Safety and Survival Outcomes in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Carboplatin: Impact of Uncapped Dosage.

The prescription of carboplatin is commonly based on the Calvert formula, and low serum creatinine values can lead to an overestimation of the glomerular filtration rate and of the carboplatin dose. Limited data recommend to cap carboplatin dose at 800 mg, but the risk of suboptimal carboplatin dose is concerning. This study compared hematologic toxicity occurrence and survival outcomes in lung cancer patients receiving carboplatin > or <800 mg based on the Calvert formula (target area under the curve = 5 mg/mL min). Our results show more severe cytopenia in patients receiving carboplatin >800 mg with significant difference for all grades of thrombocytopenia in the uncapped group (37% patients vs. 3%, p = 0.02). For metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer patients, we also observed hematologic toxicity in the uncapped group with more severe anemia (30% of patients vs. 0%, p = 0.03) and all grades of thrombocytopenia (39 vs. 0%, p = 0.02) than the capped group. Concerning the secondary endpoint, we obtained a trend of lower progression-free survival and overall survival in patients receiving carboplatin >800 mg, but no significant difference appears for the both survival criteria. This study aims to improve the determination of carboplatin dosage to know the real impact of carboplatin capping and to find the optimum balance between excessive toxicity and substandard therapeutics outcomes.

One-year COVID-19 outcomes on the oncology care patient pathway: Results of a French descriptive, cross-sectional comprehensive study (ONCOCARE-COV).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a widely documented disruption in cancer care pathway. Since a resurgence of the pandemic was expected after the first lockdown in France, the global impact on the cancer care pathway over the year 2020 was investigated. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the changes in the oncology care pathway for cancer screening, diagnosis, assessment, diagnosis annoucement procedure and treatment over a one-year period. MATERIALS & METHODS: The ONCOCARE-COV study was a comprehensive, retrospective, descriptive, and cross-sectional study comparing the years 2019 and 2020. All key indicators along the cancer care pathway assessing the oncological activity over four periods were described. This study was set in a high-volume, public, single tertiary care center divided in two complementary sites (Reims University Hospital and Godinot Cancer Institute, Reims, France) which was located in a high COVID-19 incidence area during both peaks of the outbreak. RESULTS: A total of 26,566 patient's files were active during the year 2020. Breast screening (-19.5%), announcement dedicated consultations (-9.2%), Intravenous and Hyperthermic Intraoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPECs) (-25%), and oncogeriatric evaluations (-14.8%) were heavily disrupted in regard to 2020 activity. We identified a clear second outbreak wave impact on medical announcement procedures (October, -14.4%), radiotherapy sessions (October, -16%), number of new health record discussed in multidisciplinary tumor board meeting (November, -14.6%) and HIPECs (November, -100%). Moreover, 2020 cancer care activity stagnated compared to 2019. DISCUSSION: The oncological care pathway was heavily disrupted during the first and second peaks of the COVID-19 outbreak. Between lockdowns, we observed a remarkable but non-compensatory recovery as well as a lesser impact from the pandemic resurgence. However, in absence of an increase in activity, a backlog persisted. CONCLUSION: Public health efforts are needed to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the oncology care pathway.