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.

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.

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.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 breakthrough infections in patients with cancer (UKCCEP): a population-based test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level. METHODS: In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3-6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population. FINDINGS: The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8-69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1-65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3-6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3-47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4-61·5). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer. FUNDING: University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK.

Shortening the preparation time of the single prolonged breath-hold for radiotherapy sessions.

OBJECTIVE: Single prolonged breath-holds of >5 min can be obtained in cancer patients. Currently, however, the preparation time in each radiotherapy session is a practical limitation for clinical adoption of this new technique. Here, we show by how much our original preparation time can be shortened without unduly compromising breath-hold duration. METHODS: 44 healthy subjects performed single prolonged breath-holds from 60% O2 and mechanically induced hypocapnia. We tested the effect on breath-hold duration of shortening preparation time (the durations of acclimatization, hyperventilation and hypocapnia) by changing these durations and or ventilator settings. RESULTS: Mean original breath-hold duration was 6.5 ± 0.2 (standard error) min. The total original preparation time (from connecting the facemask to the start of the breath-hold) was 26 ± 1 min. After shortening the hypocapnia duration from 16 to 5 min, mean breath-hold duration was still 6.1 ± 0.2 min (ns vs the original). After abolishing the acclimatization and shortening the hypocapnia to 1 min (a total preparation time now of 9 ± 1 min), a mean breath-hold duration of >5 min was still possible (now significantly shortened to 5.2 ± 0.6 min, p < 0.001). After shorter and more vigorous hyperventilation (lasting 2.7 ± 0.3 min) and shorter hypocapnia (lasting 43 ± 4 s), a mean breath-hold duration of >5 min (5.3 ± 0.2 min, p < 0.05) was still possible. Here, the final total preparation time was 3.5 ± 0.3 min. CONCLUSIONS: These improvements may facilitate adoption of the single prolonged breath-hold for a range of thoracic and abdominal radiotherapies especially involving hypofractionation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Multiple short breath-holds improve radiotherapy for thoracic and abdominal cancers. Further improvement may occur by adopting the single prolonged breath-hold of >5 min. One limitation to clinical adoption is its long preparation time. We show here how to reduce the mean preparation time from 26 to 3.5 min without compromising breath-hold duration.

Safely achieving single prolonged breath-holds of > 5 minutes for radiotherapy in the prone, front crawl position.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer radiotherapy is increasingly delivered supine with multiple, short breath-holds. There may be heart and lung sparing advantages for locoregional breast cancer of both prone treatment and in a single breath-hold. We test here whether single prolonged breath-holds are possible in the prone, front crawl position. METHODS: 19 healthy volunteers were trained to deliver supine, single prolonged breath-holds with pre-oxygenation and hypocapnia. We tested whether all could achieve the same durations in the prone, front crawl position. RESULTS: 19 healthy volunteers achieved supine, single prolonged breath-holds for mean of 6.2 ± 0.3 min. All were able to hold safely for the same duration while prone (6.1 ± 0.2 min ns. by paired ANOVA). With prone, the increased weight on the chest did not impede chest inflation, nor the ability to hold air in the chest. Thus, the rate of chest deflation (mean anteroposterior deflation movement of three craniocaudally arranged surface markers on the spinal cord) was the same (1.2 ± 0.2, 2.0 ± 0.4 and 1.2 ± 0.4 mm/min) as found previously during supine prolonged breath-holds. No leakage of carbon dioxide or air was detectable into the facemask. CONCLUSION: Single prolonged (>5 min) breath-holds are equally possible in the prone, front crawl position. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Prolonged breath-holds in the front crawl position are possible and have the same durations as in the supine position. Such training would therefore be feasible for some patients with breast cancer requiring loco-regional irradiation. It would have obvious advantages for hypofractionation.

The feasibility, safety and optimization of multiple prolonged breath-holds for radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Multiple, short breath-holds are now used in single radiotherapy treatment sessions. Here we investigated the feasibility and safety of multiple prolonged breath-holds in a single session. We measured how long is a second breath-hold if we prematurely terminate a single, prolonged breath-hold of >5 min either by using a single breath of oxygen (O2), or by reintroducing preoxygenation and hypocapnia. We also investigated the feasibility and safety of undertaking 9 prolonged breath-holds in a row. MATERIALS & METHODS: 30 healthy volunteers with no previous breath-holding experience were trained to perform single prolonged breath-holds safely. RESULTS: Their mean single, prolonged breath-hold duration was 6.1 ±â€¯0.3 se minutes (n = 30). In 18/18 subjects, premature termination (at 5.1 ±â€¯0.2 min) with a single breath of 60% O2, enabled a 2nd safe breath-hold lasting 3.3 ±â€¯0.2 min. In 18/18 subjects, premature termination at 5.3 ±â€¯0.2 min) by reintroducing preoxygenation and hypocapnia, enabled a 2nd safe breath-hold lasting 5.8 ±â€¯0.3 min. 17/17 subjects could safely perform 9 successive prolonged breath-holds, each terminated (at 4.3 ±â€¯0.2 min) by reintroducing preoxygenation and hypocapnia for 3.1 ±â€¯0.2 min. The 9th unconstrained breath-hold (mean of 6.0 ±â€¯0.3 min) lasted as long as their single breath-hold. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple prolonged breath-holds are possible and safe. In a ∼19 min treatment session, it would therefore be possible to have ∼13 min for radiotherapy treatment (3 breath-holds) and ∼6 min for setup and recovery. In a 65 min session, it would be possible to have 41 min for radiotherapy and 25 min for setup and recovery.

Evolution of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer and Birmingham's (UK) Experience.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has taken a pivotal role in early lung cancer management particularly in the medically inoperable patients. Retrospective studies have shown this to be well tolerated with comparable results to surgery and no significant increase in toxicity. Paucity of randomized evidence has dictated initiation of several trials to provide good quality evidence to steer future practice. This review summaries salient developments in lung SABR, comparisons to surgery and other platforms and our local experience at University Hospitals Birmingham, UK of lung SABR since its initiation in June 2013.

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Kinase Inhibitors and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) - Advances in Molecular Diagnostic Techniques to Facilitate Targeted Therapy.

A subset of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) respond well to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs), due to the presence of sensitising mutations in the gene encoding EGFR. Mutations associated with resistance to first generation EGFR TKIs have also been identified, which lead to therapeutic failure and the requirement for new drugs. Three generations of EGFR TKIs have been developed and either have been, or are being, evaluated as first and/or second line therapeutic agents. In this review, we consider the advances in molecular diagnostic techniques that are used, or are in development, to facilitate the targeted EGFR TKI therapy of patients with NSCLC. A literature search was conducted in May 2017 using PubMed, and spanning the period September 2005 (EU approval date of erlotinib) to May 2017. Search terms used were: EGFR TKI, NSCLC, clinical trial, erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, EGFR mutations, Exon 19 deletion, and Leu858Arg. The use of molecular data, in conjunction with other clinical and diagnostic information, will assist physicians to make the best therapeutic choice for each patient with advanced NSCLC. Personalized medicine and a rapidly developing therapy landscape will enable these patients to achieve optimal responses to EGFR TKIs.

Nail changes secondary to docetaxel chemotherapy : a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Docetaxel is a chemotherapy agent used in the management of many neoplastic conditions. Various side effects are known. Nail changes are often under-recognised or attributed to other causes. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 66 year old gentleman who received docetaxel chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. He had nail changes as a complication of the treatment. CONCLUSION: Nail toxicity is a recognised side-effect of taxane chemotherapy agents and can often persist for many months after finishing the treatment. We would like to highlight this problem, so it can be considered as a differential diagnosis in the appropriate population.