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.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have affected cancer management. We aimed to evaluate changes in every oncology care pathway essential steps, from screening to treatment during the pandemic. Monthly oncological activity differences between 2019 and 2020 (screening tests, histopathological analyzes, multidisciplinary tumor board meetings (MTMB), diagnostic announcement procedures (DAP), and treatments) were calculated in two French areas experiencing different pandemic's intensity (Reims and Colmar). COVID-19 has had a dramatic impact in terms of screening (-86% to-100%), diagnosis (-39%) , and surgical treatment (-30%). This global decrease in all essential oncology care pathway steps contrasted with the relative stability of chemotherapy (-9%) and radiotherapy use (-16%). Outbreak occurred earlier and with more intensity in Colmar but had a comparable impact in both areas regarding MTBM and DAP. The current ONCOCARE-COV study is still in progress, and with a longer follow-up to analyze post-lockdown situation. The Oncologist 2020;9999:• •

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic caused major oncology care pathway disruption. The CAPANCOVID study aimed to evaluate the impact on pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) – from diagnosis to treatment – of the reorganisation of the health care system during the first lockdown. Methods. This multicentre ambispective observational study included 833 patients diagnosed with PA between September 1 st , 2019 and October 31 st , 2020 from 13 French centres. Data were compared over three periods defined as before the outbreak of COVID-19, during the first lockdown (March 1 st to May 11 th , 2020) and after lockdown. Results. During the lockdown, mean weekly number of new cases decreased compared with that of pre-pandemic levels (13.2 vs. 10.8, -18.2%; p=0.63) without rebound in the post-lockdown period (13.2 vs. 12.9, -1.7%; p=0.97). The number of borderline tumours increased (13.6% to 21.7%) whereas the rate of metastatic diseases rate dropped (47.1% to 40.3%) (p=0.046). Time-to-diagnosis and -treatment were not different over periods. Waiting neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable tumours was significantly favoured (24.7% to 32.6%) compared with upfront surgery (13% to 7.8%) (p=0.013). The use of mFOLFIRINOX preoperative chemotherapy regimen decreased (84.9% to 69%; p=0.044). After lockdown, the number of borderline tumours decreased (21.7% to 9.6%) and advanced diseases increased (59.7% to 69.8%) (p=0.046). SARS-CoV-2 infected 39 patients (4.7%) causing 5 deaths (12.8%). Conclusion. This cohort study suggests the existence of missing diagnoses and of a shift in disease stage at diagnosis from resectable to advanced diseases with related therapeutic modifications whose prognostic consequences will be known after the planned follow-up.

Background: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency screening is a pre-therapeutic standard to prevent severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Although several screening methods exist, the accuracy of their results remains debatable. In France, the uracilemia measurement is considered the standard in DPD deficiency screening. The objective of this study was to describe the hyperuracilemia (⩾16 ng/mL) rate and investigate the influence of hepatic and renal impairment in uracilemia measurements since the guidelines were implemented. Patients and methods: Using a cohort of 1138 patients screened between 18 October 2018 and 18 October 2021, basic demographic characteristics, date of blood sampling, and potential biological confounders including liver function tests [aspartate aminotransaminase (AST), alanine aminotransaminase (ALT), gamma-glutamyl transferase (γGT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and bilirubin] and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were collected. The second same-patient uracilemia analysis was also performed. Temporal change was graphically represented while potential confounders were stratified to show linearity when suspected. Results: Hyperuracilemia was diagnosed in 12.7% ( n = 150) samples with 6.7%, 5.4%, 0.5%, and 0.08% between 16 and 20 ng/mL, 20 and 50 ng/mL, 50 and 150 ng/mL, and >150 ng/mL, respectively. The median uracilemia concentration was 9.4 ng/mL (range: 1.2 and 172.3 ng/mL) and the monthly hyperuracilemia rate decreased steadily from >30% to around 9%. Older age, normalized AST, γGT, ALP results, bilirubin levels, and decreased eGFR were linearly associated with higher plasma uracil concentrations (all p < 0.001). In the adjusted multivariate linear model, AST, eGFR, and ALP remained associated with uracilemia ( p < 0.05). When measured twice in 39 patients, the median uracilemia rate of change was −2.5%, which subsequently changed the diagnosis in nine patients (23.1%). Conclusions: Better respect of pre-analytical conditions may explain the steady decrease in monthly hyperuracilemia rates over the 3 years. Elevated AST, ALP levels, and reduced eGFR could induce a false increase in uracilemia and second uracilemia measurements modified the first DPD deficiency diagnosis in almost 25% of the patients.