No abstract

No abstract

Aim of the study Patients with cancer might have an increased risk for severe outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome of COVID-19, a nationwide registry was developed for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods This observational cohort study has been designed as a quality of care registry and is executed by the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium (DOCC), a nationwide collaboration of oncology physicians in the Netherlands. A questionnaire has been developed to collect pseudonymised patient data on patients’ characteristics, cancer diagnosis, and treatment. All patients with COVID-19 and a cancer diagnosis or treatment in the past 5 years are eligible. Results Between March 27 th and May 4 th , 442 patients were registered. For this first analysis, 351 patients were included of whom 114 patients died. In multivariable analyses, age ≥65 years ( p <0.001), male gender ( p =0.035), prior or other malignancy ( p =0.045), and active diagnosis of haematological malignancy ( p =0.046) or lung cancer ( p =0.003) were independent risk factors for a fatal outcome of COVID-19. In a subgroup analysis of patients with active malignancy, the risk for a fatal outcome was mainly determined by tumour type (haematological malignancy or lung cancer) and age (≥65 years). Conclusion The findings in this registry indicate that patients with a haematological malignancy or lung cancer have an increased risk of a worse outcome of COVID-19. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these vulnerable patients should avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2, whereas treatment adjustments and prioritizing vaccination, when available, should also be considered.

BackgroundIn case of suspicious lymph nodes on computed tomography (CT) or fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), advanced tumour size or central tumour location in patients with suspected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Dutch and European guidelines recommend mediastinal staging by endosonography (endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)) with sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes. If biopsy results from endosonography turn out negative, additional surgical staging of the mediastinum by mediastinoscopy is advised to prevent unnecessary lung resection due to false negative endosonography findings. We hypothesize that omitting mediastinoscopy after negative endosonography in mediastinal staging of NSCLC does not result in an unacceptable percentage of unforeseen N2 disease at surgical resection. In addition, omitting mediastinoscopy comprises no extra waiting time until definite surgery, omits one extra general anaesthesia and hospital admission, and may be associated with lower morbidity and comparable survival. Therefore, this strategy may reduce health care costs and increase quality of life. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of mediastinal staging strategies including and excluding mediastinoscopy.Methods/designThis study is a multicenter parallel randomized non-inferiority trial comparing two diagnostic strategies (with or without mediastinoscopy) for mediastinal staging in 360 patients with suspected resectable NSCLC. Patients are eligible for inclusion when they underwent systematic endosonography to evaluate mediastinal lymph nodes including tissue sampling with negative endosonography results. Patients will not be eligible for inclusion when PET/CT demonstrates ‘bulky N2-N3’ disease or the combination of a highly suspicious as well as irresectable mediastinal lymph node. Primary outcome measure for non-inferiority is the proportion of patients with unforeseen N2 disease at surgery. Secondary outcome measures are hospitalization, morbidity, overall 2-year survival, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. Patients will be followed up 2 years after start of treatment.DiscussionResults of the MEDIASTrial will have immediate impact on national and international guidelines, which are accessible to public, possibly reducing mediastinoscopy as a commonly performed invasive procedure for NSCLC staging and diminishing variation in clinical practice.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register on July 6th, 2017 (NTR 6528).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-018-0359-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

PURPOSE In many cancers, the expression of immunomodulatory ligands leads to immunoevasion, as exemplified by the interaction of PD-L1 with PD-1 on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Profound advances in cancer treatments have come with the advent of immunotherapies directed at blocking these immuno-suppressive ligand-receptor interactions. However, although there has been success in the use of these immune checkpoint interventions, correct patient stratification for these therapies has been challenging. MATERIALS AND METHODS To address this issue of patient stratification, we have quantified the intercellular PD-1/PD-L1 interaction in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples from patients with non–small cell lung carcinoma, using a high-throughput automated quantitative imaging platform (quantitative functional proteomics [QF-Pro]). RESULTS The multisite blinded analysis across a cohort of 188 immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients demonstrated the intra- and intertumoral heterogeneity of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint engagement and notably showed no correlation between the extent of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction and PD-L1 expression. Importantly, PD-L1 expression scores used clinically to stratify patients correlated poorly with overall survival; by contrast, patients showing a high PD-1/PD-L1 interaction had significantly better responses to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 treatments, as evidenced by increased overall survival. This relationship was particularly strong in the setting of first-line treatments. CONCLUSION The functional readout of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction as a predictive biomarker for the stratification of patients with non–small-cell lung carcinoma, combined with PD-L1 expression, should significantly improve the response rates to immunotherapy. This would both capture patients excluded from checkpoint immunotherapy (high PD-1/PD-L1 interaction but low PD-L1 expression, 24% of patients) and additionally avoid treating patients who despite their high PD-L1 expression do not respond and suffer from side effects.

on behalf of the MDT Study Group * BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis and staging are crucial to ensure uniform allocation to the optimal treatment methods for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but may differ among multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs). Discordance between clinical and pathologic TNM stage is particularly important for patients with locally advanced NSCLC (stage IIIA) because it may influence their chance of allocation to curative-intent treatment. We therefore aimed to study agreement on staging and treatment to gain insight into MDT decision-making. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the level of agreement on clinical staging and treatment recommendations among MDTs in stage IIIA NSCLC patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Eleven MDTs each evaluated the same 10 pathologic stage IIIA NSCLC patients in their weekly meeting (n ¼ 110). Patients were selected purposively for their challenging nature. All MDTs received exactly the same clinical information and images per patient. We tested agreement in cT stage, cN stage, cM stage (TNM 8th edition), and treatment proposal among MDTs using Randolph's free-marginal multirater kappa. RESULTS: Considerable variation among the MDTs was seen in T staging (k, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]), N staging (k, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-0.83]), overall TNM staging (k, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]), and treatment recommendations (k, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]). Most variation in T stage was seen in patients with suspicion of invasion of surrounding structures, which influenced such treatment recommendations as induction therapy and type. For N stage, distinction between N1 and N2 disease was an important source of discordance among MDTs. Variation occurred between 2 patients even regarding M stage. A wide range of additional diagnostics was proposed by the MDTs.INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrated high variation in staging and treatment of patients with stage IIIA NSCLC among MDTs in different hospitals. Although some variation may be unavoidable in these challenging patients, we should strive for more uniformity.

No abstract