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.

Purpose Longitudinal analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) remains unstandardized and compromises comparison of results between trials. In oncology, despite available statistical approaches, results are poorly used to change standards of care, mainly due to lack of standardization and the ability to propose clinical meaningful results. In this context, the time to deterioration (TTD) has been proposed as a modality of longitudinal HRQoL analysis for cancer patients. As for tumor response and progression, we propose to develop RECIST criteria for HRQoL. Methods Several definitions of TTD are investigated in this paper. We applied this approach in early breast cancer and metastatic pancreatic cancer with a 5-point minimal clinically important difference. In breast cancer, TTD was defined as compared to the baseline score or to the best previous score. In pancreatic cancer (arm 1: gemcitabine with FOLFIRI.3, arm 2: gemcitabine alone), the time until definitive deterioration (TUDD) was investigated with or without death as event.Results In the breast cancer study, 381 women were included. The median TTD was influenced by the choice of the reference score. In pancreatic cancer study, 98 patients were enrolled. Patients in Arm 1 presented longer TUDD than those in Arm 2 for most of HRQoL scores. Results of TUDD were slightly different according to the definition of deterioration applied. Conclusion Currently, the international ARCAD group supports the idea of developing RECIST for HRQoL in pancreatic and colorectal cancer with liver metastasis, with a view to using HRQoL as a co-primary endpoint along with a tumor parameter.

Endpoints are measurable clinical and biological findings that are used for the development and assessment of treatment options. In the treatment of cancer, endpoints can be classified into two categories: "patient-centered clinical endpoints" including overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life (QoL), and "tumor-centered clinical endpoints" such as progression-free survival. Surrogate endpoints are tumor-centered clinical endpoints that can be used as substitutes for patient-centered clinical endpoints, particularly OS. The choice of endpoints in oncology trials is a major problem. The published Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) best-practice guidelines encourage the reporting of clearly defined primary and secondary outcome measures. OS is the gold standard of endpoints but as increasing numbers of effective salvage treatments become available for many types of cancer, much larger numbers of patients are included; this requires a longer follow-up period and increases the cost of clinical trials. Thus, tumor-centered clinical endpoints that can be assessed earlier and used as surrogates for overall survival are increasingly studied, but most of them currently lack standardized definitions to enable cross comparison of results among different clinical trials and they have not been validated as surrogate endpoints. In addition, the variability of their definition can strongly impact the trial's conclusions by affecting both statistical power and estimation. In this context, QoL constitutes an available and useful surrogate endpoint for trials to ensure treatment benefit from both the patient and public health points of view. Methodological research should be pursued to develop standard outcome definitions for use in cancer clinical trials and to define a standardized longitudinal analysis of QoL data.

Background We aimed to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with advanced breast cancer. Methods Data were derived from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors (eg, performance status [PS]) were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility of their association with a particular QLQ-C30 scale. Three change status groups were formed: deteriorated by one anchor category, improved by one anchor category, and no change. Patients with greater anchor changes were excluded. The mean change method was used to estimate MIDs for within-group change, and linear regression was used to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. For a given QLQ-C30 scale, MID estimates from multiple anchors were triangulated to a single value via a correlation-based weighted average. Results MIDs varied by QLQ-C30 scale, direction (improvement vs deterioration), and anchor. MIDs for within-group change ranged from 5 to 14 points (improvement) and −14 to −4 points (deterioration), and MIDs for between-group change over time ranged from 4 to 11 points and from −18 to −4 points. Correlation-weighted MIDs for most QLQ-C30 scales ranged from 4 to 10 points in absolute values. Conclusions Our findings aid interpretation of changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in advanced breast cancer.