The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic significantly affected oncology practice across the globe. There is uncertainty as to the contribution of patients' demographics and oncologic features to severity and mortality from COVID-19 and little guidance as to the role of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy in this population. In a multicenter study of 890 patients with cancer with confirmed COVID-19, we demonstrated a worsening gradient of mortality from breast cancer to hematologic malignancies and showed that male gender, older age, and number of comorbidities identify a subset of patients with significantly worse mortality rates from COVID-19. Provision of chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy did not worsen mortality. Exposure to antimalarials was associated with improved mortality rates independent of baseline prognostic factors. This study highlights the clinical utility of demographic factors for individualized risk stratification of patients and supports further research into emerging anti-COVID-19 therapeutics in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer. SIGNIFICANCE: In this observational study of 890 patients with cancer diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, mortality was 33.6% and predicted by male gender, age ≥65, and comorbidity burden. Delivery of cancer therapy was not detrimental to severity or mortality from COVID-19. These patients should be the focus of shielding efforts during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Research.
In recent years, immunotherapy has revolutionized and changed the standard of care in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors, fundamentally those that act by blocking the programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1) and its ligand the programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) have emerged as novel treatment strategies in NSCLC, demonstrating undoubted superiority over chemotherapy in terms of efficacy. Several of these immune checkpoint modulators have recently gained regulatory approval for the treatment of advanced NSCLC, such as nivolumab, atezolizumab and pembrolizumab in first-line (only the latter) and second-line settings, and more recently, durvalumab as maintenance after chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced disease. There is consensus that PD-L1 expression on tumor cells predicts responsiveness to PD-1 inhibitors in several tumor types. Hence PD-L1 expression evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is currently used as a clinical decision-making tool to support the use of checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC patients. However, the value of PD-L1 as the ‘definitive’ biomarker is controversial as its testing is puzzled by multiple unsolved issues such as the use of different staining platforms and antibodies, the type of cells in which PD-L1 is assessed (tumor versus immune cells), thresholds used for PD-L1-positivity, or the source and timing for sample collection. Therefore, newer biomarkers such as tumor mutation burden and neoantigens as well as biomarkers reflecting host environment (microbiome) or tumor inflamed microenvironment (gene expression signatures) are being explored as more reliable and accurate alternatives to IHC for guiding treatment selection with checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC.
Background Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, SARS-CoV-2 has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe, the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100.000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of COVID-19 on the risk of death in UK cancer patients versus those in continental Europe (EU). Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of cancer patients consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from February 27 to September 10, 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline, including oncological and COVID-19 specific therapy across UK and EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk adverse outcome in multivariable Cox regression models. Findings Compared to EU (n=924), UK patients (n=468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p<0.0001), higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio, HR 1.64 [95%CI 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%, p<0.0001, HR 1.59 [95%CI 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often males, of older age and more co-morbid than EU counterparts (p<0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK versus EU patients (p<0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK cancer patients were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, anti-virals and interleukin-6 antagonists (p<0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, independent of patient’s age, gender, tumour stage and status, number of co-morbidities, COVID-19 severity, receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy post COVID-19 were similar in UK versus EU. Interpretation UK cancer patients have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anticancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK cancer patients highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted.
IMPORTANCEWhether the severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with cancer have improved in terms of disease management and capacity is yet to be defined. OBJECTIVE To test whether severity and mortality from COVID-19 among patients with cancer have improved during the course of the pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSOnCovid is a European registry that collects data on consecutive patients with solid or hematologic cancer and COVID-19. This multicenter case series study included real-world data from 35 institutions across 6 countries (UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany). This update included patients diagnosed between February 27, 2020, and February, 14, 2021. Inclusion criteria were confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a history of solid or hematologic cancer.EXPOSURES SARS-CoV-2 infection.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Deaths were differentiated at 14 days and 3 months as the 2 landmark end points. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared by stratifying patients across 5 phases (
Clinical guidelines promote the identification of several targetable biomarkers to drive treatment decisions in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but half of all patients do not have a viable biopsy. Specimens from endobronchial-ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are an alternative source of material for the initial diagnosis of NSCLC, however their usefulness for a complete molecular characterization remains controversial. EBUS-TBNA samples were prospectively tested for several biomarkers by next-generation sequencing (NGS), nCounter, and immunohistochemistry (PD-L1). The primary objectives were to assess the sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA samples for a comprehensive molecular characterization and to compare its performance to the reference standard of biopsy samples. Seventy-two EBUS-TBNA procedures were performed, and 42 NSCLC patients were diagnosed. Among all cytological samples, 92.9% were successfully genotyped by NGS, 95.2% by nCounter, and 100% by immunohistochemistry. There were 29 paired biopsy samples; 79.3% samples had enough tumor material for genomic genotyping, and 96.6% for PD-L1 immunohistochemistry. A good concordance was found between both sources of material: 88.9% for PD-L1, 100% for NGS and nCounter. EBUS-TBNA is a feasible alternative source of material for NSCLC genotyping and allows the identification of patient candidates for personalized therapies with high concordance when compared with biopsy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.