Background Cancer patients are thought to have an increased risk of developing severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and of dying from the disease. In this work, predictive factors for COVID-19 severity and mortality in cancer patients were investigated. Patients and Methods In this large nationwide retro-prospective cohort study, we collected data on patients with solid tumours and COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1 and June 11, 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and COVID-19 severity, defined as admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or mechanical ventilation and/or death, was one of the secondary endpoints. Results From April 4 to June 11, 2020, 1289 patients were analysed. The most frequent cancers were digestive and thoracic. Altogether, 424 (33%) patients had a severe form of COVID-19 and 370 (29%) patients died. In multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with death were male sex (odds ratio 1.73, 95%CI: 1.18-2.52), ECOG PS ≥ 2 (OR 3.23, 95%CI: 2.27-4.61), updated Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.16) and admission to ICU (OR 3.62, 95%CI 2.14-6.11). The same factors, age along with corticosteroids before COVID-19 diagnosis, and thoracic primary tumour site were independently associated with COVID-19 severity. None of the anticancer treatments administered within the previous 3 months had any effect on mortality or COVID-19 severity, except cytotoxic chemotherapy in the subgroup of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR, which was associated with a slight increase of the risk of death (OR 1.53; 95%CI: 1.00-2.34; p = 0.05). A total of 431 (39%) patients had their systemic anticancer treatment interrupted or stopped following diagnosis of COVID-19. Conclusions Mortality and COVID-19 severity in cancer patients are high and are associated with general characteristics of patients. We found no deleterious effects of recent anticancer treatments, except for cytotoxic chemotherapy in the RT-PCR-confirmed subgroup of patients. In almost 40% of patients, the systemic anticancer therapy was interrupted or stopped after COVID-19 diagnosis.

Abstract:The so-called triple-negative breast cancer, as defined by tumors that lack estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression, has generated growing interest in recent years despite representing less than 20% of all breast cancers. These tumors constitute an important clinical challenge, as they do not respond to endocrine treatment and other targeted therapies. As a group they harbor an aggressive clinical phenotype with early development of visceral metastases and a poor long-term prognosis. While chemotherapy remains effective in triple-negative disease, research continues to further identify potential new targets based on phenotypical and molecular characteristics of these tumors. In this respect, the presence of a higher expression of different biomarkers including epidermal growth factor receptor, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, fibroblast growth factor receptor and Akt activation has led to a proliferation of clinical trials assessing the role of inhibitors to these pathways in triple-negative tumors. Moreover, the described overlap between triple-negative and basal-like tumors, and the similarities with tumors arising in the BRCA1 mutation carriers has offered potential therapeutic avenues for patients with these cancers including poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and a focus on a higher sensitivity to alkylating chemotherapy agents. Results from these trials have shown some benefit in small subgroups of patients, even in single-agent therapy, which reflects the heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer and highlights the need for a further subclassification of these types of tumors for better prognosis identification and treatment individualization.

No abstract

Ifosfamide is used in the treatment of sarcomas and other tumors. It sometimes provokes encephalopathy, which is a serious complication even if it is usually reversible within 48-72 h after drug cessation. Ifosfamide is required to be activated by hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP), especially the 3A4 subtype, leading to 4-hydroxy-ifosfamide. Ifosfamide is also converted by CYP3A4 to inactive but neurotoxic metabolites. Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist that is a potent antiemetic used in combination with 5-HT₃ antagonists and corticosteroids. Aprepitant has an inhibitory effect, as well as a possible inductive effect, on CYP3A4. Since ifosfamide and aprepitant are both substrates of CYP3A4, a pharmacokinetic interaction could result in secondary effects such as the potentialization of neurological side effects. In this report, we describe 2 cases of fatal encephalopathy in patients who have received both ifosfamide and aprepitant, and we discuss the mechanisms that could be involved. Our observations draw attention to the fact that aprepitant must be avoided, or at least used with caution, in patients who are receiving ifosfamide due to the risk of severe neurological side effects.

Purpose To evaluate adherence (as measured by the medication possession ratio) to the first ever course of oral antineoplasic treatment in cancer patients before and after the implementation of a multidisciplinary consultation program (involving an oncologist, a pharmacist, and a nurse) and to investigate the program's impact on adverse events and drug-related problems. Patients and Methods In a retrospective single-center study, we compared the medication possession ratio 2 months after treatment initiation in a control group (before multidisciplinary consultation program implementation) versus an interventional group (after multidisciplinary consultation program implementation). Results Two months after oral antineoplasic treatment initiation, the mean ± standard deviation medication possession ratio did not differ significantly when comparing the interventional (multidisciplinary consultation program) group ( n = 33; 0.99 ± 0.06) with the control group ( n = 64; 0.94 ± 0.16) ( p = 0.062). Patients in the multidisciplinary consultation program group had fewer adverse events in general (41, vs 109 in the control group; p = 0.048) and digestive adverse events in particular (6 vs 29, respectively; p = 0.007). A total of 53 and 40 drug-related problems were identified in the control and multidisciplinary consultation program groups, respectively ( p = 0.074). Conclusions Implementation of an multidisciplinary consultation program was not associated with a significant difference in drug adherence (as assessed by the medication possession ratio), which was good before and after implementation. The multidisciplinary consultation program was associated with a lower incidence of adverse events.