The emerging predictive and prognostic role of HER2 in HER2-negative early breast cancer: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Many patients with early breast cancer (eBC) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy do not achieve pathological complete response (pCR), which is a prognostic factor. We examined the role of HER2-low expression in predicting pCR and prognosis in HER2-negative eBC. METHODS: We evaluated patients with stage I-III HER2-negative BC, treated between 2013 and 2023 at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London. Tumors were classified based on estrogen receptor (ER) status and into HER2-low and HER2-zero subgroups. We analyzed pCR rates, relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 754 patients were included in the analysis. pCR rate was 8.9% in the ER+ /HER2-low, 16.5% in the ER+ /HER2-zero, 38.9% in the ER- ER-/HER2-low and 35.9% in the ER-/HER2-zero eBC (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed a significantly lower pCR rate in HER2-low compared to HER2-zero BC in the ER+ subgroup. At a median follow-up of 63.8 months (59.9-67.4), we observed longer OS in HER2-low compared to HER2-zero patients in the overall and in the ER+ population. There was no predictive or prognostic impact of HER2-low status in the ER- population. CONCLUSION: This study supports the interpretation of HER2 status as a possible prognostic and predictive biomarker for HER2-negative eBC, especially among patients with ER+ disease.

Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches. METHODS: We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression. RESULTS: We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

Thromboxane biosynthesis in cancer patients and its inhibition by aspirin: a sub-study of the Add-Aspirin trial.

BACKGROUND: Pre-clinical models demonstrate that platelet activation is involved in the spread of malignancy. Ongoing clinical trials are assessing whether aspirin, which inhibits platelet activation, can prevent or delay metastases. METHODS: Urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 (U-TXM), a biomarker of in vivo platelet activation, was measured after radical cancer therapy and correlated with patient demographics, tumour type, recent treatment, and aspirin use (100 mg, 300 mg or placebo daily) using multivariable linear regression models with log-transformed values. RESULTS: In total, 716 patients (breast 260, colorectal 192, gastro-oesophageal 53, prostate 211) median age 61 years, 50% male were studied. Baseline median U-TXM were breast 782; colorectal 1060; gastro-oesophageal 1675 and prostate 826 pg/mg creatinine; higher than healthy individuals (~500 pg/mg creatinine). Higher levels were associated with raised body mass index, inflammatory markers, and in the colorectal and gastro-oesophageal participants compared to breast participants (P < 0.001) independent of other baseline characteristics. Aspirin 100 mg daily decreased U-TXM similarly across all tumour types (median reductions: 77-82%). Aspirin 300 mg daily provided no additional suppression of U-TXM compared with 100 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Persistently increased thromboxane biosynthesis was detected after radical cancer therapy, particularly in colorectal and gastro-oesophageal patients. Thromboxane biosynthesis should be explored further as a biomarker of active malignancy and may identify patients likely to benefit from aspirin.

REFINE (REduced Frequency ImmuNE checkpoint inhibition in cancers): A multi-arm phase II basket trial testing reduced intensity immunotherapy across different cancers.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionised treating advanced cancers. ICI are administered intravenously every 2-6 weeks for up to 2 years, until cancer progression/unacceptable toxicity. Physiological efficacy is observed at lower doses than those used as standard of care (SOC). Pharmacodynamic studies indicate sustained target occupancy, despite a pharmacological half-life of 2-3 weeks. Reducing frequency of administration may be possible without compromising outcomes. The REFINE trial aims to limit individual patient exposure to ICI whilst maintaining efficacy, with potential benefits in quality of life and reduced drug treatment/attendance costs. METHODS/DESIGN: REFINE is a randomised phase II, multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive basket trial investigating extended interval administration of ICIs. Eligible patients are those responding to conventionally dosed ICI at 12 weeks. In stage I, patients (n = 160 per tumour-specific cohort) will be randomly allocated (1:1) to receive maintenance ICI at SOC vs extended dose interval. REFINE is currently recruiting UK patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have tolerated and responded to initial nivolumab/ipilimumab, randomised to receive maintenance nivolumab SOC (480 mg 4 weekly) vs extended interval (480 mg 8 weekly). Additional tumour cohorts are planned. Subject to satisfactory outcomes (progression-free survival) stage II will investigate up to 5 different treatment intervals. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, quality-of-life, treatment-related toxicity, mean incremental pathway costs and quality-adjusted life-years per patient. REFINE is funded by the Jon Moulton Charity Trust and Medical Research Council, sponsored by University College London (UCL), and coordinated by the MRC CTU at UCL. Trial Registration ISRCTN79455488. NCT04913025 EUDRACT #: 2021-002060-47. CTA 31330/0008/001-0001; MREC approval: 21/LO/0593. REFINE Protocol version 4.0.

Diabetes and cancer: Optimising glycaemic control.

Diabetes and cancer are both common and increasingly prevalent conditions, but emerging epidemiological evidence confirms that the risk of developing a number of common cancers is increased in those with type 2 diabetes. The risk of cancer in type 1 diabetes is less clearly defined, and therefore this review focuses on type 2 diabetes. Emerging evidence also supports an influence of diabetes on outcomes of cancer treatment. However, this relationship is bi-directional, with cancer and its treatment impacting on glucose control, whereas there is also emerging evidence indicating that diabetes care can deteriorate after a cancer diagnosis. Despite these clear links, there is a lack of evidence to guide clinicians in how to manage patients with diabetes during their cancer treatment. Although recent UK guidelines have started to address this, with the development of guidance for the management of hyperglycaemia in cancer, there is a clear need for wider guidance on the management of multi-morbidity during cancer, including diabetes and obesity, to incorporate nutritional management. We have therefore undertaken a narrative review of the evidence of links between type 2 diabetes and cancer incidence and outcomes, and discuss the challenges to diabetes care during cancer treatment.

An International Comparison of Presentation, Outcomes and CORONET Predictive Score Performance in Patients with Cancer Presenting with COVID-19 across Different Pandemic Waves.

Patients with cancer have been shown to have increased risk of COVID-19 severity. We previously built and validated the COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) to predict the likely severity of COVID-19 in patients with active cancer who present to hospital. We assessed the differences in presentation and outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19, depending on the wave of the pandemic. We examined differences in features at presentation and outcomes in patients worldwide, depending on the waves of the pandemic: wave 1 D614G (n = 1430), wave 2 Alpha (n = 475), and wave 4 Omicron variant (n = 63, UK and Spain only). The performance of CORONET was evaluated on 258, 48, and 54 patients for each wave, respectively. We found that mortality rates were reduced in subsequent waves. The majority of patients were vaccinated in wave 4, and 94% were treated with steroids if they required oxygen. The stages of cancer and the median ages of patients significantly differed, but features associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes remained predictive and did not differ between waves. The CORONET tool performed well in all waves, with scores in an area under the curve (AUC) of >0.72. We concluded that patients with cancer who present to hospital with COVID-19 have similar features of severity, which remain discriminatory despite differences in variants and vaccination status. Survival improved following the first wave of the pandemic, which may be associated with vaccination and the increased steroid use in those patients requiring oxygen. The CORONET model demonstrated good performance, independent of the SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Establishment of CORONET, COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool, to Identify Patients With Cancer at Low Versus High Risk of Severe Complications of COVID-19 Disease On Presentation to Hospital.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease, but have heterogeneous presentations and outcomes. Decision-making tools for hospital admission, severity prediction, and increased monitoring for early intervention are critical. We sought to identify features of COVID-19 disease in patients with cancer predicting severe disease and build a decision support online tool, COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET). METHODS: Patients with active cancer (stage I-IV) and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 disease presenting to hospitals worldwide were included. Discharge (within 24 hours), admission (≥ 24 hours inpatient), oxygen (O2) requirement, and death were combined in a 0-3 point severity scale. Association of features with outcomes were investigated using Lasso regression and Random Forest combined with Shapley Additive Explanations. The CORONET model was then examined in the entire cohort to build an online CORONET decision support tool. Admission and severe disease thresholds were established through pragmatically defined cost functions. Finally, the CORONET model was validated on an external cohort. RESULTS: The model development data set comprised 920 patients, with median age 70 (range 5-99) years, 56% males, 44% females, and 81% solid versus 19% hematologic cancers. In derivation, Random Forest demonstrated superior performance over Lasso with lower mean squared error (0.801 v 0.807) and was selected for development. During validation (n = 282 patients), the performance of CORONET varied depending on the country cohort. CORONET cutoffs for admission and mortality of 1.0 and 2.3 were established. The CORONET decision support tool recommended admission for 95% of patients eventually requiring oxygen and 97% of those who died (94% and 98% in validation, respectively). The specificity for mortality prediction was 92% and 83% in derivation and validation, respectively. Shapley Additive Explanations revealed that National Early Warning Score 2, C-reactive protein, and albumin were the most important features contributing to COVID-19 severity prediction in patients with cancer at time of hospital presentation. CONCLUSION: CORONET, a decision support tool validated in health care systems worldwide, can aid admission decisions and predict COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer.

A guideline for the outpatient management of glycaemic control in people with cancer.

Individuals with cancer are at increased risk of developing new-onset diabetes mellitus and hyperglycaemia, and an estimated 20% of people with cancer already have an underlying diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. People with both cancer and diabetes may have an increased risk of toxicities, hospital admissions and morbidity, with hyperglycaemia potentially attenuating the efficacy of chemotherapy often secondary to dose reductions and early cessation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that hyperglycaemia is prognostic of worse overall survival and risk of cancer recurrence. These guidelines aim to provide the oncology/haemato-oncology and diabetes multidisciplinary teams with the tools to manage people with diabetes commencing anti-cancer/glucocorticoid therapy, as well as identifying individuals without a known diagnosis of diabetes who are at risk of developing hyperglycaemia and new-onset diabetes.

Adaptive immunity and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern following vaccination in patients with cancer: The CAPTURE study.

CAPTURE (NCT03226886) is a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 immunity in patients with cancer. Here we evaluated 585 patients following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines, administered 12 weeks apart. Seroconversion rates after two doses were 85% and 59% in patients with solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. A lower proportion of patients had detectable neutralizing antibody titers (NAbT) against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) vs wildtype (WT). Patients with hematological malignancies were more likely to have undetectable NAbT and had lower median NAbT vs solid cancers against both WT and VOCs. In comparison with individuals without cancer, patients with haematological, but not solid, malignancies had reduced NAb responses. Seroconversion showed poor concordance with NAbT against VOCs. Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection boosted NAb response including against VOCs, and anti-CD20 treatment was associated with undetectable NAbT. Vaccine-induced T-cell responses were detected in 80% of patients, and were comparable between vaccines or cancer types. Our results have implications for the management of cancer patients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants: The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial.

BACKGROUND: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403.

Functional antibody and T-cell immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection, including by variants of concern, in patients with cancer: the CAPTURE study.

Patients with cancer have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Here we present the prospective CAPTURE study (NCT03226886) integrating longitudinal immune profiling with clinical annotation. Of 357 patients with cancer, 118 were SARS-CoV-2-positive, 94 were symptomatic and 2 patients died of COVID-19. In this cohort, 83% patients had S1-reactive antibodies, 82% had neutralizing antibodies against WT, whereas neutralizing antibody titers (NAbT) against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants were substantially reduced. Whereas S1-reactive antibody levels decreased in 13% of patients, NAbT remained stable up to 329 days. Patients also had detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells and CD4+ responses correlating with S1-reactive antibody levels, although patients with hematological malignancies had impaired immune responses that were disease and treatment-specific, but presented compensatory cellular responses, further supported by clinical. Overall, these findings advance the understanding of the nature and duration of immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

Cytokine release syndrome in a patient with colorectal cancer after vaccination with BNT162b2.

Patients with cancer are currently prioritized in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs globally, which includes administration of mRNA vaccines. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has not been reported with mRNA vaccines and is an extremely rare immune-related adverse event of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We present a case of CRS that occurred 5 d after vaccination with BTN162b2 (tozinameran)-the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-in a patient with colorectal cancer on long-standing anti-PD-1 monotherapy. The CRS was evidenced by raised inflammatory markers, thrombocytopenia, elevated cytokine levels (IFN-γ/IL-2R/IL-18/IL-16/IL-10) and steroid responsiveness. The close temporal association of vaccination and diagnosis of CRS in this case suggests that CRS was a vaccine-related adverse event; with anti-PD1 blockade as a potential contributor. Overall, further prospective pharmacovigillence data are needed in patients with cancer, but the benefit-risk profile remains strongly in favor of COVID-19 vaccination in this population.

Statins as Potential Chemoprevention or Therapeutic Agents in Cancer: a Model for Evaluating Repurposed Drugs.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Repurposing established medicines for a new therapeutic indication potentially has important global and societal impact. The high costs and slow pace of new drug development have increased interest in more cost-effective repurposed drugs, particularly in the cancer arena. The conventional drug development pathway and evidence framework are not designed for drug repurposing and there is currently no consensus on establishing the evidence base before embarking on a large, resource intensive, potential practice changing phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT). Numerous observational studies have suggested a potential role for statins as a repurposed drug for cancer chemoprevention and therapy, and we review the strength of the cumulative evidence here. RECENT FINDINGS: In the setting of cancer, a potential repurposed drug, like statins, typically goes through a cyclical history, with initial use for several years in another disease setting, prior to epidemiological research identifying a possible chemo-protective effect. However, further information is required, including review of RCT data in the initial disease setting with exploration of cancer outcomes. Additionally, more contemporary methods should be considered, such as Mendelian randomization and pharmaco-epidemiological research with "target" trial design emulation using electronic health records. Pre-clinical and traditional observational data potentially support the role of statins in the treatment of cancer; however, randomised trial evidence is not supportive. Evaluation of contemporary methods provides little added support for the use of statin therapy in cancer. We provide complementary evidence of alternative study designs to enable a robust critical appraisal from a number of sources of the go/no-go decision for a prospective phase III RCT of statins in the treatment of cancer.

Functional antibody and T cell immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection, including by variants of concern, in patients with cancer: the CAPTURE study.

Patients with cancer have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Here we present the prospective CAPTURE study, integrating longitudinal immune profiling with clinical annotation. Of 357 patients with cancer, 118 were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 94 were symptomatic and 2 died of COVID-19. In this cohort, 83% patients had S1-reactive antibodies and 82% had neutralizing antibodies against wild type SARS-CoV-2, whereas neutralizing antibody titers against the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants were substantially reduced. S1-reactive antibody levels decreased in 13% of patients, whereas neutralizing antibody titers remained stable for up to 329 days. Patients also had detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells and CD4+ responses correlating with S1-reactive antibody levels, although patients with hematological malignancies had impaired immune responses that were disease and treatment specific, but presented compensatory cellular responses, further supported by clinical recovery in all but one patient. Overall, these findings advance the understanding of the nature and duration of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

Adaptive immunity and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern following vaccination in patients with cancer: the CAPTURE study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antiviral response in a pan-tumor immune monitoring (CAPTURE) ( NCT03226886 ) is a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 immunity in patients with cancer. Here we evaluated 585 patients following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines, administered 12 weeks apart. Seroconversion rates after two doses were 85% and 59% in patients with solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. A lower proportion of patients had detectable titers of neutralizing antibodies (NAbT) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC) versus wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2. Patients with hematological malignancies were more likely to have undetectable NAbT and had lower median NAbT than those with solid cancers against both SARS-CoV-2 WT and VOC. By comparison with individuals without cancer, patients with hematological, but not solid, malignancies had reduced neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses. Seroconversion showed poor concordance with NAbT against VOC. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection boosted the NAb response including against VOC, and anti-CD20 treatment was associated with undetectable NAbT. Vaccine-induced T cell responses were detected in 80% of patients and were comparable between vaccines or cancer types. Our results have implications for the management of patients with cancer during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Multimodal Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) Improves Outcomes-The University College London Hospital (UCLH) Experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite notable advances in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over the last two decades, treatment intent in the vast majority of patients remains palliative due to technically unresectable disease, extensive disease, or co-morbidities precluding major surgery. Up to 30% of individuals with mCRC are considered potentially suitable for primary or metastasis-directed multimodal therapy, including surgical resection, ablative techniques, or stereotactic radiotherapy (RT), with the aim of improving survival outcomes. We reviewed the potential benefits of multimodal therapy on the survival of patients with mCRC treated at the UCLH. METHODS: Clinical data on baseline characteristics, multimodal treatments, and survival outcomes were retrospectively collected from all patients with mCRC receiving systemic chemotherapy between January 2013 and April 2017. Primary outcome was the impact of multimodal therapy on overall survival, compared to systemic therapy alone, and the effect of different types of multimodal therapy on survival outcome, and was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier approach. All analyses were adjusted for age, gender, and side of primary tumour. RESULTS: One-hundred and twenty-five patients with mCRC were treated during the study period (median age: 62 years (range 19-89). The liver was the most frequent metastatic site (78%; 97/125). A total of 52% (65/125) had ≥2 lines of systemic chemotherapy. Of the 125 patients having systemic chemotherapy, 74 (59%) underwent multimodal treatment to the primary tumour or metastasis. Median overall survival (OS) was 25.7 months [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 21.5-29.0], and 3-year survival, 26%. Univariate analysis demonstrated that patients who had additional procedures (surgery/ablation/RT) were significantly less likely to die (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.18, 95% CI 0.12-0.29, p < 0.0001) compared to those receiving systemic chemotherapy alone. Increasing number of multimodal procedures was associated with an incremental increase in survival-with median OS 28.4 m, 35.7 m, and 64.8 m, respectively, for 1, 2, or ≥3 procedures (log-rank p < 0.0001). After exclusion of those who received systemic chemotherapy only (n = 51), metastatic resections were associated with improved survival (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20-0.63, p < 0.0001), confirmed in multivariate analysis. Multiple single-organ procedures did not improve survival. CONCLUSION: Multimodal therapy for metastatic bowel cancer is associated with significant survival benefit. Resection/radical RT of the primary and resection of metastatic disease should be considered to improve survival outcomes following multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion and individual assessment of fitness.

COVID-19 in cancer patients on systemic anti-cancer therapies: outcomes from the CAPITOL (COVID-19 Cancer PatIenT Outcomes in North London) cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are hypothesised to be at increased risk of contracting COVID-19, leading to changes in treatment pathways in those treated with systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACT). This study investigated the outcomes of patients receiving SACT to assess whether they were at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 or having more severe outcomes. METHODS: Data was collected from all patients receiving SACT in two cancer centres as part of CAPITOL (COVID-19 Cancer PatIenT Outcomes in North London). The primary outcome was the effect of clinical characteristics on the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection in patients on SACT. We used univariable and multivariable models to analyse outcomes, adjusting for age, gender and comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 2871 patients receiving SACT from 2 March to 31 May 2020 were analysed; 68 (2.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Cancer patients receiving SACT were more likely to die if they contracted COVID-19 than those who did not [adjusted (adj.) odds ratio (OR) 9.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.73-16.9]. Receiving chemotherapy increased the risk of developing COVID-19 (adj. OR 2.99; 95% CI = 1.72-5.21), with high dose chemotherapy significantly increasing risk (adj. OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.35-6.48), as did the presence of comorbidities (adj. OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.19-4.38), and having a respiratory or intrathoracic neoplasm (adj. OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.04-4.36). Receiving targeted treatment had a protective effect (adj. OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.30-0.95). Treatment intent (curative versus palliative), hormonal- or immunotherapy and solid versus haematological cancers had no significant effect on risk. CONCLUSION: Patients on SACT are more likely to die if they contract COVID-19. Those on chemotherapy, particularly high dose chemotherapy, are more likely to contract COVID-19, while targeted treatment appears to be protective.

The role of aspirin in the prevention of ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancers.

Drug repurposing is the application of an existing licenced drug for a new indication and potentially provides a faster and cheaper approach to developing new anti-cancer agents. Gynaecological cancers contribute significantly to the global cancer burden, highlighting the need for low cost, widely accessible therapies. A large body of evidence supports the role of aspirin as an anti-cancer agent, and a number of randomized trials are currently underway aiming to assess the potential benefit of aspirin in the treatment of cancer. This review summarizes the evidence underpinning aspirin use for the prevention of the development and recurrence of gynaecological cancers (ovarian, endometrial and cervical) and potential mechanisms of action.

Outcomes of the 2019 novel coronavirus in patients with or without a history of cancer: a multi-centre North London experience.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the outcomes of COVID-19-positive disease in patients with a history of cancer to those without. METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical data and outcomes of COVID-19 positive cancer patients treated consecutively in five North London hospitals (cohort A). Outcomes recorded included time interval between most recent anti-cancer treatment and admission, severe outcome [a composite endpoint of intensive care unit (ITU) admission, ventilation and/or death] and mortality. Outcomes were compared with consecutively admitted COVID-19 positive patients, without a history of cancer (cohort B), treated at the primary centre during the same time period (1 March-30 April 2020). Patients were matched for age, gender and comorbidity. RESULTS: The median age in both cohorts was 74 years, with 67% male, and comprised of 30 patients with cancer, and 90 without (1:3 ratio). For cohort B, 579 patients without a history of cancer and consecutively admitted were screened from the primary London hospital, 105 were COVID-19 positive and 90 were matched and included. Excluding cancer, both cohorts had a median of two comorbidities. The odds ratio (OR) for mortality, comparing patients with cancer to those without, was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-2.5], and severe outcome (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.4-2.0) suggesting no increased risk of death or a severe outcome in patients with cancer. Cancer patients who received systemic treatment within 28 days had an OR for mortality of 4.05 (95% CI 0.68-23.95), p = 0.12. On presentation anaemia, hypokalaemia, hypoalbuminaemia and hypoproteinaemia were identified predominantly in cohort A. Median duration of admission was 8 days for cancer patients and 7 days for non-cancer. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of cancer does not appear to increase the risk of death or a severe outcome in COVID-19 patients with cancer compared with those without cancer. If a second spike of virus strikes, rational decision making is required to ensure optimal cancer care.