Efficacy of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil According to Extended RAS Evaluation in Advanced Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are few molecular markers driving treatment selection in later lines of treatment for advanced colorectal cancer patients. The vast majority of patients who progress after first- and second-line therapy undergo chemotherapy regardless of molecular data. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the prognostic and predictive effects of specific RAS mutations on overall survival of patients receiving regorafenib (rego), trifluridine/tipiracil (TFD/TPI), or both. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study based on data from a previous study of our research network, involving nine Italian institutions over a 10-year timeframe (2012-2022). Extended RAS analysis, involving KRAS exon 2-4 and NRAS exon 2-4, and BRAF were the main criteria for inclusion in this retrospective evaluation. Patients with BRAF mutation were excluded. Patients were classified according to treatment (rego- or TFD/TPI-treated) and RAS mutational status (wild-type [WT], KRAS codon 12 mutations, KRAS codon 13 mutations, KRAS rare mutations and NRAS mutations, KRAS G12C mutation and KRAS G12D mutation). RESULTS: Overall, 582 patients were included in the present analysis. Overall survival did not significantly differ in rego-treated patients according to RAS extended analysis, although a trend toward a better median survival in patients carrying G12D mutation (12.0 months), Codon 13 mutation (8.0 months), and Codon 12 mutation (7.0 months) has been observed, when compared with WT patients (6.0 months). Overall survival did not significantly differ in TFD/TPI-treated patients according to RAS extended analysis, although a trend toward a better median survival in WT patients had been observed (9.0 months) in comparison with the entire population (7.0 months). Patients receiving both drugs displayed a longer survival when compared with the population of patients receiving rego alone (p = 0.005) as well as the population receiving TFD/TPI alone (p < 0.001), suggesting a group enriched for favorable prognostic factors. However, when each group was analyzed separately, the addition of TFD/TPI therapy to the rego-treated group improved survival only in all-RAS WT patients (p = 0.003). Differently, the addition of rego therapy to TFD/TPI-treated patients significantly improved OS in the Codon 12 group (p = 0.0004), G12D group (p = 0.003), and the rare mutations group (p = 0.02), in addition to all-RAS WT patients (p = 0.002). The rego-TFD/TPI sequence, compared with the reverse sequence, significantly improved OS only in the KRAS codon 12 group (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that RAS mutations do not affect outcome in rego-treated patients as well as TFD/TPI-treated patients. Nevertheless, a trend toward a higher efficacy of rego in RAS-mutated (in particular codon 12, rare RAS mutations, and G12D) patients has been recorded. The rego-TFD/TPI sequence seems to be superior to the reverse sequence in patients carrying an RAS codon 12 mutation, although the impact of other factors as disease burden or performance status cannot be excluded.

Real-world outcomes of Italian patients with advanced non-squamous lung cancer treated with first-line pembrolizumab plus platinum-pemetrexed.

PURPOSE: The aim of this multi-center, retrospective/prospective cohort observational study was to evaluate outcomes in routine clinical practice of first-line chemo-immunotherapy with cis/carboplatin, pemetrexed and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 33 Italian centers. METHODS: The outcome measure was to evaluate overall survival (OS) in a real-world patient population. Secondary endpoints were: progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR) and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: 1068 patients were enrolled at the time of data cut-off (January 31st, 2023), and 812 (76.0%) belonged to the retrospective cohort. Median age was 66 years (27-85), ECOG PS was ≥ 2 in 91 (8.6%) patients; 254 (23.8%) patients had brain metastases at baseline; 38 (3.6%) patients had tumor with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%. After a median follow-up of 17.0 months (95% CI, 16.1-17.9), median OS was 16.1 months (95% CI, 14.4-18.8) and PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 8.8-11.2). Median DoR (n = 493) was 14.7 months (95% CI, 13.6-17.1). ORR was 43.4% (95% CI, 40.4-46.4). Any-grade AEs occurred in 636 (59.6%) patients and grade ≥ 3 in 253 (23.7%) patients. Most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were neutropenia (6.3%) and anemia (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: First-line chemo-immunotherapy was effective and tolerable in this large, real-world Italian study of patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Our results were in line with the KEYNOTE-189 registration study, also considering the low number of PD-L1 ≥ 50% patients included in our study.

Retrospective Correlation between First Drug Treatment Duration and Survival Outcomes in Sequential Treatment with Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Subgroup Analysis.

Background: Patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) rarely receive third-line or further treatment. In this context, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two important novel therapeutic choices with statistically significant increases in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control, with different toxicity profiles. This study is a subgroup analysis of our larger retrospective study, already published, whose objective was to assess the outcomes of patients when R and T were given sequentially. Patients and Methods: The study involved thirteen Italian cancer centers on a 10-year retrospective observation (2012-2022). In this subgroup analysis, we focused our attention on the correlation between the first drug treatment duration (<3 months, 3 to <6 months and ≥6 months) and survival outcomes in patients who had received the sequence regorafenib-to-trifluridine/tipiracil, or vice versa. Results: The initial study included 866 patients with mCRC who received sequential T/R, or R/T, or T or R alone. This analysis is focused on evaluating the impact of the duration of the first treatment in the sequence on clinical outcomes (OS, PFS) and includes 146 and 116 patients of the T/R and R/T sequences, respectively. Based on the duration of the first drug treatment, subgroups for the T/R sequence included 27 patients (18.4%) who received T for <3 months, 86 (58.9%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 33 (22.6%) treated for ≥6 months; in the reverse sequence (R as the first drug), subgroups included 18 patients (15.5%) who received their first treatment for <3 months, 62 (53.4%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 35 (31.0%) treated for ≥6 months. In patients who received their first drug treatment for a period of 3 to <6 months, the R/T sequence had a significantly longer median OS (13.7 vs. 10.8 months, p = 0.0069) and a longer median PFS (10.8 vs. 8.5 months, p = 0.0003) than the T/R group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups with first drug treatment durations of <3 months and ≥6 months. Conclusions: Our analysis seems to suggest that the administration of R for a period of 3 to <6 months before that of T can prolong both OS and PFS, as compared to the opposite sequence.

Treatment Settings and Outcomes with Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil at Third-Line Treatment and beyond in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory mCRC rarely undergo third-line or subsequent treatment. This strategy could negatively impact their survival. In this setting, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two key new treatment options with statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control with different tolerance profiles. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in real-world practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2012-2022, 866 patients diagnosed with mCRC who received sequential R and T (T/R, n = 146; R/T, n = 116]) or T (n = 325]) or R (n = 279) only were retrospectively recruited from 13 Italian cancer institutes. RESULTS: The median OS is significantly longer in the R/T group (15.9 months) than in the T/R group (13.9 months) (p = 0.0194). The R/T sequence had a statistically significant advantage in the mPFS, which was 8.8 months with T/R vs. 11.2 months with R/T (p = 0.0005). We did not find significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving T or R only. A total of 582 grade 3/4 toxicities were recorded. The frequency of grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reactions was higher in the R/T sequence compared to the reverse sequence (37.3% vs. 7.4%) (p = 0.01), while grade 3/4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the R/T group than in the T/R group (66.2% vs. 78.2%) (p = 0.13). Toxicities in the non-sequential groups were similar and in line with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: The R/T sequence resulted in a significantly longer OS and PFS and improved disease control compared with the reverse sequence. R and T given not sequentially have similar impacts on survival. More data are needed to define the best sequence and to explore the efficacy of sequential (T/R or R/T) treatment combined with molecular-targeted drugs.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Efficacy Outcomes from Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Patients with Cancer.

PURPOSE: No evidence exists as to whether type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) impairs clinical outcome from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a large cohort of ICI recipients treated at 21 institutions from June 2014 to June 2020, we studied whether patients on glucose-lowering medications (GLM) for T2DM had shorter overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). We used targeted transcriptomics in a subset of patients to explore differences in the tumor microenvironment (TME) of patients with or without diabetes. RESULTS: A total of 1,395 patients were included. Primary tumors included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 54.7%), melanoma (24.7%), renal cell (15.0%), and other carcinomas (5.6%). After multivariable analysis, patients on GLM (n = 226, 16.2%) displayed an increased risk of death [HR, 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI),1.07-1.56] and disease progression/death (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43) independent of number of GLM received. We matched 92 metformin-exposed patients with 363 controls and 78 patients on other oral GLM or insulin with 299 control patients. Exposure to metformin, but not other GLM, was associated with an increased risk of death (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16-2.03) and disease progression/death (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.72). Patients with T2DM with higher pretreatment glycemia had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.04), while exploratory tumoral transcriptomic profiling in a subset of patients (n = 22) revealed differential regulation of innate and adaptive immune pathways in patients with T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients on GLM experienced worse outcomes from immunotherapy, independent of baseline features. Prospective studies are warranted to clarify the relative impact of metformin over a preexisting diagnosis of T2DM in influencing poorer outcomes in this population.

Safety of extended interval dosing immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Real-life spectrum and survival implications of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with extended interval dosing (ED) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are unknown. METHODS: Characteristics of 812 consecutive solid cancer patients who received at least 1 cycle of ED monotherapy (pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W or nivolumab 480 mg Q4W) after switching from canonical interval dosing (CD; pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W or nivolumab 240 mg Q2W) or treated upfront with ED were retrieved. The primary objective was to compare irAEs patterns within the same population (before and after switch to ED). irAEs spectrum in patients treated upfront with ED and association between irAEs and overall survival were also described. RESULTS: A total of 550 (68%) patients started ICIs with CD and switched to ED. During CD, 225 (41%) patients developed any grade and 17 (3%) G3 or G4 irAEs; after switching to ED, any grade and G3 or G4 irAEs were experienced by 155 (36%) and 20 (5%) patients. Switching to ED was associated with a lower probability of any grade irAEs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.99; P = .047), whereas no difference for G3 or G4 events was noted (aOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.94; P = .18). Among patients who started upfront with ED (n = 232, 32%), 107 (41%) developed any grade and 14 (5%) G3 or G4 irAEs during ED. Patients with irAEs during ED had improved overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.82; P = .004 after switching; aHR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.93; P = .025 upfront). CONCLUSIONS: Switching ICI treatment from CD and ED did not increase the incidence of irAEs and represents a safe option also outside clinical trials.

Codon-specific KRAS mutations predict survival benefit of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Genomics has greatly improved how patients with cancer are being treated; however, clinical-grade genomic biomarkers for chemotherapies are currently lacking. Using whole-genome analysis of 37 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with the chemotherapy trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI), we identified KRAS codon G12 (KRASG12) mutations as a potential biomarker of resistance. Next, we collected real-world data of 960 patients with mCRC receiving FTD/TPI and validated that KRASG12 mutations were significantly associated with poor survival, also in analyses restricted to the RAS/RAF mutant subgroup. We next analyzed the data of the global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 RECOURSE trial (n = 800 patients) and found that KRASG12 mutations (n = 279) were predictive biomarkers for reduced overall survival (OS) benefit of FTD/TPI versus placebo (unadjusted interaction P = 0.0031, adjusted interaction P = 0.015). For patients with KRASG12 mutations in the RECOURSE trial, OS was not prolonged with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 279; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73-1.20; P = 0.85). In contrast, patients with KRASG13 mutant tumors showed significantly improved OS with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 60; HR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.15-0.55; P < 0.001). In isogenic cell lines and patient-derived organoids, KRASG12 mutations were associated with increased resistance to FTD-based genotoxicity. In conclusion, these data show that KRASG12 mutations are biomarkers for reduced OS benefit of FTD/TPI treatment, with potential implications for approximately 28% of patients with mCRC under consideration for treatment with FTD/TPI. Furthermore, our data suggest that genomics-based precision medicine may be possible for a subset of chemotherapies.

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. FINDINGS: At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [50·7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49·3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16·6%; 95% CI 14·8-18·5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the pre-vaccination phase (191 [19·1%; 95% CI 16·4-22·0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16·8%; 13·8-20·3] of 653 patients, p=0·24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6·2%; 3·5-10·2] of 256 patients, p<0·0001). In the alpha-delta phase, 84 (18·3%; 95% CI 14·6-22·7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9·4%; 1·9-27·3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7·4%; 95% CI 3·5-13·5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9·8%; 5·8-15·5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [18·5%; 16·5-20·9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0·0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4·4%; 1·6-9·6], 11 [6·0%; 3·0-10·7] vs 148 [9·9%; 8·4-11·6], p=0·030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2·2%; 0·1-6·4], ten [5·4%; 2·6-10·0] vs 115 [7·7%; 6·3-9·3], p=0·037). INTERPRETATION: Unvaccinated patients with cancer remain highly vulnerable to COVID-19 sequelae irrespective of viral strain. This study confirms the role of previous SARS-CoV-2 immunisation as an effective measure to protect patients from COVID-19 sequelae, disruption of therapy, and ensuing mortality. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.

Pandemic Phase-Adjusted Analysis of COVID-19 Outcomes Reveals Reduced Intrinsic Vulnerability and Substantial Vaccine Protection From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice. METHODS: We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented ≥ 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis.

Aim: The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens. Study design and methods: Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1-2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet). Results: Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Conclusion: In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 protects from morbidity, mortality and sequelae from COVID19 in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccines immunogenicity in patients with cancer has been investigated, whether they can significantly improve the severity of COVID-19 in this specific population is undefined. METHODS: Capitalizing on OnCovid (NCT04393974) registry data we reported COVID-19 mortality and proxies of COVID-19 morbidity, including post-COVID-19 outcomes, according to the vaccination status of the included patients. RESULTS: 2090 eligible patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 02/2020 and 11/2021 were included, of whom 1930 (92.3%) unvaccinated, 91 (4.4%) fully vaccinated and 69 (3.3%) partially vaccinated. With the exception of a higher prevalence of patients from the UK (p = 0.0003) and receiving systemic anticancer therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (p = 0.0082) among fully vaccinated patients, no demographics/oncological features were associated with vaccination status. The 14-days case fatality rate (CFR) (5.5% vs 20.7%, p = 0.0004) and the 28-days CFR (13.2% vs 27.4%, p = 0.0028) demonstrated a significant improvement for fully vaccinated patients in comparison with unvaccinated patients. The receipt of prior full vaccination was also associated with reduced symptomatic COVID-19 (79.1% vs 88.5%, p = 0.0070), need of COVID-19 oriented therapy (34.9% vs 63.2%, p < 0.0001), complications from COVID-19 (28.6% vs 39.4%, p = 0.0379), hospitalizations due to COVID-19 (42.2% vs 52.5%, p = 0.0007) and oxygen therapy requirement (35.7% vs 52%, p = 0.0036). Following Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) procedure no statistically significant difference according to the vaccination status was confirmed; however, all COVID-19 related outcomes were concordantly in favour of full vaccination. Among the 1228 (58.8%) patients who underwent a formal reassessment at participating centres after COVID-19 resolution, fully vaccinated patients experienced less sequelae than unvaccinated patients (6.7% vs 17.2%, p = 0.0320). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides initial evidence in support of the beneficial effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer.

Persistence of long-term COVID-19 sequelae in patients with cancer: An analysis from the OnCovid registry.

INTRODUCTION: A significant proportion of patients with cancer who recover from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience COVID-19 sequelae in the early post-infection phase, which negatively affect their continuity of care and oncological outcome. The long-term prevalence and clinical impact of the post-COVID-19 syndrome in patients with cancer are largely unknown. METHODS: In this study, we describe the time course of COVID-19 sequelae in patients with non-advanced cancers enrolled in the OnCovid registry. RESULTS: Overall, 186 patients were included, with a median observation period of 9.9 months (95%CI:8,8-11.3) post-COVID-19 resolution. After a median interval of 2.3 months post-COVID-19 (interquartile range: 1.4-3.7), 31 patients (16.6%) reported ≥1 sequelae, including respiratory complications (14, 7.6%), fatigue (13, 7.1%), neuro-cognitive sequelae (7, 3.8%). The vast majority of the patients were not vaccinated prior to COVID-19. COVID-19-related sequelae persisted in 9.8% and 8% of patients 6 and 12 months after COVID-19 resolution. Persistence of sequelae at first oncological follow-up was associated with history of complicated COVID-19 (45.2% vs 24.8%, p = 0.0223), irrespective of oncological features at COVID-19 diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This study confirms for the first time that, in a largely unvaccinated population, post-COVID-19 syndrome can affect a significant proportion of patients with non-advanced cancer who recovered from the acute illness. COVID-19 sequelae may persist up to 12 months in some patients, highlighting the need for dedicated prevention and supportive strategies.

A randomized phase III study of fractionated docetaxel, oxaliplatin, capecitabine (low-tox) vs epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine (eox) in patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer: the lega trial.

BACKGROUND: EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine) is one of the standard regimens for metastatic or locally advanced gastric cancer (GC). A new combination based on fractional docetaxel (low-TOX) has been developed in an attempt to increase the efficacy of EOX and reduce the heavy toxicity of classical docetaxel regimens. METHODS: Overall, 169 previously untreated GC patients were randomized between EOX (arm A) and low-TOX (arm B). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary ones were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and tolerability. The study was designed to detect a 35% (80% power at a two-sided 5% significance level) PFS increase with low-TOX and an interim analysis for futility was planned after the first 127 events. RESULTS: At the cut-off date of interim analysis, median PFS was 6.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0-8.1] in arm A vs 6.3 months (95% CI 5.0-7.8) in arm B, without statistical difference. OS was comparable in the two arms: 12.4 in arm A (95% CI 9.1-19.2) vs 11.5 months in arm B (95% CI 8.6-15.0). ORR was 33% and 24%, while DCR was 68% and 67%, respectively. Treatment modification (91% vs 78%, P = 0.017) and number of patients with CTC grade ≥ 3 adverse events (42 vs 35) were higher in arm B. CONCLUSIONS: A triplet regimen based on the fractional dose of docetaxel achieves no improvement over EOX which remains a potential standard treatment in many patients with inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic GC.

High familial burden of cancer correlates with improved outcome from immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC independent of somatic DNA damage response gene status.

Family history of cancer (FHC) is a hallmark of cancer risk and an independent predictor of outcome, albeit with uncertain biologic foundations. We previously showed that FHC-high patients experienced prolonged overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) following PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors. To validate our findings in patients with NSCLC, we evaluated two multicenter cohorts of patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving either first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy. From each cohort, 607 patients were randomly case-control matched accounting for FHC, age, performance status, and disease burden. Compared to FHC-low/negative, FHC-high patients experienced longer OS (HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.46-0.95], p = 0.0281), PFS (HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.48-0.89]; p = 0.0074) and higher disease control rates (DCR, 86.4% vs 67.5%, p = 0.0096), within the pembrolizumab cohort. No significant associations were found between FHC and OS/PFS/DCR within the chemotherapy cohort. We explored the association between FHC and somatic DNA damage response (DDR) gene alterations as underlying mechanism to our findings in a parallel cohort of 118 NSCLC, 16.9% of whom were FHC-high. The prevalence of ≥ 1 somatic DDR gene mutation was 20% and 24.5% (p = 0.6684) in FHC-high vs. FHC-low/negative, with no differences in tumor mutational burden (6.0 vs. 7.6 Mut/Mb, p = 0.6018) and tumor cell PD-L1 expression. FHC-high status identifies NSCLC patients with improved outcomes from pembrolizumab but not chemotherapy, independent of somatic DDR gene status. Prospective studies evaluating FHC alongside germline genetic testing are warranted.

Clinical outcomes of NSCLC patients experiencing early immune-related adverse events to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors leading to treatment discontinuation.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic relevance of early immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients affected by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) upon immunotherapy is not fully understood. METHODS: The Leading to Treatment Discontinuation cohort included 24 patients experiencing severe irAEs after one of two administrations of single anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in any line setting for metastatic NSCLC between November 2015 and June 2019. The control cohort was composed of 526 patients treated with single anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in any line setting with no severe irAE reported. The primary end points were median progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, risk of progression of disease and risk of death. The correlation of clinic pathological features with early severe irAEs represented the secondary end point. RESULTS: Median PFS was 9.3 and 8.4 months, median OS was 12.0 months and 14.2 months at a median follow-up of 18.1 and 22.6 months in the LTD cohort and in the control cohort, respectively. The ORR was 40% (95% CI 17.2-78.8) in the LTD cohort and 32.7% (95% CI 27.8-38.2) in the control cohort. The risk of disease progression was higher in the LTD cohort (HR 2.52 [95% 1.10-5.78], P = .0288). CONCLUSIONS: We found no survival benefit in LTD cohort compared to the control cohort. However, early and severe irAEs might underly an immune anti-tumor activation. We identified a significant association with first-line immune checkpoints inhibitors treatment and good PS. Further studies on risk prediction and management of serious and early irAEs in NSCLC patients are needed.

A multicenter study of skin toxicity management in patients with left-sided, RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line anti-EGFR-based doublet regimen: is there room for improvement?

BACKGROUND: Skin toxicity in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors is well known. However, ad hoc ESMO guidelines have only recently been published. AIM AND METHODS: To describe the management (pre-emptive or reactive) of anti-EGFR-related cutaneous adverse events (AEs), in a real-life clinical context, in a selected population of patients with left-sided, metastatic RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (i.e., panitumumab or cetuximab) as first-line regimen at 22 Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were treatment-related adverse events, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 515 patients included in the analysis, 173 (33.6%) received a pre-emptive and 342 (66.4%) a reactive treatment. The median follow-up period for the overall population was 30.0 months. A significantly lower incidence of any grade acneiform rash was found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort both in the overall population (78.6% vs 94.4%, p < 0.001) and in patients treated with panitumumab (76.1% vs 93.7%, p < 0.001) or cetuximab (83.3% vs 95.4%, p = 0.004), respectively. A lower incidence of any grade (41.6% vs 50.9%, p = 0.047) but a higher incidence of G3-G4 (9.2% vs 4.7%, p = 0.042) paronychia/nail disorders were found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort. Nevertheless, a lower rate of patients within the reactive compared to the pre-emptive cohort was referred to dermatological counseling (21.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, p = 0.001). A higher rate of anti-EGFR therapy modification was needed in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort (35.9% vs 41.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). The pre-emptive approach did not reduce the efficacy of antineoplastic therapy compared to the reactive in terms of ORR (69.2% vs 72.8%), median PFS (12.3 vs 13.0 months), and median OS (28.8 vs 33.5 months). CONCLUSION: Although recommended by international guidelines, the pre-emptive approach of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity in mCRC patients still appears less adopted in daily clinical practice, compared to the reactive one. A wider reception and application of this indication is desirable to improve patients' quality of life without compromising the continuity and efficacy of antineoplastic therapy.

COVID-19 in breast cancer patients: a subanalysis of the OnCovid registry.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are at higher risk of COVID-19 complications and mortality than the rest of the population. Breast cancer patients seem to have better prognosis when infected by SARS-CoV-2 than other cancer patients. METHODS: We report a subanalysis of the OnCovid study providing more detailed information in the breast cancer population. RESULTS: We included 495 breast cancer patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mean age was 62.6 years; 31.5% presented more than one comorbidity. The most frequent breast cancer subtype was luminal-like (n = 245, 49.5%) and 177 (35.8%) had metastatic disease. A total of 332 (67.1%) patients were receiving active treatment, with radical intent in 232 (47.6%) of them. Hospitalization rate was 58.2% and all-cause mortality rate was 20.3%. One hundred twenty-nine (26.1%) patients developed one COVID-19 complication, being acute respiratory failure the most common (n = 74, 15.0%). In the multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years, presence of COVID-19 complications, and metastatic disease were factors correlated with worse outcomes, while ongoing anticancer therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis appeared to be a protective factor. No particular oncological treatment was related to higher risk of complications. In the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 73 (18.3%) patients had some kind of modification on their oncologic treatment. At the first oncological reassessment (median time: 46.9 days ± 36.7), 255 (51.6%) patients reported to be fully recovered from the infection. There were 39 patients (7.9%) with long-term SARS-CoV-2-related complications. CONCLUSION: In the context of COVID-19, our data confirm that breast cancer patients appear to have lower complications and mortality rate than expected in other cancer populations. Most breast cancer patients can be safely treated for their neoplasm during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Oncological treatment has no impact on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 complications, and, especially in the curative setting, the treatment should be modified as little as possible.

Post-Induction Management in Patients With Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With First-Line Anti-EGFR-Based Doublet Regimens: A Multicentre Study.

BACKGROUND: Few data regarding post-induction management following first-line anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based doublet regimens in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are available. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians' attitude, and the safety and effectiveness of post-induction strategies in consecutive patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen, who did not experience disease progression within 6 months from induction initiation, at 21 Italian and 1 Spanish Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events, and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: At the data cutoff, among 686 consecutive patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen from March 2012 to October 2020, 355 eligible patients have been included in the present analysis. Among these, 118 (33.2%), 66 (18.6%), and 11 (3.1%) received a maintenance with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5FU/LV)+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, and 5FU/LV, respectively, while 160 (45.1%) patients continued induction treatment (non-maintenance) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient decision, or completion of planned treatment. The median period of follow-up for the overall population was 33.7 months (95%CI = 28.9-35.6). The median PFS values of the 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, 5FU/LV, and non-maintenance cohorts were 16.0 (95%CI = 14.3-17.7, 86 events), 13.0 (95%CI = 11.4-14.5, 56 events), 14.0 (95%CI = 8.1-20.0, 8 events), and 10.1 months (95%CI = 9.0-11.2, 136 events), respectively (p < 0.001). The median OS values were 39.6 (95%CI = 31.5-47.7, 43 events), 36.1 (95%CI = 31.6-40.7, 36 events), 39.5 (95%CI = 28.2-50.8, 4 events), and 25.1 months (95%CI = 22.6-27.6, 99 events), respectively (p < 0.001). After adjusting for key covariates, a statistically significant improvement in PFS in favor of 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.44-0.77, p < 0.001) and anti-EGFR (HR = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.51-0.98, p = 0.039) compared to the non-maintenance cohort was found. Compared to the non-maintenance cohort, OS was improved by 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38-0.81, p = 0.002) and, with marginal significance, by anti-EGFR (HR = 0.67, 95%CI = 0.51-0.98, p = 0.051). No difference was found in ORR. Any grade non-hematological and hematological events were generally higher in the non-maintenance compared to the maintenance cohorts. CONCLUSION: Among the treatment strategies following an anti-EGFR-based doublet first-line induction regimen in patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in a "real-life" setting, 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR resulted the most adopted, effective, and relatively safe regimen.

Clinicians' Attitude to Doublet Plus Anti-EGFR Versus Triplet Plus Bevacizumab as First-line Treatment in Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter, "Real-Life", Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Doublets plus antiepidermal growth factor receptors monoclonal antibodies (EGFRi) are widely considered the preferable first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), resulting superior in terms of activity and efficacy compared to doublets plus bevacizumab. However, data comparing doublet plus EGFRi and triplet plus bevacizumab are lacking, and the relative benefit of an intensive regimen plus an antiangiogenic backbone in this population is debated. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians' attitude to triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi as first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in clinical practice at 22 Oncology Units from March 2012 to October 2020. A random case-control matching was performed to compare activity (ORR), and effectiveness (PFS, OS, secondary resection rate of metastases with curative intent) between triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi, on the basis of ECOG-PS, age, gender, and burden of disease. RESULTS: A total of 718 patients were consecutively treated with doublet-EGFRi (686, 95.5%) or triplet-bevacizumab (32, 4.5%). After case-control matching, median PFS was 13.6 (95% CI, 8.9-31.7) and 16.1 (95% CI, 12.1-36.8) months (P= .621), while median OS was 30.2 (95% CI, 14.4-69.5) and 38.1 (95% CI, 33.1-101.1) months (P= .0283) in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. The ORR was 65.6% and 90.6% (P= .016), while the secondary resection rate was 18.8% and 46.9% (P= .016), in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. Triplet-bevacizumab was associated with a higher incidence of G3/G4 neutropenia (25.0% vs. 12.5%, P= .041). CONCLUSION: Although a doublet-EGFRi remains the recommended upfront regimen in patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, our real life data suggest a triplet-bevacizumab might be at least equally active and effective in properly selected cases.

PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors during late stages of life: an ad-hoc analysis from a large multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: The favourable safety profile and the increasing confidence with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might have boosted their prescription in frail patients with short life expectancies, who usually are not treated with standard chemotherapy. METHODS: The present analysis aims to describe clinicians' attitudes towards ICIs administration during late stages of life within a multicenter cohort of advanced cancer patients treated with single agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors in Italy. RESULTS: Overall, 1149 patients with advanced cancer who received single agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors were screened. The final study population consisted of 567 deceased patients. 166 patients (29.3%) had received ICIs within 30 days of death; among them there was a significantly higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (28.3% vs 11.5%, p < 0.0001) and with a higher burden of disease (69.3% vs 59.4%, p = 0.0266). In total, 35 patients (6.2%) started ICIs within 30 days of death; among them there was a higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (45.7% vs 14.5%, p < 0.0001) and with a higher burden of disease (82.9% vs 60.9%, p = 0.0266). Primary tumors were significantly different across subgroups (p = 0.0172), with a higher prevalence of NSCLC patients (80% vs 60.9%) among those who started ICIs within 30 days of death. Lastly, 123 patients (21.7%) started ICIs within 3 months of death. Similarly, within this subgroup there was a higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (29.3% vs 12.8%, p < 0.0001), with a higher burden of disease (74.0% vs 59.0%, p = 0.0025) and with NSCLC (74.0% vs 58.8%, p = 0.0236). CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed a trend toward an increasing ICIs prescription in frail patients, during the late stages of life. Caution should be exercised when evaluating an ICI treatment for patients with a poor PS and a high burden of disease.