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.

BackgroundPhase II clinical trials are a cornerstone of the development in experimental treatments They work as a "filter" for phase III trials confirmation. Surprisingly the attrition ratio in Phase III trials in oncology is significantly higher than in any other medical specialty. This suggests phase II trials in oncology fail to achieve their goal.Objective The present study aims at estimating the quality of reporting in published oncology phase II clinical trials.Data sourcesA literature review was conducted among all phase II and phase II/III clinical trials published during a 5-year period (2010–2015).Study eligibility criteriaAll articles electronically published by three randomly-selected oncology journals with Impact-Factors>4 were included: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology and British Journal of Cancer.InterventionQuality of reporting was assessed using the Key Methodological Score.Results557 articles were included. 315 trials were single-arm studies (56.6%), 193 (34.6%) were randomized and 49 (8.8%) were non-randomized multiple-arm studies. The Methodological Score was equal to 0 (lowest level), 1, 2, 3 (highest level) respectively for 22 (3.9%), 119 (21.4%), 270 (48.5%) and 146 (26.2%) articles. The primary end point is almost systematically reported (90.5%), while sample size calculation is missing in 66% of the articles. 3 variables were independently associated with reporting of a high standard: presence of statistical design (p-value <0.001), multicenter trial (p-value = 0.012), per-protocol analysis (p-value <0.001).LimitationsScreening was mainly performed by a sole author. The Key Methodological Score was based on only 3 items, making grey zones difficult to translate.Conclusions & implications of key findingsThis literature review highlights the existence of gaps concerning the quality of reporting. It therefore raised the question of the suitability of the methodology as well as the quality of these trials, reporting being incomplete in the corresponding articles.

ObjectiveLeukocytes are hypothesized to reflect the inflammatory tumor microenvironment. We aimed to validate their prognostic significance in a large cohort of patients treated with pre-operative radiation for locally advanced rectal cancer (RC).ResultsFrom 2004 to 2015, 257 RC patients with available biological data underwent a pre-operative radiotherapy, with a median age of 66 years. The median rectal EQD2 was 49.2Gy. Most of patients experienced concurrent chemotherapy (n = 245, 95.4%), mainly with 5-FU (83.3%). Clear surgical margins (i.e. complete resection) were achieved in 234 patients (91.1%). A complete (Mandard TRG1: n = 35, 13.6%) or almost complete pathological response (Mandard TRG2: n = 56, 21.8%) were achieved in 91 patients (35.4%). With a median follow-up of 46.1 months, 8 patients (3.1%) experienced local relapse, 38 (14.8%) experienced metastases and 45 (17.5%) died. Elevated pre-radiation neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR > 2.8) was identified as an independent predictive factor of increased local relapse, of decreased progression-free survival and overall survival in multivariate analysis. Elevated NLR was marginally associated with incomplete pathological response in multivariate analysis, suggesting a possible value as a biomarker of radio-sensitivity.ConclusionsPre-radiation NLR is a simple and robust biomarker for risk stratification in locally advanced RC patients undergoing pre-operative radiotherapy, and might select the subpopulation eligible to treatment intensification or to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Material and MethodsClinical records from consecutive patients treated in a single institution between 2004 and 2015 with curative-intent radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. Classical prognosis factors of RC and peripheral immune markers based on lymphocytes and neutrophil counts were studied.

The present article analyses several characteristics and anthropomorphic measurements of breast in order to assess breast size. A standardized and reproducible protocol to measure breast volume is described.

<b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The aim of this study was to identify and compare prognostic factors, management strategies, and outcomes of very locally advanced cervical cancer (CC) (i.e., stage IVA) and metastatic CC (i.e., stage IVB). <b><i>Method:</i></b> A retrospective review was conducted based on all consecutive patients treated<b><i></i></b>for stage IV CC in a comprehensive cancer care centre between 2004 and 2017. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Sixty-eight patients were included. Performance status (PS) was ≥2 for 35.9%. Median age at diagnosis was 60.5. There were 24 stage IVA CC (35.3%) and 44 stage IVB CC (64.7%). Seventeen patients with stage IVB CC had only para-aortic lymph node metastases (38.6%), 13 had only distant metastases (29.5%), and 14 had both (31.8%). Patients with stage IVA CC experienced a radiotherapy with curative intent (<i>n</i> = 14, 58.3%) +/– concomitant chemotherapy, or a palliative treatment (<i>n</i> = 10, 41.7%). Twenty-three patients with stage IVB CC received a prior chemotherapy (52.3%), 11 a primary concomitant chemoradiation (25%), and 10 a palliative treatment (22.7%). The mean follow-up was 18.0 months. The 5-year overall survival was 5.1% for stage IVA (95% CI = 0.7–33.9), and 10.5% for stage IVB (95% CI = 3.7–29.7). In multivariate analysis, PS &#x3e;1 was identified as a poor prognostic factor of disease-specific survival for stage IVA CC. PS &#x3e;1 and pelvic lymph node involvement were identified as poor prognostic factors of overall survival and disease-specific survival for stage IVB CC. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> In daily clinical practice, outcomes of stages IV CC are poor. Treatment of advanced and metastatic CC remains challenging. New management strategies are needed, as well as efficient preventive strategies.