Association between diabetes mellitus and reduced efficacy of pembrolizumab in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a highly prevalent chronic metabolic disorder. Although DM has been associated with immune dysfunction, the effect of DM on the efficacy of immunotherapy is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of DM on the efficacy of pembrolizumab in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The authors reviewed the medical records of consecutive metastatic NSCLC patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab either alone or in combination with chemotherapy at a single tertiary center. For validation, a computerized data from Maccabi Healthcare Services, a 2.5-million-member state health service was used. RESULTS: Of the 203 eligible patients, 51 (25%) had DM. Patients with DM had a significantly shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) (5.9 vs. 7.1 months, p = .004) and overall survival (OS) (12 vs. 21 months, p = .006). The shorter OS in diabetic patients was more pronounced when pembrolizumab was given alone (12 vs. 27 months, p = .03) than when combined with chemotherapy (14.3 vs. 19.4 months, p = .06). Multivariate analysis confirmed DM as an independent risk factor for shorter PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-2.50, p = .01) and OS (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.09-2.76, p = .02). In a validation cohort of 452 metastatic NSCLC patients, the time on pembrolizumab treatment was shorter in diabetic patients (p = .025), with only 19.6% of patients remaining on treatment at 12 months compared to 31.7% of the nondiabetic patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests immunotherapy is less beneficial in diabetic NSCLC patients. More work is needed to verify our findings and explore similar effects in other cancer entities.

Rapid Implementation of Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives and Preferences of Patients with Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The use of telemedicine in oncology practice is rapidly expanding and is considered safe and cost effective. However, the implications of telemedicine on patient-physician interaction, patient satisfaction, and absence of the personal touch have not been studied to date. Following the spread of COVID-19, telemedicine services were rapidly incorporated at the Oncology Division of Tel Aviv Medical Center. We aimed to evaluate patients' perspectives and preferences regarding telemedicine and to assess whether this virtual communication platform affects the patient-physician relationship. METHODS: Between March 2020 and May 2020, adult cancer patients who conducted at least one successful telemedicine meeting were interviewed by trained medical personnel. The interview was based on validated patient satisfaction questionnaires and focused on patient-physician interaction in relation to the last in-patient visit. RESULTS: Of 236 patients, 172 (74%) patients agreed to participate. The study population comprised mainly patients with gastrointestinal malignancies (n = 79, 46%) with a median age of 63 years (range 21-88). The majority of patients were male (n = 93, 54%). Eighty-nine (51.7%) patients were receiving active oncologic treatment, and 58 (33.7%) were under routine surveillance following completion of active therapy. Almost all had a sense of secured privacy (n = 171, 96%), the majority of patients affirmed that their concerns were met (n = 166, 93%) and perceived that eye contact with the treating physician was perceived (n = 156, 87%). Only a minority felt that the absence of physical clinic visits harmed their treatment (n = 36, 20%). Most patients (n = 146, 84.9%) wished to continue telemedicine services. A multivariate analysis revealed that higher satisfaction and visits for routine surveillance were both predictors of willingness to continue future telemedicine meetings over physical encounters (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, p = .01; OR = 3.34, p = .03, respectively). CONCLUSION: Telemedicine is perceived as safe and effective, and patients did not feel that it compromised medical care or the patient-physician relationship. Integration of telemedicine is ideal for patients under surveillance after completion of active oncologic treatment. Physician communication skills workshops are warranted with implementing this platform. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine was rapidly implemented worldwide to facilitate continuity of quality care and treatment. Despite many potential setbacks, telemedicine has become a useful and safe tool for oncology practitioners to care for their patients. The use of telemedicine regarding patients' perspectives, emotions, and patient-physician communication in daily oncology practice has not been studied to date. This study demonstrated telemedicine is perceived as safe and effective and does not compromise medical care or the patient-physician relationship. Its use is ideal for surveillance after completion of active oncologic treatment. Physician communication skills workshops are warranted with implementing this platform.

The prognostic value of beta-1 blockers in patients with non-small-cell lung carcinoma treated with pembrolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as pembrolizumab have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Beta-adrenergic activation contributes to cancer initiation and progression. While non-selective beta-blocker were found to improve the efficacy of ICIs therapy, the role of beta-1 (ß1)-selective -blocker (ß1B) in lung cancer patients is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of ß1B on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients diagnosed with mNSCLC and treated with pembrolizumab. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with mNSCLC and treated with first-line pembrolizumab at our center. RESULTS: Of 200 eligible patients, 53 (27%) were pretreated with ß1B. Patients in the ß1B cohort were older (73 ± 8 vs. 67 ± 10 years, p < 0.001) with a higher prevalence of cardiac risk factors and cardiovascular (CV) diseases including ischemic heart disease (32% vs. 16%, p = 0.010), heart failure (9% vs. 3%, p = 0.043) and atrial fibrillation (23% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Compared to the non-ß1B group, patient pretreated with ß1B had a significant shorter median OS (12 vs. 24 months, p = 0.004) and PFS (6 vs. 8 months, p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, including all CV risk factors and diseases, the use of baseline ß1B was a strong and independent predictor for accelerated disease progression (HR 1.92, 95%CI 1.32-2.79, p < 0.001) and shorter OS (HR 1.8, 95%, CI 1.18-2.75, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The use of baseline ß1B showed a strong and independent association for shorter OS and PFS in patients diagnosed with mNSCLC and treated with pembrolizumab.

Immunogenicity and Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Among Actively Treated Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Activity and safety of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in actively treated patients with solid tumors is currently unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 326 patients with solid tumors treated with anticancer medications to determine the proportion of cancer patients with immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 following 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The control group comprised 164 vaccinated healthy adults. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoglobulin G antibodies were measured using a level greater than 50 AU/mL as a cutoff for seropositivity. Information on adverse effects was collected using a questionnaire. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Most patients (205, 62.9%) were treated with chemotherapy either alone or with additional therapy; 55 (16.9%) were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 38 (11.7%) with targeted therapy alone; 28 (8.6%) received other combinations. The vaccine was well tolerated, and no severe side effects were reported. Among patients with cancer, 39 (11.9%) were seronegative compared with 5 (3.0%) of the control group (P = .001). Median immunoglobulin G titers were statistically significantly lower among patients with cancer compared with control (931 AU/mL vs 2817 AU/mL, P = .003). Seronegativity proportions were higher in the chemotherapy-treated group (n = 19; 18.8%) compared with the immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients (n = 5; 9.1%) and with those treated with targeted therapy (n = 1; 2.6%) (P = .02). Titers were also statistically significantly different among treatment types (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 vaccine is safe and effective in actively treated patients with cancer. The relatively lower antibody titers and lower proportion of seropositive patients, especially among chemotherapy-treated patients, call for continuing the use of personal protective measures in these patients, even following vaccination.