Precision Targeting of the Gut Microbiome for Cancer Immunotherapy.

Transforming gut microbial status from a prognostic trait to a therapeutic target is a key goal to understand and reverse resistance to anticancer immunotherapy. Glitza and colleagues propose selective manipulation of the gut microbiome with SER401 following antibiotic preconditioning and highlight multiple challenges in delivering microbiome manipulation to the clinic. See related article by Glitza et al., p. 1161 (8).

Consensus statement on safety of combining transarterial radioembolization with 90yttrium microspheres with systemic anticancer agents for the treatment of liver malignancy.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance, via multidisciplinary consensus statements, on the safety interactions between systemic anticancer agents (such as radiosensitizing chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with yttrium-90 (90Y) labeled microspheres in the treatment of primary and metastatic liver malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search identified 59 references that informed 26 statements on the safety of 90Y TARE combined with systemic therapies. Modified Delphi method was used to develop consensus on statements through online anonymous surveys of the 12 panel members representing the fields of interventional radiology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, hepatology, and pharmacy, focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), neuroendocrine tumors, metastatic breast cancer and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. RESULTS: High level evidence was limited. Level 1 data in patients with mCRC suggest that some radiosensitizing chemotherapies (e.g., oxaliplatin) require temporary dose reduction when used concomitantly with 90Y TARE and some targeted therapies (e.g., vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors and anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors) should be avoided for at least 4 weeks before 90Y TARE. In patients with HCC, the feasibility of 90Y TARE and immunotherapy has been demonstrated with Level 4 evidence. Data are more limited for other primary and secondary liver malignancies, and consensus statements were driven by expert opinion (Level 5). CONCLUSION: Given the absence of evidence-based guidelines on the safety of 90Y TARE in combination with systemic anticancer therapy, these consensus statements provide expert guidance on the potential risks when considering specific combinations.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy in HCC: Current status and the future.

Surgical therapies in patients with early-stage HCC can afford long-term survival but are often limited by the continued risk of recurrence, underscoring an interest in (neo)adjuvant strategies. Prior attempts at adjuvant therapy using tyrosine kinase inhibitors failed to yield significant improvements in recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Advances in the efficacy of systemic therapy options, including the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors, have fueled renewed interest in this area. Indeed, the IMBrave050 trial recently demonstrated significant improvements in recurrence-free survival with 1 year of adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in high-risk patients undergoing surgical resection or ablation, with several other ongoing trials in this space. There is a strong rationale for consideration of the administration of these therapies in the neoadjuvant setting, supported by early clinical data demonstrating high rates of objective responses, although larger trials examining downstream outcomes are necessary, particularly considering the possible risks of this strategy. In parallel, there has been increased interest in using systemic therapies as a bridging or downstaging strategy for liver transplantation. Current data suggest the short-term safety of this approach, with acceptable rates of rejection, so immunotherapy is not considered a contraindication to transplant; however, larger studies are needed to evaluate the incremental value of this approach over locoregional therapy. Conversely, the use of immunotherapy is currently discouraged after liver transplantation, given the high risk of graft rejection and death. The increasing complexity of HCC management and increased consideration of (neo)adjuvant strategies highlight the critical role of multidisciplinary care when making these decisions.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of early cessation of anti-PD1 therapy in patients 80 years or older: A retrospective cohort study.

Older patients have similar immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy and rates of adverse events as younger patients, but appear to have decreased tolerability, particularly in the oldest patient cohort (>80 years), often leading to early cessation of therapy. We aimed to determine whether early discontinuation impacts efficacy of anti-PD-1 therapy in patients ≥80 years old. In this retrospective, multicenter, international cohort study, we examined 773 patients with 4 tumor types who were at least 80 years old and treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. We determined response rate, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients who discontinued therapy early (<12 months) for reasons other than progression or death. We used descriptive statistics for demographics, response, and toxicity rates. Survival statistics were described using Kaplan Meier curves. Median (range) age at anti-PD-1 initiation was 83.0 (75.8-97.0) years. The cancer types included were melanoma (n = 286), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 345), urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) (n = 108), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (n = 34). Of these, 102 met the primary endpoint of <12 months to discontinuation for reasons other than death or progression. Median PFS and OS, respectively, for these patients were 34.4 months and 46.6 months for melanoma, 15.8 months and 23.4 months for NSCLC, and 10.4 months and 15.8 months for UCC. This study suggests geriatric patients who have demonstrated therapeutic benefit and discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy at less than 12 months of duration for reasons other than progression may have durable clinical benefit without additional therapy.

Balancing Efficacy and Tolerability of First-Line Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab represent the current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, direct comparison with other combination treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are lacking. Objectives: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to indirectly compare the efficacy and the safety of first-line systemic therapies for unresectable advanced HCC. Method: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS databases was conducted up to October 31, 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing TKIs, including sorafenib and lenvatinib, or ICIs reporting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were included. Individual survival data were extracted from OS and PFS curves to calculate restricted mean survival time. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare treatments in terms of efficacy (15- and 30-month OS, 6-month PFS) and safety, represented by grade ≥3 (severe) adverse events (SAEs). The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio as measure of net health benefit was calculated as the difference in SAE probability divided by survival difference between the 2 most effective treatments. Results: Nine RCTs enrolling 6,600 patients were included. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the highest probability (88%) of achieving the 30-month OS landmark. Lenvatinib showed a probability of 86% of achieving best PFS outcomes. ICI monotherapies ranked as most tolerable. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the best net health benefit for OS, compared to durvalumab plus tremelimumab. When evaluating the net health benefit for PFS, at a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for life-month gained, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was favoured in 78% of cases, while at threshold of 30% of SAEs for life-month gained, lenvatinib was favoured in 76% of cases. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the best treatment in terms of net benefit and therefore it should be recommended as standard of care. Compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib monotherapy had the best net benefit for PFS when physicians and patients are available to accept a higher risk of toxicity.

Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Pembrolizumab Following Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The PETAL Phase Ib Study.

PURPOSE: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) may prime adaptive immunity and enhance immunotherapy efficacy. PETAL evaluated safety, preliminary activity of TACE plus pembrolizumab and explored mechanisms of efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were planned to receive up to two rounds of TACE followed by pembrolizumab 200 mg every 21 days commencing 30 days post-TACE until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year. Primary endpoint was safety, with assessment window of 21 days from pembrolizumab initiation. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and evaluation of tumor and host determinants of response. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in the safety and efficacy population: 73% had nonviral cirrhosis; median age was 72 years. Child-Pugh class was A in 14 patients. Median tumor size was 4 cm. Ten patients (67%) received pembrolizumab after one TACE; 5 patients after two (33%). Pembrolizumab yielded no synergistic toxicity nor dose-limiting toxicities post-TACE. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 93% of patients, most commonly skin rash (40%), fatigue, and diarrhea (27%). After a median follow-up of 38.5 months, objective response rate 12 weeks post-TACE was 53%. PFS rate at 12 weeks was 93% and median PFS was 8.95 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.30-NE (not estimable)]. Median duration of response was 7.3 months (95% CI: 6.3-8.3). Median overall survival was 33.5 months (95% CI: 11.6-NE). Dynamic changes in peripheral T-cell subsets, circulating tumor DNA, serum metabolites, and in stool bacterial profiles highlight potential mechanisms of action of multimodal therapy. CONCLUSIONS: TACE plus pembrolizumab was tolerable with no evidence of synergistic toxicity, encouraging further clinical development of immunotherapy alongside TACE.

The Hammersmith Score Optimises Patient Selection and Predicts for Overall Survival in Early-Phase Cancer Trial Participants Independent of Tumour Burden.

INTRODUCTION: As tumour response rates are increasingly demonstrated in early-phase cancer trials (EPCT), optimal patient selection and accurate prognostication are paramount. Hammersmith Score (HS), a simple prognostic index derived on routine biochemical measures (albumin <35 g/L, lactate dehydrogenase >450 IU/L, sodium <135 mmol/L), is a validated predictor of response and survival in EPCT participants. HS has not been validated in the cancer immunotherapy era. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed characteristics and outcomes of unselected referrals to our early-phase unit (12/2019-12/2022). Independent predictors for overall survival (OS) were identified from univariable and multivariable models. HS was calculated for 66 eligible trial participants and compared with the Royal Marsden Score (RMS) to predict OS. Multivariable logistic regression and C-index was used to compare predictive ability of prognostic models. RESULTS: Of 212 referrals, 147 patients were screened and 82 patients treated in EPCT. Prognostic stratification by HS identifies significant difference in median OS, and HS was confirmed as a multivariable predictor for OS (HR: HS 1 vs. 0 2.51, 95% CI: 1.01-6.24, p = 0.049; HS 2/3 vs. 0: 10.32, 95% CI: 2.15-49.62, p = 0.004; C-index 0.771) with superior multivariable predictive ability than RMS (HR: RMS 2 vs. 0/1 5.46, 95% CI: 1.12-26.57, p = 0.036; RMS 3 vs. 0/1 6.83, 95% CI: 1.15-40.53, p < 0.001; C-index 0.743). CONCLUSIONS: HS is a validated prognostic index for patients with advanced cancer treated in the context of modern EPCTs, independent of tumour burden. HS is a simple, inexpensive prognostic tool to optimise referral for EPCT.

Effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor associated endocrinopathies on cancer survival.

Objectives: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), of which endocrinopathies are common. We characterized endocrine and non-endocrine irAEs in cancer patients receiving ICIs, identified risk factors for their development and established whether endocrine and non-endocrine irAEs were differentially associated with improved cancer prognosis. Design and methods: Single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors receiving at least one ICI treatment cycle (242 men, 151 women, median age 65 years). Main outcome measures were incidence of any irAE during the study period, overall survival and time to treatment failure. Results: Non-endocrine irAEs occurred in 32% and endocrine irAEs in 12% of patients. Primary thyroid dysfunction was the most common endocrine irAE (9.5%) and the majority of endocrinopathies required permanent hormone replacement. Women had an increased risk of developing endocrine irAEs (p = 0.017). The biggest survival advantage occurred in patients who developed both endocrine and non-endocrine irAEs (overall survival: HR 0.16, CI 0.09-0.28). Time to treatment failure was also significantly improved in patients who developed endocrine irAEs (HR 0.49, CI 0.34 - 0.71) or both (HR 0.41, CI 0.25 - 0.64) but not in those who only developed non-endocrine irAEs. Conclusions: Women may have increased risk of endocrine irAEs secondary to ICI treatment. This is the first study to compare the effects of endocrine irAEs with non-endocrine irAEs on survival. Development of endocrine irAEs may confer survival benefit in ICI treatment and future, prospective studies are needed to elucidate this.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) recommendations on intratumoral immunotherapy clinical trials (IICT): from premalignant to metastatic disease.

BACKGROUND: Intratumorally delivered immunotherapies have the potential to favorably alter the local tumor microenvironment and may stimulate systemic host immunity, offering an alternative or adjunct to other local and systemic treatments. Despite their potential, these therapies have had limited success in late-phase trials for advanced cancer resulting in few formal approvals. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to determine how to design clinical trials with the greatest chance of demonstrating the benefits of intratumoral immunotherapy for patients with cancers across all stages of pathogenesis. METHODS: An Intratumoral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials Expert Panel composed of international key stakeholders from academia and industry was assembled. A multiple choice/free response survey was distributed to the panel, and the results of this survey were discussed during a half-day consensus meeting. Key discussion points are summarized in the following manuscript. RESULTS: The panel determined unique clinical trial designs tailored to different stages of cancer development-from premalignant to unresectable/metastatic-that can maximize the chance of capturing the effect of intratumoral immunotherapies. Design elements discussed included study type, patient stratification and exclusion criteria, indications of randomization, study arm determination, endpoints, biological sample collection, and response assessment with biomarkers and imaging. Populations to prioritize for the study of intratumoral immunotherapy, including stage, type of cancer and line of treatment, were also discussed along with common barriers to the development of these local treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The SITC Intratumoral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials Expert Panel has identified key considerations for the design and implementation of studies that have the greatest potential to capture the effect of intratumorally delivered immunotherapies. With more effective and standardized trial designs, the potential of intratumoral immunotherapy can be realized and lead to regulatory approvals that will extend the benefit of these local treatments to the patients who need them the most.

Refining patient selection for next-generation immunotherapeutic early-phase clinical trials with a novel and externally validated prognostic nomogram.

Introduction: Identifying which patient may benefit from immunotherapeutic early-phase clinical trials is an unmet need in drug development. Among several proposed prognostic scores, none has been validated in patients receiving immunomodulating agents (IMAs)-based combinations. Patients and methods: We retrospectively collected data of 208 patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials investigating IMAs at our Institution, correlating clinical and blood-based variables with overall survival (OS). A retrospective cohort of 50 patients treated with IMAs at Imperial College (Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK) was used for validation. Results: A total of 173 subjects were selected for analyses. Most frequent cancers included non-small cell lung cancer (26%), hepatocellular carcinoma (21.5%) and glioblastoma (13%). Multivariate analysis (MVA) revealed 3 factors to be independently associated with OS: line of treatment (second and third vs subsequent, HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.93, p 0.02), serum albumin as continuous variable (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.91, p 0.02) and number of metastatic sites (<3 vs ≥3, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.98, p 0.04). After splitting albumin value at the median (3.84 g/dL), a score system was capable of stratifying patients in 3 groups with significantly different OS (p<0.0001). Relationship with OS reproduced in the external cohort (p=0.008). Then, from these factors we built a nomogram. Conclusions: Prior treatment, serum albumin and number of metastatic sites are readily available prognostic traits in patients with advanced malignancies participating into immunotherapy early-phase trials. Combination of these factors can optimize patient selection at study enrollment, maximizing therapeutic intent.

Circulating microRNA Analysis in a Prospective Co-clinical Trial Identifies MIR652-3p as a Response Biomarker and Driver of Regorafenib Resistance Mechanisms in Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: The multi-kinase inhibitor (mKi) regorafenib has demonstrated efficacy in chemorefractory patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, lack of predictive biomarkers and concerns over significant toxicities hamper the use of regorafenib in clinical practice. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Serial liquid biopsies were obtained at baseline and monthly until disease progression in chemorefractory patients with mCRC treated with regorafenib in a phase II clinical trial (PROSPECT-R n = 40; NCT03010722) and in a multicentric validation cohort (n = 241). Tissue biopsies collected at baseline, after 2 months and at progression in the PROSPECT-R trial were used to establish patient-derived organoids (PDO) and for molecular analyses. MicroRNA profiling was performed on baseline bloods using the NanoString nCounter platform and results were validated by digital-droplet PCR and/or ISH in paired liquid and tissue biopsies. PDOs co-cultures and PDO-xenotransplants were generated for functional analyses. RESULTS: Large-scale microRNA expression analysis in longitudinal matched liquid and tissue biopsies from the PROSPECT-R trial identified MIR652-3p as a biomarker of clinical benefit to regorafenib. These findings were confirmed in an independent validation cohort and in a "control" group of 100 patients treated with lonsurf. Using ex vivo co-culture assays paired with single-cell RNA-sequencing of PDO established pre- and post-treatment, we modeled regorafenib response observed in vivo and in patients, and showed that MIR652-3p controls resistance to regorafenib by impairing regorafenib-induced lethal autophagy and by orchestrating the switch from neo-angiogenesis to vessel co-option. CONCLUSIONS: Our results identify MIR652-3p as a potential biomarker and as a driver of cell and non-cell-autonomous mechanisms of resistance to regorafenib.

A meta-analysis and real-world cohort study on the sex-related differences in efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background & Aims: Sex-related differences in the immune pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly related to oestrogen-dependent secretion of pro-tumourigenic cytokines, are well-known. Whether sex influences the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy is not known. Methods: We performed a restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis of five phase III trials that evaluated immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced HCC and reported overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by sex to evaluate sex-related differences in OS. In a real-world cohort of 840 patients with HCC from 22 centres included between 2018 and 2023, we directly compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A+B) between sexes. Radiological response was reported according to RECIST v1.1. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In the meta-analysis, immunotherapy was associated with a significant OS benefit only in male (pooled HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86) but not in female (pooled HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.70-1.03) patients with HCC. When directly comparing model estimates, no differences in the treatment effect between sexes were observed. Among 840 patients, 677 (81%) were male (mean age 66 ± 11 years), and 163 (19%) were female (mean age 67 ± 12 years). Type and severity of adverse events were similar between the two groups. OS and PFS were comparable between males and females upon uni- and multivariable analyses (aHR for OS and PFS: 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.04; 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.30, respectively). Objective response rates (24%/22%) and disease control rates (59%/59%) were also similar between sexes. Conclusion: Female phase III trial participants experienced smaller OS benefit following ICI therapy for advanced HCC, while outcomes following A+B treatment were comparable between sexes in a large real-world database. Based on the ambiguous sex-related differences in survival observed here, further investigation of sex-specific clinical and biologic determinants of responsiveness and survival following ICIs are warranted. Impact and implications: While immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as standard of care for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, there are conflicting reports on whether the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy differs between females and males. Our study suggests ambiguous sex-related differences in outcomes from immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Further investigation of sex-specific clustering in clinicopathologic and immunologic determinants of responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy should be prioritised. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023429625.

Novel endoscopic scoring system for immune mediated colitis: a multicenter retrospective study of 674 patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No endoscopic scoring system has been established for immune-mediated colitis (IMC). This study aimed to establish such a system for IMC and explore its utility in guiding future selective immunosuppressive therapy (SIT) use compared to clinical symptoms. METHODS: This retrospective, international, 14-center study included 674 patients who developed IMC after immunotherapy and underwent endoscopic evaluation. Ten endoscopic features were selected by group consensus and assigned 1 point each to calculate an IMC endoscopic score (IMCES). IMCES cutoffs were chosen to maximize specificity for SIT use. This specificity was compared between IMCESs, and clinical symptoms were graded according to a standardized instrument. RESULTS: A total of 309 (45.8%) patients received SIT. IMCES specificity for SIT use was 82.8% with a cutoff of 4. The inclusion of ulceration as a mandatory criterion resulted in higher specificity (85.0% for a cutoff of 4). In comparison, the specificity of a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 3 was 74.6%, and the specificity of clinical symptom grading was much lower at 27.4% and 12.3%, respectively. Early endoscopy was associated with timely SIT use (P < .001; r = 0.4084). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicenter study to devise an endoscopic scoring system to guide IMC management. An IMCES cutoff of 4 has a higher specificity for SIT use than clinical symptoms, supporting early endoscopic evaluation for IMC.

Merits and boundaries of the BCLC staging and treatment algorithm: Learning from the past to improve the future with a novel proposal.

In this Expert Opinion, we thoroughly analyse the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging and treatment algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that, since 1999, has standardised HCC management, offering a structured approach for the prognostic evaluation and treatment of patients with HCC. The first part of the article presents the strengths and evolutionary improvements of the BCLC staging system. Nevertheless, both patient characteristics and available treatments have changed in the last two decades, limiting the role of the BCLC criteria for treatment allocation in a growing number of patients. As therapeutic options expand and become more effective, the stage-linked treatment decision-making algorithm may lead to undertreatment and suboptimal outcomes for patients with disease beyond early-stage HCC. Consequently, strict adherence to BCLC criteria is limited in expert centres, particularly for patients diagnosed beyond early-stage HCC. Although the BCLC system remains the benchmark against which other therapeutic frameworks must be judged, the era of precision medicine calls for patient-tailored therapeutic decision-making (by a multidisciplinary tumour board) rather than stage-dictated treatment allocation. Acknowledging this conceptual difference in clinical management, the second part of the article describes a novel "multiparametric therapeutic hierarchy", which integrates a comprehensive assessment of clinical factors, biomarkers, technical feasibility, and resource availability. Lastly, considering the increasing efficacy of locoregional and systemic treatments, the concept of "converse therapeutic hierarchy" is introduced. These treatments can increase the feasibility (conversion approach) and effectiveness (adjuvant approach of systemic therapy) of potentially curative approaches to greatly improve clinical outcomes.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and recent chemotherapy on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in patients with soft tissue sarcoma: an analysis from the OnCovid registry.

Background: To date, limited evidence exists on the impact of COVID-19 in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS), nor about the impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and recent chemotherapy on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in this specific population. Methods: We described COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with STS across 'Omicron' (15 December 2021-31 January 2022), 'Pre-vaccination' (27 February 2020-30 November 2020), and 'Alpha-Delta' phase (01 December 2020-14 December 2021) using OnCovid registry participants (NCT04393974). Case fatality rate at 28 days (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were also described according to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status, while the impact of the receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy within 4 weeks prior to COVID-19 on clinical outcomes was assessed with Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) models adjusted for possible confounders. Results: Out of 3820 patients, 97 patients with STS were included. The median age at COVID-19 diagnosis was 56 years (range: 18-92), with 65 patients (67%) aged < 65 years and most patients had a low comorbidity burden (65, 67.0%). The most frequent primary tumor sites were the abdomen (56.7%) and the gynecological tract (12.4%). In total, 36 (37.1%) patients were on cytotoxic chemotherapy within 4 weeks prior to COVID-19. The overall CFR28 was 25.8%, with 38% oxygen therapy requirement, 34% rate of complications, and 32.3% of hospitalizations due to COVID-19. CFR28 (29.5%, 21.4%, and 12.5%) and all indicators of COVID-19 severity demonstrated a trend toward a numerical improvement across the pandemic phases. Similarly, vaccinated patients demonstrated numerically improved CFR28 (16.7% versus 27.7%) and COVID-19 morbidity compared with unvaccinated patients. Patients who were on chemotherapy experienced comparable CFR28 (19.4% versus 26.0%, p = 0.4803), hospitalizations (50.0% versus 44.4%, p = 0.6883), complication rates (30.6% versus 34.0%, p = 0.7381), and oxygen therapy requirement (28.1% versus 40.0%, p = 0.2755) compared to those who were not on anticancer therapy at COVID-19, findings further confirmed by the IPTW-fitted multivariable analysis. Conclusion: In this study, we demonstrate an improvement in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with STS over time. Recent exposure to chemotherapy does not impact COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination confers protection against adverse outcomes from COVID-19 in this patient population.

An analysis from the OnCovid registry on the impact of chemotherapy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on clinical outcomes of patients with soft tissue sarcoma and COVID-19 Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a group of rare and aggressive tumours, usually treated with high dose cytotoxic chemotherapy. To date no clear evidence exists on the impact of COVID-19 in patients with STS, nor on the potential impact of recent chemotherapy and prior SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in this specific patient population. This is the 1st study to show COVID-19 outcomes in patients with STS, highlighting a substantial vaccine efficacy with no negative impact of recent chemotherapy on COVID-19 outcomes.

Treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies related to PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 inhibitors across tumor types: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of how the immune system regulates tumor growth has innovated the use of immunotherapeutics to treat various cancers. The impact of such therapies, including programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, on the production of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and their impact on outcomes, is poorly understood. This study aims to evaluate the clinical trial evidence on ADA incidence associated with PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4 inhibitors in the treatment of cancer and to assess associations between treatment administered, ADA incidence, and treatment outcomes. METHODS: Embase®, Medline®, and EBM Reviews were searched via the OVID® platform on February 15, 2022. Conference proceedings, clinical trial registries, and global regulatory and reimbursement body websites were also searched. Eligible publications included clinical trials enrolling patients receiving cancer treatment with either PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 reporting outcomes including incidence or prevalence of ADAs and the impact of immunogenicity on treatment safety and efficacy. Reference lists of eligible publications were also searched. The review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and evidence quality assessment was conducted using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. RESULTS: After screening 4160 records and reviewing 97 full publications, a total of 34 publications reporting on 68 trials were included. A further 41 relevant clinical trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov and a further 32 from searches of packaging inserts. In total, 141 relevant trials covering 15 different checkpoint inhibitors and 16 different tumor types were included. Across the included trials, atezolizumab was associated with the highest incidence of ADAs (29.6% of 639 patients), followed by nivolumab (11.2% of 2,085 patients). Combination checkpoint inhibitor treatment appeared to increase the rate of ADAs versus monotherapy. Only 17 trials reported on the impact of ADAs on treatment outcomes with mixed results for the impact of ADAs on treatment efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of cancer are immunogenic, with the incidence of treatment-emergent ADAs varying between individual therapies. It remains unclear what impact ADAs have on treatment outcomes.