at time of hospital presentation. Interpretation: CORONET, a decision-support tool validated in healthcare systems worldwide can aid admission decisions and predict COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer. Funding Information: R. Lee and T. Robinson and J. Weaver are supported by the National Institute for Health Research as Clinical Lecturers. T. Bhogal is supported by the National Institute for Health Research as an academic clinical fellow. U. Khan is an MRC Clinical Training Fellow based at the University of Liverpool supported by the North West England Medical Research Council Fellowship Scheme in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, which is funded by the Medical Research Council (Award Ref. MR/N025989/1). The Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre for providing infrastructure support (Grant Reference: C18616/A25153) and The Clatterbridge Cancer charity (North West Cancer Research). C. Dive is funded by CRUK Core funding to Manchester Institute (C5757/A27412) and is supported by the CRUK Manchester Centre Award (C5759/A25254), and by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. C. Zhou is funded by the CRUK Manchester Centre Award (C5759/A25254), J. Stevenson and P. Fitzpatrick are funded by the CRUK Accelerator Award (29374). This research was funded in part, by the Wellcome Trust [205228/Z/16/Z]. LT is also supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections (NIHR200907) at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford. LT is based at University of Liverpool. MS is supported by a grant from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation for the state support for the creation and development of World Class Research Centers "Digital biodesign and personalized healthcare” N.075-15-2020-926. Declaration of Interests: R Lee research funding (institution) BMS and speaker fees Astrazeneca. A. Croitoru Consulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Merck, Roche, Bayer, Novartis, Ipsen, Research Funding me and my hospital: Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Canfite, NanoCarrier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, Servier, Five Prime Therapeutics, Travel Accommodations: Pfizer, Genekor, and oz, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, Roche. O. Michielin reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from NeraCare GmbH, outside the submitted work. E. Romano institutional research grants from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb. G. Pentheroudakis advisory board for Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Roche, Abbvie, institutional research grants from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Debbio, Enorasis, Genekor, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Servier. Solange Peters reports consultation/advisory role: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, Bio Invent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Incyte, IQVIA, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Mirati, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Vaccibody, talk in a company’s organized public event: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, e-cancer, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Illumina, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, PER, Pfizer, Prime, RTP, Sanofi, Takeda, receipt of grants/research supports: (Sub)investigator in trials (institutional financial support for clinical trials) sponsored by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, GSK, Illumina, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Mirati, Novartis, and Pfizer, Phosplatin Therapeutics. M Rowe honoraria from Astellas Pharma, speaker fees MSD and Servier. C. Wilson consultancy and speaker fees Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, A Armstrong conference fee Merck, spouse shares in Astrazeneca. T Robinson financial support to attend educational workshops from Amgen and Daiichi-Sankyo. C Dive, outside of this scope of work, has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bioven, Amgen, Carrick Therapeutics, Merck AG, Taiho Oncology, Clearbridge Biomedics, Angle PLC, Menarini Diagnostics, GSK, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Celgene, Thermofisher. C Dive is on advisory boards for, and has received consultancy fees/honoraria from, AstraZeneca, Biocartis and Merck KGaA. No other authors have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: Approval (reference 20/WA/0269) was granted from the UK Research Ethics Committee for the study. Information regarding governance/regulatory approvals for each international cohort are available in the Supp. Methods.

Drug repurposing is the application of an existing licenced drug for a new indication and potentially provides a faster and cheaper approach to developing new anti-cancer agents. Gynaecological cancers contribute significantly to the global cancer burden, highlighting the need for low cost, widely accessible therapies. A large body of evidence supports the role of aspirin as an anti-cancer agent, and a number of randomized trials are currently underway aiming to assess the potential benefit of aspirin in the treatment of cancer. This review summarizes the evidence underpinning aspirin use for the prevention of the development and recurrence of gynaecological cancers (ovarian, endometrial and cervical) and potential mechanisms of action.

Background: Patients with cancer are hypothesised to be at increased risk of contracting COVID-19, leading to changes in treatment pathways in those treated with systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACT). We investigated the outcomes of patients receiving SACT to assess whether they were at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 or having more severe outcomes. Methods: We collected data on all patients receiving SACT in two cancer centres as part of CAPITOL (COVID-19 CAncer PatIenT Outcomes in North London). The primary outcome was the effect of clinical characteristics on the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection in patients on SACT. We used univariable and multivariable models to analyse outcomes, adjusting for age, gender and comorbidities. Findings: We analysed 2871 patients receiving SACT from 2nd March to 31st May 2020; 68 (2.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Cancer patients receiving SACT were more likely to die if they contracted COVID-19 than those who did not (adjusted (adj.) OR 9·84; 95% CI 5·73 – 16·9). Receiving chemotherapy increased the risk of developing COVID-19 (adj. OR 2·99; 95% CI = 1·72 - 5·21), with high dose chemotherapy significantly increasing risk (adj. OR 2·36, 95% CI 1·35 – 6·48), as did the presence of comorbidities (adjusted OR 2·29; 95% CI 1·19 - 4·38), and having a respiratory or intrathoracic neoplasm (adj. OR 2·12; 95% CI 1·04 - 4·36). Receiving targeted treatment had a protective effect (adj. OR 0·53; 95% CI 0·30 – 0·95). Treatment intent (curative versus palliative), hormonal- or immunotherapy and solid versus haematological cancers had no significant effect on risk. Interpretation: Patients on SACT are more likely to die if they contract COVID-19. Those on chemotherapy, particularly high dose chemotherapy, are more likely to contract COVID-19, while targeted treatment appears to be protective. Funding: None. Declaration of Interests: NJH reports grants from CRUK Clinical Trial Fellowship, outside the submitted work. VEC, WW, TAF, SD, JB KK, DH, KKS, RK, NC, MD, EB, JB, MF and DH have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Ethics Approval Statement: Research and development approval were sought from University College Hospital, which is where the study was primarily conducted, the ethical approval was granted by the ethics committee of University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.

Background Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated. Methods and findings We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients’ reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients’ satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate. Conclusions Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403., In this mixed methods trial, Annabelle South and colleagues investigate different approaches to sharing the results of a clinical trial with its participants., Author summary Why was this study done? Previous research has shown that most people who take part in clinical trials want to be told the results of those trials, but many participants never get to find them out. There is little evidence to guide researchers on how best to share results with the people taking part in their trials. What did the researchers do and find? We carried out a study to test different ways of sharing trial results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial. We randomly assigned hospitals that were part of the ovarian cancer trial to share results with the women taking part in different ways: a basic webpage or an enhanced webpage; a printed summary of the results by mail; and an email list to receive the results. Nine in 10 women wanted to be told the results of the trial they had taken part in. Women at hospitals which sent out the printed summary by mail, were more likely to be satisfied with how the results were shared and were more likely to find out the results than those at other hospitals. Women who received the results said that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. What do these findings mean? These findings suggest that trials with similar participants to our ovarian cancer trial (mainly women aged 50 or older), where webpages are used to share results with people taking part, should also share results through opt-out mailed printed summaries. This will enable more people who want to know the results to find them out, and improve satisfaction.

Background: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. Understanding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination induced-immunity is an area of unmet need. Methods: CAPTURE (NCT03226886) is a prospective longitudinal cohort study of COVID-19 vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced immunity. SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by RT-PCR and ELISA. Neutralising antibody titres (NAbT) against wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern (VOC;Alpha, Beta, Delta) and SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cells (SsT-cells) were quantified. Results: 118 patients (89% solid malignancy, [SM]) were SARS-CoV-2-positive (median follow-up: 154 days). 85% patients were symptomatic;2 died of COVID-19. 82% had S1-reactive antibodies, of whom 89% had neutralising antibodies (NAbs);NAbT were lower against all VOCs. While S1-reactive antibody levels declined over time, NAbT remained stable up to 329 days. Most patients had detectable SsT-cells (76% CD4+, 52% CD8+). Haematological malignancy (HM) patients had impaired immune responses that were disease and treatment-specific (anti-CD20), but with evidence suggestive of compensation from T-cells. 585 patients were evaluated following 2 doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines, administered 12 weeks apart. Seroconversion rates after 2 doses were 85% and 54% in patients with SM and HM, respectively. A lower proportion of patients had detectable NAbs against SARS-CoV-2 VOC (Alpha 62%, Beta 54%, Delta 49%) vs WT (84%), with corresponding significantly lower NAbT. Patients with HM were more likely to have an undetectable NAb and had lower NAbT vs solid malignancies to both WT and VOCs. Seroconversion showed poor concordance with NAbTs against VOCs. Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection boosted NAbT including against VOCs. Anti-CD20 treatment was associated with severely diminished NAbTs. Vaccine-induced T-cell responses were detected in 80% of patients, with no differences between vaccines or cancer types. Conclusions: Patients with HM had blunted humoural responses to infection and vaccination, particularly against VOCs, but preserved cellular responses might contribute to protection. Our results lend support to prioritisation of all cancer patients for further booster vaccination. Clinical trial identification: NCT03226886. Legal entity responsible for the study: The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Funding: The Royal Marsden Charity;The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at the Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute for Cancer Research (ICR). Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

10567 Background: One of the major challenges with COVID-19 has been the changes to cancer services, including changes to the type of systemic anti-cancer treatment being delivered to patients. There needs to be a better understanding of which cancer patients are at the greatest amount of risk to make informed decisions on how cancer treatment can be altered to protect patients from COVID-19 infection. The CAPITOL (COVID-19 CAncer PatIenT Outcomes in North London) study investigated the outcomes of patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapies (SACT) with regards to COVID-19 infection, as patients with cancer are hypothesised to be at higher risk. Methods: CAPITOL collected data from all patients receiving SACT at two cancer centres. The effect of clinical characteristics on the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection in patients on SACT was the primary outcome, and we used univariable and multivariable models in our analysis, adjusting for age, gender and comorbidities. Results: 2871 patients were analysed from 2nd March to 31st May 2020, all of whom received SACT; during this time period 68 (2.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Receiving SACT increased the risk of death when contracting COVID-19 (adjusted (adj.) OR 9.84; 95% CI 5.73 – 16.9). The risk of contracting COVID-19 was increased by receiving chemotherapy (adj. OR 2.99; 95% CI = 1.72 - 5.21), with the risk significantly increased by high dose chemotherapy (adj. OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.35 – 6.48). Patients with comorbidities (adjusted OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.19 - 4.38), or with a respiratory or intrathoracic neoplasm (adj. OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.04 - 4.36) were also at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Cancer patients who received targeted treatment had a reduced risk of contracting COVID-19 (adj. OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.30 – 0.95), while there was no significant change in risk caused by treatment intent (curative versus palliative), hormonal- or immunotherapy and solid versus haematological cancers. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first investigations into the risk of contracting COVID-19 in a cohort of all cancer patients on SACT. We found that patients on SACT are more likely to die if they contract COVID-19. The type of SACT received by cancer patients can affect their likelihood of contacting COVID-19, with chemotherapy increasing risk, targeted therapy decreasing risk and a potential protective effect for hormonal and immunotherapy.

Gastric cancer is considered an age-related disease, with the majority of new cases in the UK diagnosed in individuals over the age of 75. At present most guidance related to the management of gastric cancer is based on trials undertaken in the fit, younger patient. Historically the elderly have been underrepresented in clinical trials, which frequently have a restricted inclusion to an upper age limit of 75. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommends use of a geriatric assessment to determine functional age when initiating treatment in elderly patients with gastric cancer, which has been shown to be a better predictor of treatment response than chronological age. The physiological changes that occur with age, including reduced organ function and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability, together with impaired functional status, necessitate a more individualised approach to treatment decisions in the older patient to provide them with the same advantages from radical treatment and palliative chemotherapy as younger patients. This review summarises the current evidence extrapolated from trial data on how best to optimise treatment for elderly patients with gastric cancer.