Alectinib continuation during COVID 19 'antiviral' treatment: Risk or benefit?

INTRODUCTION: Serious Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV2) has led to COVID 19 pandemic a year ago and it has not been globally taken under control yet. COVID 19 tends to have poorer prognosis in cancer patients. Additionally, we have no well-established guidelines for management of these patients during pandemic, in terms of treatment of 'cancer' and treatment of 'COVID 19'. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are given without any break in cancer patients to have better survival outcomes in daily routine. However, there is no well-established data to continue or delay ALK inhibitors in lung cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV2. Concomittant use of ALK inhibitors and COVID 19 antiviral treatment is a dilemma because of the lack of data in this area. CASE REPORT: A 47-year old female metastatic ALK positive nonsquamous cell lung cancer patient on alectinib, a second generation ALK inhibitor was diagnosed with symptomatic COVID 19. She was given favipiravir for COVID 19 while continuing alectinib.Management and outcome: The patient continued alectinib during COVID 19 antiviral treatment without any break. She tolerated 'concomittant' alectinib & favipiravir. She had partial remission after three months of alectinib without any dose adjustment despite active COVID 19 medication. DISCUSSION: To best of our knowledge, this is the first case who continued alectinib without dose adjustment during antiviral COVID-19 medication without clinically worsening. There is limited data about 'concomittant' use of TKIs and antiviral COVID 19 medication in the literature. There are some case reports, but they generally tended to delay or suspend TKIs during COVID 19 antiviral medication. Our case differs from them in terms of continuation of alectinib without any break or additional side effects during favipiravir for symptomatic COVID 19. We consider that our case might contribute to the literature in terms of management of cancer patients on targeted therapy during COVID 19 antiviral treatment. However, clinical trials are needed in this area.

HIPEC in Ovarian Cancer: When and to Whom?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal candidates for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive study. Place and Duration of the Study: Health Sciences University, Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtasian Ankara Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey, between 2013 and 2021. METHODOLOGY: Ovarian cancer patients who underwent HIPEC and CRS for peritoneal involvement were included in this study. Thermosolutions were prepared as a closed system by using HT 2000 hyperthermic perfusion device. Then, cisplatin was applied at 100 mg/m2 at 42-42.5 °C for 60 minutes after CRS. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were enrolled. The median age was 54 years (27-80) at the time of diagnosis. Forty (85.1%) patients had high grade serous carcinoma and 22 (46.7%) patients had clinical stage 3C disease. The median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 13 (3-24) in the whole population. HIPEC was applied as first-line treatment in 25 (51%) patients. Eleven (23.4%) patients had HIPEC in the post-neoadjuvant interval whereas 10 (21.3%) patients had it in platinum sensitive relapse. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 31(95% CI:11-50), 33 (95% CI:1-67), and 18 (95% CI:8-27) months in the primary, post-neoadjuvant interval, and platinum-sensitive relapse HIPEC groups, respectively. The patients with lower PCI (PCI<13) had significantly better OS than others with higher PCI (PCI>13, 145 months versus 42 months, p=0.034). CONCLUSION: HIPEC with CRS should be considered in selected serous carcinoma patients with peritoneal involvement, especially for the patients with primary ovarian cancer with lower PCI (PCI<13). KEY WORDS: Ovarian cancer, HIPEC, Peritoneal cancer index.