Changes in anticancer treatment plans in patients with solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19: analysis of the nationwide BSMO-COVID registry providing lessons for the future.

BACKGROUND: Solid cancer is an independent prognostic factor for poor outcome with COVID-19. As guidelines for patient management in that setting depend on retrospective efforts, we here present the first analyses of a nationwide database of patients with cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium, with a focus on changes in anticancer treatment plans at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Nineteen Belgian hospitals identified all patients with a history of solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Demographic, cancer-specific and COVID-specific data were pseudonymously entered into a central Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO)-COVID database. The association between survival and primary cancer type was analyzed through multivariate multinomial logistic regression. Group comparisons for categorical variables were carried out through a Chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 928 patients were registered in the database; most of them were aged ≥70 years (61.0%) and with poor performance scores [57.2% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≥2]. Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was 19.8%. In multivariate analysis, a trend was seen for higher mortality in patients with lung cancer (27.6% versus 20.8%, P = 0.062) and lower mortality for patients with breast cancer (13.0% versus 23.3%, P = 0.052) compared with other tumour types. Non-curative treatment was associated with higher 30-day COVID-related mortality rates compared with curative or no active treatment (25.8% versus 14.3% versus 21.9%, respectively, P < 0.001). In 33% of patients under active treatment, the therapeutic plan was changed due to COVID-19 diagnosis, most frequently involving delays/interruptions in systemic treatments (18.6%). Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was not significantly different between patients with and without treatment modifications (21.4% versus 20.5%). CONCLUSION: Interruption in anticancer treatments at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with a reduction in COVID-related mortality in our cohort of patients with solid cancer, highlighting that treatment continuation should be strived for, especially in the curative setting.

PRECISION: the Belgian molecular profiling program of metastatic cancer for clinical decision and treatment assignment.

PRECISION is an initiative from the Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO) in collaboration with several stakeholders, encompassing four programs that aim to boost genomic and clinical knowledge with the ultimate goal to offer patients with metastatic solid tumors molecularly guided treatments. The PRECISION 1 study has led to the creation of a clinico-genomic database. The Belgian Approach for Local Laboratory Extensive Tumor Testing (BALLETT) and GeNeo studies will increase the number of patients with advanced cancer that have comprehensive genotyping of their cancer. The PRECISION 2 project consists of investigator-initiated phase II studies aiming to provide access to a targeted drug for patients whose tumors harbor actionable mutations in case the matched drug is not available through reimbursement or clinical trials in Belgium.

Cancer and renal insufficiency results of the BIRMA study.

BACKGROUND: half of anticancer drugs are predominantly excreted in urine. Dosage adjustment in renal insufficiency (RI) is, therefore, a crucial issue. Moreover, patients with abnormal renal function are at high risk for drug-induced nephrotoxicity. The Belgian Renal Insufficiency and Anticancer Medications (BIRMA) study investigated the prevalence of RI in cancer patients, and the profile/dosing of anticancer drugs prescribed. METHODS: primary end point: to estimate the prevalence of abnormal glomerular filtration rate (GFR; estimated with the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula) and RI in cancer patient. Secondary end point: to describe the profile of anticancer drugs prescribed (dose reduction/nephrotoxicity). Data were collected for patients presenting at one of the seven Belgian BIRMA centres in March 2006. RESULTS: a total of 1218 patients were included. The prevalence of elevated SCR (> or =1.2 mg per 100 ml) was 14.9%, but 64.0% had a GFR<90 ml min(-1) per 1.73 m(2). In all, 78.6% of treated patients (n=1087) were receiving at least one drug needing dosage adjustment and 78.1% received at least one nephrotoxic drug. In all, 56.5% of RI patients receiving chemotherapy requiring dose reduction in case of RI did not receive dose adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: the RI is highly frequent in cancer patients. In all, 80% of the patients receive potentially nephrotoxic drugs and/or for which dosage must be adjusted in RI. Oncologists should check the appropriate dose of chemotherapeutic drugs in relation to renal function before prescribing.

Current practice in approaching controversial diagnostic and therapeutic topics in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm management. Belgian multidisciplinary expert discussion based on a modified Delphi method.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are relatively rare, with marked clinical and biological heterogeneity. Consequently, many controversial areas remain in diagnosis and optimal treatment stratification for NEN patients. We wanted to describe current clinical practice regarding controversial NEN topics and stimulate critical thinking and mutual learning among a Belgian multidisciplinary expert panel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 3-round, Delphi method based project, coordinated by a steering committee (SC), was applied to a predefined multidisciplinary NEN expert panel studying the following controversial topics : factors guiding therapeutic decision making, the use of somatostatin analogues (SSA) in adjuvant setting, the interference between non-radioactive and radioactive SSAs, challenging small intestine neuroendocrine tumor (NET) cases, the approach of the carcinoid syndrome, the role of chemotherapy in well differentiated NET, the relevance of NET G3 and neuroendocrine carcinoma subclassification and the role of imaging techniques in NEN management. RESULTS: A high level of consensus exists regarding the necessary diagnostic work-up, use of imaging techniques and interference between non-radioactive and radioactive SSAs. However, the prognostic impact of tumor functionality might be overrated and adequate diarrhea differential diagnostic work-up in these patients is underused. Significant differences are seen between individual experts and centers regarding treatment preferences both on the treatment modality level, as well as the choice of specific drugs (e.g. chemotherapy regimen). CONCLUSIONS: A Delphi-like multi-round expert discussion proves useful to boost critical thinking and discussion among experts of different background, as well as to describe current clinical practice and stimulate mutual learning in the absence of high-level scientific guidance.