This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

6511 Background: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Veneto Oncology Network ROV licensed dedicated guidelines for cancer patients care during the pandemic, and developed a regional registry (ROVID) aimed at describing epidemiology and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. Preliminary data on 170 patients mainly diagnosed during the first pandemic wave have been published (Guarneri V, Eur J Cancer 2021). Here we report the data of additional 270 patients, comparing clinical data and outcomes between first (W1) and second (W2) pandemic waves. Methods: All patients with cancer diagnosis and documented SARS-CoV-2 infection are eligible. Data on diagnosis, comorbidities, anticancer treatments, details on SARS-CoV-infection including source of contagion, clinical presentation, hospitalization, treatments and fate of the infection are recorded. Results: 440 patients have been enrolled, 196 diagnosed during W1 (until September 2020) and 244 during W2. The most common cancer type was breast cancer (n = 116). Significant differences in clinical characteristics between W1 and W2 were the followings: ECOG PS 0 (34% vs 58%), presence of cardiac comorbidities (30% vs 13%), presence of any co-morbidities (81% vs 62%), smoking habits (23% vs 13%). Patients diagnosed in W1 were less likely on active anticancer therapy (54% vs 73%) at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Distribution per stage, presence of lung metastases, disease setting (curative vs palliative), active treatment discontinuation due to infection were similar between W1 and W2. Patients diagnosed in W1 were more likely symptomatic for SARS-CoV-2 infection (80% vs 67%), and reported more frequently an in-hospital contact as potential source of infection (44% vs 9%). Significantly more patients diagnosed in W1 were hospitalized (76% vs 25%). All-cause mortality rates were 30.6% for patients diagnosed in W1 vs 12% for patients diagnosed in W2 (p < 0.001). However, deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 infection were more frequent in patients diagnosed in W2 (86% vs 54%, odds ratio 3.22; 95% CI 1.97-5.279). Conclusions: Differences in clinical characteristics between W1 and W2 reflect different pattern of virus circulation. The dramatic reduction of in-hospital contact as a source of infection reflects the efforts put in place to protect this vulnerable population from in-hospital exposure. The lower all-cause mortality rate observed in W2 is in line with the observed less frail population. However, the higher relative risk of death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection observed in W2 reinforces the need to adopt protective measures including vaccination in cancer patients, irrespectively of age, stage, and comorbidities.

No abstract

e15514 Background: TT have improved the outcome in mRCC; however, definite data regarding their efficacy when used in the community setting are still insufficient. This survey was aimed to evaluate survival in subsequent lines of treatment (tx) in mRCC pts treated outside clinical trials. Methods: Individual data from the clinical records of 902 pts treated with TT from mid 2007 to December 2012 were obtained from 28 Italian Institutions, through a questionnaire sent after approval by local ethical committees. Results: Median follow up was 26 mo (range 1-85), median age was 60 yrs (range 25-89), 75% were male. At onset metastatic sites were lung (62%), lymph nodes (38%), bone (31%); each of the other sites <10%. Median overall survival (mOS) was 24 mo (range 1-85) without statistical difference among the various centres. Sunitinib was the 1stline tx in 693 pts (76.6%), sorafenib in 124 (13.7%) , temsirolimus in 35 (4%), bevacizumab in 26 (3%), pazopanib in 19 (1.5%), others 5. Median PFS of 1stline (mPFS1) sunitinib was 11 mo and that of sorafenib 7 mo. Type of response: CR 32 (3.5%), PR 274 (30%), SD 275 (30%); PD 265 (29%), not evaluable 33 (3.5%), tx ongoing 23 (2.5%). Dose reduction of sunitinib and sorafenib was required in 49% and 39% of the cycles administered, respectively; 137 pts (15%) received only 1 cycle of sunitinib mostly for rapid progression and/or deterioration. 2ndline tx was performed in 46% of the pts: sorafenib 143 (16%), everolimus 121 (13%), sunitinib 100 (11%), temsirolimus 25 (3%), chemo-immunotherapy 26 (3%), others 1%. mPFS2 was 6 mo with sunitinib and about 4 mo with the other tx (p=0.001). 155 pts (17%) received 3 lines of tx: mOS of TKI-TKI-mTOR (A), TKI-mTOR-TKI (B) and other (C) triplets were 48, 37 and 33 mo, respectively; A vs B p= 0.06; A vs C p= 0.01. Overall PFS3 was 6 mo. Conclusions: i) This survey shows that data of clinical trials were reproduced in the real world setting; ii) a good proportion of pts achieved long OS after subsequent lines of tx; iii) on the other hand, a similar percentage of pts experienced rapid progression; iv) further studies are needed to better identify the different subsets of pts in order to improve the efficacy of TT.

No abstract