The National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey: a hyper-accelerated study proof of principle for cancer research.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a range of novel and adaptive research designs. In this perspective, we use our experience coordinating the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey to demonstrate how a balance between speed and integrity can be achieved within a hyper-accelerated study design. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, we show this approach is necessary in the face of uncertain and evolving situations wherein reliable information is needed in a timely fashion to guide policy. We identify streamlined participant involvement, healthcare systems integration, data architecture and real-world real-time analytics as key areas that differentiate this design from traditional cancer trials, and enable rapid results. Caution needs to be taken to avoid the exclusion of patient subgroups without digital access or literacy. We summarise the merits and defining features of hyper-accelerated cancer studies.

Application of the Prevena™ Incision Management System Following Complex Ventral Hernia Repairs with Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a drain on the healthcare economy. A recent development for the primary prevention of wound infections is the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on closed wounds. The Prevena™ Incision Management System (KCI USA, Inc., San Antonio, TX) is a new NPWT designed for application on closed surgical incisions in order to prevent potential wound-related complications. We evaluated the use of this new technology on large abdominal incisions following complex ventral hernia repairs with abdominal wall reconstruction in patients with risk factors for developing wound complications and conducted a review of the current literature pertaining to the use of NPWT on closed incisions.

Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Our focus within this review is to summarize key advances and new therapeutic approaches within advanced triple-negative breast cancer. In addition, we highlight the importance of multidisciplinary management, discussing key issues for patients and importance of the supportive role that specialist nurses provide. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed literature, clinical practice guidelines, clinical trial, and government websites. CONCLUSION: Triple-negative breast cancer is a highly heterogeneous subtype of breast cancer, often associated with a less favorable prognosis compared to other types. Significant advances in our understanding of specific mutations and signaling pathways within this subtype, coupled with expanding therapeutic options, has broadened the treatment landscape considerably. While chemotherapy traditionally formed the mainstay of treatment, new therapeutics such as immunotherapy, targeted agents, and antibody-drug conjugates in first-line and subsequent-line settings are now available. It is essential for all those who care for this patient group to be up-to-date on current practice and emerging treatments, so patients receive the support they need and deserve. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses need to become familiar with new systemic anticancer therapies within advanced triple-negative breast cancer to provide patients with adequate information about new treatment options and support with potential treatment-associated toxicities. It is important for nurses to be able to recognise key issues facing patients with a diagnosis of advanced triple-negative breast cancer, to gain a deeper understanding of both the physical and psychosocial support required, signposting or referring patients to additional support services if needed.

Eftilagimod Alpha (Soluble LAG3 Protein) Combined with Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Eftilagimod alpha (efti), a soluble LAG3 protein, activates antigen-presenting cells (APC) and downstream T cells. TACTI-002 (part C) evaluated whether combining efti with pembrolizumab led to strong antitumor responses in patients with second-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) while demonstrating good tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multinational phase II trial using Simon's two-stage design, patients who were PD-L(1)-naïve with R/M HNSCC who had failed first-line platinum-based therapy, unselected for PD-L1, received intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg, once every 2 weeks) combined with subcutaneous efti (30 mg once every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and once every 3 weeks thereafter). The primary endpoint was objective response rate per RECIST 1.1 modified for immune-based therapy by investigator assessment. Additional endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and tolerability. Pharmacodynamic effects (absolute lymphocyte count) and Th1 cytokine biomarkers (IFNγ/CXCL10)] were evaluated in liquid biopsies. RESULTS: Between March 2019 and January 2021, 39 patients were enrolled; 37 were evaluated for response. All patients received prior chemotherapy, and 40.5% were pretreated with cetuximab; 53.1% of patients had PD-L1 combined positive score <20. With a median follow-up of 38.8 months, the objective response rate was 29.7%, including 13.5% complete responders. The median duration of response was not reached. Rapid and sustained absolute lymphocyte count increase was observed in patients who had an objective response. Th1 biomarkers increased sustainably after first treatment. No unexpected safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Efti plus pembrolizumab was safe and showed encouraging antitumor activity and pharmacodynamic effects in patients with second-line head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), thus supporting further evaluation of this combination in earlier treatment lines.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Antibody Vaccine Response With Infection Severity in Patients With Cancer: A National COVID Cancer Cross-sectional Evaluation.

Importance: Accurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer. Objective: To evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK's third-dose vaccination booster program. Interventions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche). Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization. Results: The evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P < .001). Patients with leukemia or lymphoma had the lowest antibody titers. In the cancer cohort, following multivariable correction, patients who had an undetectable antibody response were at much greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 1.96-4.72; P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 3.31-12.67; P < .001) than individuals who had a positive antibody response. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

A population-scale temporal case-control evaluation of COVID-19 disease phenotype and related outcome rates in patients with cancer in England (UKCCP).

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission.

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. METHODS: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. RESULTS: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

COVID-19 Sequelae and the Host Proinflammatory Response: An Analysis From the OnCovid Registry.

BACKGROUND: Fifteen percent of patients with cancer experience symptomatic sequelae, which impair post-COVID-19 outcomes. In this study, we investigated whether a proinflammatory status is associated with the development of COVID-19 sequelae. METHODS: OnCovid recruited 2795 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection between February 27, 2020, and February 14, 2021. This analysis focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent a clinical reassessment after the exclusion of patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated the association of inflammatory markers collected at COVID-19 diagnosis with sequelae, considering the impact of previous systemic anticancer therapy. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of 1339 eligible patients, 203 experienced at least 1 sequela (15.2%). Median baseline C-reactive protein (CRP; 77.5 mg/L vs 22.2 mg/L, P < .001), lactate dehydrogenase (310 UI/L vs 274 UI/L, P = .03), and the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; 6.0 vs 4.3, P = .001) were statistically significantly higher among patients who experienced sequelae, whereas no association was reported for the platelet to lymphocyte ratio and the OnCovid Inflammatory Score, which includes albumin and lymphocytes. The widest area under the ROC curve (AUC) was reported for baseline CRP (AUC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 0.69), followed by the NLR (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.61) and lactate dehydrogenase (AUC = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.61). Using a fixed categorical multivariable analysis, high CRP (odds ratio [OR] = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.67 to 3.91) and NLR (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.10) were confirmed to be statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of sequelae. Exposure to chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of sequelae (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.91), whereas no associations with immune checkpoint inhibitors, endocrine therapy, and other types of systemic anticancer therapy were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although the association between inflammatory status, recent chemotherapy and sequelae warrants further investigation, our findings suggest that a deranged proinflammatory reaction at COVID-19 diagnosis may predict for sequelae development.

An In-Depth Review of Niraparib in Ovarian Cancer: Mechanism of Action, Clinical Efficacy and Future Directions.

Niraparib is an oral, potent, highly selective poly-ADP ribose polymerase 1 (PARP1) and PARP2 inhibitor. In most developed countries, it is approved as a maintenance treatment for epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in patients with complete or partial response to platinum-based therapy. These approvals are based on results of randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, particularly the NOVA trial and more recently the PRIMA trial. In this comprehensive review, we delve into the scientific basis of PARP inhibition, discussing both preclinical and clinical data which have led to the current approval status of niraparib. We also discuss ongoing trials and biological rationale of combination treatments involving niraparib, with particular focus on antiangiogenic drugs, immune checkpoint inhibitors and cyclic GMP-AMP synthase stimulator of interferon genes (cGAS/STING) pathway. In addition, we reflect on potential strategies and challenges of utilising current biomarkers for treatment selection of patients to ensure maximal benefit.

Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy and Metastatic Cancer Are Independent Mortality Risk Factors during Two UK Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic at University College London Hospital.

An increased mortality risk was observed in patients with cancer during the first wave of COVID-19. Here, we describe determinants of mortality in patients with solid cancer comparing the first and second waves of COVID-19. A retrospective analysis encompassing two waves of COVID-19 (March-May 2020; December 2020-February 2021) was performed. 207 patients with cancer were matched to 452 patients without cancer. Patient demographics and oncological variables such as cancer subtype, staging and anti-cancer treatment were evaluated for association with COVID-19 mortality. Overall mortality was lower in wave two compared to wave one, HR 0.41 (95% CI: 0.30-0.56). In patients with cancer, mortality was 43.6% in wave one and 15.9% in wave two. In hospitalized patients, after adjusting for age, ethnicity and co-morbidities, a history of cancer was associated with increased mortality in wave one but not wave two. In summary, the second UK wave of COVID-19 is associated with lower mortality in hospitalized patients. A history of solid cancer was not associated with increased mortality despite the dominance of the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant. In both waves, metastatic disease and systemic anti-cancer treatment appeared to be independent risk factors for death within the combined cancer cohort.