Prevalence and impact of COVID-19 sequelae on treatment and survival of patients with cancer who recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection: evidence from the OnCovid retrospective, multicentre registry study.

BACKGROUND: The medium-term and long-term impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is not yet known. In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and their impact on the survival of patients with cancer. We also aimed to describe patterns of resumption and modifications of systemic anti-cancer therapy following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: OnCovid is an active European registry study enrolling consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with a history of solid or haematological malignancy and who had a diagnosis of RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this retrospective study, patients were enrolled from 35 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Patients who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, and entered into the registry at the point of data lock (March 1, 2021), were eligible for analysis. The present analysis was focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent clinical reassessment at each participating institution. We documented prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and described factors associated with their development and their association with post-COVID-19 survival, which was defined as the interval from post-COVID-19 reassessment to the patients' death or last follow-up. We also evaluated resumption of systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients treated within 4 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis. The OnCovid study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. FINDINGS: 2795 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, were entered into the study by the time of the data lock on March 1, 2021. After the exclusion of ineligible patients, the final study population consisted of 2634 patients. 1557 COVID-19 survivors underwent a formal clinical reassessment after a median of 22·1 months (IQR 8·4-57·8) from cancer diagnosis and 44 days (28-329) from COVID-19 diagnosis. 234 (15·0%) patients reported COVID-19 sequelae, including respiratory symptoms (116 [49·6%]) and residual fatigue (96 [41·0%]). Sequelae were more common in men (vs women; p=0·041), patients aged 65 years or older (vs other age groups; p=0·048), patients with two or more comorbidities (vs one or none; p=0·0006), and patients with a history of smoking (vs no smoking history; p=0·0004). Sequelae were associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 (p<0·0001), complicated COVID-19 (p<0·0001), and COVID-19 therapy (p=0·0002). With a median post-COVID-19 follow-up of 128 days (95% CI 113-148), COVID-19 sequelae were associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·80 [95% CI 1·18-2·75]) after adjusting for time to post-COVID-19 reassessment, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumour characteristics, anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 severity. Among 466 patients on systemic anti-cancer therapy, 70 (15·0%) permanently discontinued therapy, and 178 (38·2%) resumed treatment with a dose or regimen adjustment. Permanent treatment discontinuations were independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 3·53 [95% CI 1·45-8·59]), but dose or regimen adjustments were not (0·84 [0·35-2·02]). INTERPRETATION: Sequelae post-COVID-19 affect up to 15% of patients with cancer and adversely affect survival and oncological outcomes after recovery. Adjustments to systemic anti-cancer therapy can be safely pursued in treatment-eligible patients. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.

First-line FOLFIRI and bevacizumab in patients with advanced colorectal cancer prospectively stratified according to serum LDH: final results of the GISCAD (Italian Group for the Study of Digestive Tract Cancers) CENTRAL (ColorEctalavastiNTRiAlLdh) trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous findings suggested that bevacizumab might be able to improve response rate (RR) in colorectal cancer patients with high lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) basal levels. METHODS: We conducted a phase II trial to prospectively ascertain whether bevacizumab in combination with FOLFIRI could have an improved clinical activity in patients with high LDH serum levels. Primary end point of the study was RR; secondary end points were median overall survival and median progression-free survival (mPFS). RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were enrolled. No difference in terms of ORR (39% vs 31% for low vs high LDH level stratum, P=0.78) and mPFS (14.16 vs 10.29 months, HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.51-2.24, P=0.83) between the strata was observed, whereas overall survival (OS) was significantly longer for patients with low LDH (24.85 vs 15.14 months, HR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.14-14.61, P=0.0004). In a not-pre-planned exploratory analysis using different cut-off ranges for LDH, we observed RR up to 70%, with no improvement in progression-free survival or OS. CONCLUSIONS: The CENTRAL trial failed to demonstrate that high LDH levels were related to a significantly improved RR in patients receiving first-line FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. The LDH serum levels should then no further be investigated as a predictive factor in this setting.

Sirolimus in Advanced Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma: A Retrospective Case-Series Analysis from the Italian Rare Cancer Network Database.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to report on sirolimus activity in a series of patients with hemangioendothelioma (HE) treated at the National Cancer Institute, Milan (Istituto Nazionale Tumori; INT) and within the Italian Rare Cancer Network ("Rete Tumori Rari"; RTR). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with advanced and progressing epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) treated with sirolimus at the INT and/or within the RTR. Pathologic review and molecular analysis for WWTR1 rearrangement were performed. Sirolimus was administered until unacceptable toxicity or progression, with the dose being adjusted to reach target plasma levels of 15-20 ng/dL. Responses were assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. RESULTS: Since 2005, 18 patients (17 EHE, 1 retiform HE; 1 locally advanced, 17 metastatic; WWTR1 rearrangement: 16) have been identified, with 17/18 patients being evaluable for response. Mean sirolimus daily dose was 4.5 mg. According to RECIST, best responses in EHE were 1 partial response (PR), 12 stable disease (SD), and 3 progressive disease (PD); the patient with retiform HE also achieved a PR, lasting >2 years. Four patients with a reversed interval progression on interruption were observed. Median overall survival was 16 months, and median progression-free survival was 12 months (range 1-45), with four patients progression-free at 24 months. The clinical benefit (complete response [CR] + PR + SD >6 months) was 56 %. Seven patients receiving sirolimus experienced an increase in pleural/peritoneal effusion plus worsening of tumor-related symptoms; six of these patients died within 1-8 months from evidence of effusion progression, while a RECIST PD was assessed in two of seven patients. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical benefit was achieved in 56 % of patients receiving sirolimus, which lasted >24 months in four patients. Most patients with pleural effusion did not benefit from sirolimus and had a poor outcome.

Adverse events during first-line treatments for mCRC: The Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analysis of three randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the assessment of safety is traditionally focused on the overall rate of high-grade and serious adverse events (AEs). A new approach to AEs evaluation, taking into account chronic low-grade AEs, single patient's perspective, and time-related information, such as ToxT analysis, should be considered especially for less intense but potentially long-lasting treatments, such as maintenance strategies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We applied ToxT (Toxicity over Time) evaluation to a large cohort of mCRC patients enroled in randomised TRIBE, TRIBE2, and VALENTINO studies, in order to longitudinally describe AEs throughout the whole treatment duration and to compare AEs evolution over cycles between induction and maintenance strategies, providing numerical and graphical results overall and per single patient. After 4-6 months of combination therapy, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) + bevacizumab or panitumumab was recommended in all studies except for the 50% of patients in the VALENTINO trial who received panitumumab alone. RESULTS: Out of 1400 patients included, 42% received FOLFOXIRI (5-FU/LV, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan)/bevacizumab, 18% FOLFIRI/bevacizumab, 24% FOLFOX/bevacizumab, 16% FOLFOX/panitumumab. Mean grade of general and haematological AEs was higher in the first cycles, then progressively decreasing after the end of induction (p < 0.001), and always remaining at the highest levels with FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab (p < 0.001). Neurotoxicity became more frequent over the cycles with late high-grade episodes (p < 0.001), while the incidence but not the grade of hand-and-foot syndrome gradually increased (p = 0.91). Anti-VEGF-related AEs were more severe in the first cycles, then setting over at low levels (p = 0.03), while anti-EGFR-related AEs still affected patients during maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Most of chemotherapy-related AEs (except for HFS and neuropathy) reach the highest level in the first cycles, then decrease, probably due to their active clinical management. Transition to maintenance allows relief from most AEs, especially with bevacizumab-based regimens, while anti-EGFR-related AEs may persist.

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.

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.

Time-Dependent COVID-19 Mortality in Patients With Cancer: An Updated Analysis of the OnCovid Registry.

Importance: Whether the severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with cancer have improved in terms of disease management and capacity is yet to be defined. Objective: To test whether severity and mortality from COVID-19 among patients with cancer have improved during the course of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: OnCovid is a European registry that collects data on consecutive patients with solid or hematologic cancer and COVID-19. This multicenter case series study included real-world data from 35 institutions across 6 countries (UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany). This update included patients diagnosed between February 27, 2020, and February, 14, 2021. Inclusion criteria were confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a history of solid or hematologic cancer. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Deaths were differentiated at 14 days and 3 months as the 2 landmark end points. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared by stratifying patients across 5 phases (February to March 2020, April to June 2020, July to September 2020, October to December 2020, and January to February 2021) and across 2 major outbreaks (February to June 2020 and July 2020 to February 2021). Results: At data cutoff, 2795 consecutive patients were included, with 2634 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age, 68 [18-77] years ; 52.8% men). Eligible patients demonstrated significant time-dependent improvement in 14-day case-fatality rate (CFR) with estimates of 29.8% (95% CI, 0.26-0.33) for February to March 2020; 20.3% (95% CI, 0.17-0.23) for April to June 2020; 12.5% (95% CI, 0.06-22.90) for July to September 2020; 17.2% (95% CI, 0.15-0.21) for October to December 2020; and 14.5% (95% CI, 0.09-0.21) for January to February 2021 (all P < .001) across the predefined phases. Compared with the second major outbreak, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak were more likely to be 65 years or older (974 of 1626 [60.3%] vs 564 of 1008 [56.1%]; P = .03), have at least 2 comorbidities (793 of 1626 [48.8%] vs 427 of 1008 [42.4%]; P = .001), and have advanced tumors (708 of 1626 [46.4%] vs 536 of 1008 [56.1%]; P < .001). Complications of COVID-19 were more likely to be seen (738 of 1626 [45.4%] vs 342 of 1008 [33.9%]; P < .001) and require hospitalization (969 of 1626 [59.8%] vs 418 of 1008 [42.1%]; P < .001) and anti-COVID-19 therapy (1004 of 1626 [61.7%] vs 501 of 1008 [49.7%]; P < .001) during the first major outbreak. The 14-day CFRs for the first and second major outbreaks were 25.6% (95% CI, 0.23-0.28) vs 16.2% (95% CI, 0.13-0.19; P < .001), respectively. After adjusting for country, sex, age, comorbidities, tumor stage and status, anti-COVID-19 and anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 complications, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak had an increased risk of death at 14 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.32) and 3 months (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51) compared with those diagnosed in the second outbreak. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this registry-based study suggest that mortality in patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 has improved in Europe; this improvement may be associated with earlier diagnosis, improved management, and dynamic changes in community transmission over time.

New drugs for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents one of the most frequent malignancies in terms of incidence and mortality, thus representing the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. In the last decade, few drugs have enriched the treatment landscape of metastatic CRC and have significantly affected prognosis. Unlike other neoplasms, metastatic CRC patients who have exhausted treatment options often still maintain a good performance status. There are many challenges to increasing potential treatment options, notably a better understanding of disease biology and the mechanisms of resistance underlying cancer treatment failure. The development of new drugs for metastatic CRC certainly represents one of the most important challenges in medical oncology. This article discusses the main limitations in the development of new drugs and potential future scenarios. In particular, we addressed three questions: (1) The main limitations of targeted therapy in the treatment of metastatic CRC (mCRC); (2) New target armamentarium that could escape primary and secondary resistance and lead to more personalized mCRC therapy; and (3) Future directions.

Gynecological Sarcomas: Molecular Characteristics, Behavior, and Histology-Driven Therapy.

Gynecological sarcomas represent 3% to 4% of all gynecological malignancies and 13% of all sarcomas. The uterus is the most frequent primary site (83%); less frequently sarcomas are diagnosed originating from the ovary (8%), vulva and vagina (5%), and other gynecologic organs (2%). As the classification of gynecologic sarcomas continues to diversify, so does the management. Accurate histopathologic diagnosis, utilizing appropriate ancillary immunohistochemical and molecular analysis, could lead to a more personalized approach. However, there are subtypes that require further definition, with regard to putative predictive markers and optimal management. The aim of this review is to highlight the importance of accurate diagnosis and classification of gynecologic sarcoma subtypes by the surgical pathologist in order to provide more tailored systemic treatment, and to highlight the increasing importance of close collaboration between the pathologist and the oncologist.

The Role of p53 Expression in Patients with RAS/BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Irinotecan and Cetuximab as Later Line Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and clinical data indicate that p53 expression might modulate the activity of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), influencing response/resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. However, the association between p53 status and clinical outcome has not been clarified yet. OBJECTIVE: In our study, we evaluated the role of p53 expression in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving irinotecan/cetuximab in an exploratory and a validation cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: p53 expression was analysed in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC receiving second-line or third-line irinotecan/cetuximab. Survival distribution was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method, while the log-rank test was used for survival comparison. RESULTS: Among 120 patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC included in our analysis, 52 (59%) and 19 (59%) patients showed p53 overexpression in the exploratory and validation cohort, respectively. In the exploratory cohort, low p53 expression was correlated with better median progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.39; p < 0.0001), median overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.23; p < 0.0001) and response rate (p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed by data of the validation cohort where we observed better median progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.48; p = 0.0399), median overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.26; p = 0.0027) and response rate (p =0.0007) in patients with p53 normal expression mCRC. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, p53 overexpression was associated with anti-EGFR treatment resistance in patients with RAS/BRAF WT mCRC, as confirmed in a validation cohort. Larger studies are needed to validate the role of p53 and investigate EGFR cross-talk in these patients.

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.

Determinants of enhanced vulnerability to coronavirus disease 2019 in UK patients with cancer: a European study.

BACKGROUND: Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100,000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of death in UK patients with cancer versus those in continental EU. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of patients with cancer consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from 27th February to 10th September 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline including oncological and COVID-19-specific therapy across UK and EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk of adverse outcomes in multivariable Cox regression models. FINDINGS: Compared with EU (n = 924), UK patients (n = 468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%; p < 0.0001; HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often men, were of older age and have more comorbidities than EU counterparts (p < 0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK than in EU patients (p < 0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK patients with cancer were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, antivirals and interleukin-6 antagonists (p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, independent of the patient's age, gender, tumour stage and status; number of comorbidities; COVID-19 severity and receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy after COVID-19 were similar in the UK and EU cohorts. INTERPRETATION: UK patients with cancer have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anticancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK patients with cancer highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted.

Systemic pro-inflammatory response identifies patients with cancer with adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection: the OnCovid Inflammatory Score.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are particularly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The systemic inflammatory response is a pathogenic mechanism shared by cancer progression and COVID-19. We investigated systemic inflammation as a driver of severity and mortality from COVID-19, evaluating the prognostic role of commonly used inflammatory indices in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer accrued to the OnCovid study. METHODS: In a multicenter cohort of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer in Europe, we evaluated dynamic changes in neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR); platelet:lymphocyte ratio (PLR); Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), renamed the OnCovid Inflammatory Score (OIS); modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS); and Prognostic Index (PI) in relation to oncological and COVID-19 infection features, testing their prognostic potential in independent training (n=529) and validation (n=542) sets. RESULTS: We evaluated 1071 eligible patients, of which 625 (58.3%) were men, and 420 were patients with malignancy in advanced stage (39.2%), most commonly genitourinary (n=216, 20.2%). 844 (78.8%) had ≥1 comorbidity and 754 (70.4%) had ≥1 COVID-19 complication. NLR, OIS, and mGPS worsened at COVID-19 diagnosis compared with pre-COVID-19 measurement (p<0.01), recovering in survivors to pre-COVID-19 levels. Patients in poorer risk categories for each index except the PLR exhibited higher mortality rates (p<0.001) and shorter median overall survival in the training and validation sets (p<0.01). Multivariable analyses revealed the OIS to be most independently predictive of survival (validation set HR 2.48, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.20, p=0.001; adjusted concordance index score 0.611). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic inflammation is a validated prognostic domain in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and can be used as a bedside predictor of adverse outcome. Lymphocytopenia and hypoalbuminemia as computed by the OIS are independently predictive of severe COVID-19, supporting their use for risk stratification. Reversal of the COVID-19-induced proinflammatory state is a putative therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer.

Cutaneous Adnexal Carcinoma with Apocrine Differentiation: A Challenging Diagnosis and Personalized Treatment with mTOR Inhibitor in a Very Rare Disease.

Cutaneous adnexal carcinoma with apocrine differentiation is a rare neoplasm arising from cutaneous adnexa, especially of the head and neck and trunk region. Because of its rarity, the diagnosis is challenging and often impossible to distinguish from metastatic cutaneous adenocarcinoma of the breast. The standard of care remains surgery for resectable disease. To date, univocal guidelines for metastatic disease are lacking, particularly regarding systemic therapy. We report a clinical case of a patient diagnosed with cutaneous adnexal adenocarcinoma with apocrine differentiation of the left axilla with lymph node and bone metastasis. We started with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy regimen, with good response. After progression, we performed a next-generation sequencing analysis (by the Foundation One CDx test) to identify genomic alteration in cancer-related genes. We found PIK3CA and KRAS mutations. Due to this result, the patient started a second-line treatment with a personalized therapy including an mTOR inhibitor, everolimus, and, to date, he is still under treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first case of a patient responding both to chemotherapy and to a personalized treatment with an mTOR inhibitor. It is important to support the value of genomic screening in this rare neoplasm.

From CENTRAL to SENTRAL (SErum aNgiogenesis cenTRAL): Circulating Predictive Biomarkers to Anti-VEGFR Therapy.

BACKGROUND: In the last decade, a series of analyses failed to identify predictive biomarkers of resistance/susceptibility for anti-angiogenic drugs in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted an exploratory preplanned analysis of serum pro-angiogenic factors (SErum aNgiogenesis-cenTRAL) in 72 mCRC patients enrolled in the phase II CENTRAL (ColorEctalavastiNTRiAlLdh) trial, with the aim to identify potential predictive factors for sensitivity/resistance to first line folinic acid-fluorouracil-irinotecan regimen (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab. METHODS: First-line FOLFIRI/bevacizumab patients were prospectively assessed for the following circulating pro-angiogenic factors, evaluated with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay)-based technique at baseline and at every cycle: Vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), stromal derived factor-1 (SDF-1), placental derived growth factor (PlGF), fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2), monocyte chemotactic protein-3 (MCP-3), interleukin-8 (IL-8). RESULTS: Changes in circulating FGF-2 levels among different blood samples seemed to correlate with clinical outcome. Patients who experienced an increase in FGF-2 levels at the second cycle of chemotherapy compared to baseline, had a median Progression Free Survival (mPFS) of 12.85 vs. 7.57 months (Hazard Ratio-HR: 0.73, 95% Confidence Interval-CI: 0.43-1.27, p = 0.23). Similar results were seen when comparing FGF-2 concentrations between baseline and eight-week time point (mPFS 12.98 vs. 8.00 months, HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.46-1.33, p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Our pre-planned, prospective analysis suggests that circulating FGF-2 levels' early increase could be used as a marker to identify patients who are more likely to gain benefit from FOLFIRI/bevacizumab first-line therapy.

Clinical portrait of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in European cancer patients.

The SARS-Cov-2 pandemic significantly impacted on oncology practice across the globe. There is uncertainty as to the contribution of patients' demographics and oncological features on severity and mortality from Covid-19 and little guidance as to the role of anti-cancer and anti-Covid-19 therapy in this population. In a multi-center study of 890 cancer patients with confirmed Covid-19 we demonstrated a worsening gradient of mortality from breast cancer to haematological malignancies and showed that male gender, older age, and number of co-morbidities identifies a subset of patients with significantly worse mortality rates from Covid-19. Provision of chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy did not worsen mortality. Exposure to antimalarials was associated with improved mortality rates independent of baseline prognostic factors. This study highlights the clinical utility of demographic factors for individualized risk-stratification of patients and support further research into emerging anti-Covid-19 therapeutics in SARS-Cov-2 infected cancer patients.

Timing of Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Survival in Colorectal, Gastric, and Pancreatic Cancer. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

(1) Background: The optimal timing of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in gastrointestinal malignancies is still a matter of debate. For colorectal cancer, it is recommended to start post-operative treatment within eight weeks. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical effects of starting adjuvant CT within or after 6-8 weeks post-surgery in colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer. (2) Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched in December 2018. Publications comparing the outcomes of patients treated with adjuvant CT administered before (early) or after (delayed) 6-8 weeks post-surgery for colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer were identified. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). (3) Results: Out of 8752 publications identified, 34 comparative studies assessing a total of 141,853 patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant increased risk of death with delayed CT (>6-8 weeks post-surgery) in colorectal cancer (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-1.33; p <0.001). Similarly, for gastric cancer, delaying adjuvant CT was associated with inferior overall survival (HR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.04-1.38; p = 0.01). Conversely, the benefit of earlier CT was not evident in pancreatic cancer (HR = 1, 95% CI 1-1.01; p = 0.37). Conclusions: Starting adjuvant CT within 6-8 weeks post-surgery is associated with a significant survival benefit for colorectal and gastric cancer, but not for pancreatic cancer.

Yoga Protocol for Cancer Patients: A Systematic Exploration of Psychophysiological Benefits.

BACKGROUND: Several studies report that practicing Yoga may lead to numerous psychophysiological benefits in patients undergoing treatment for cancer. Moreover, it may result in an effective alternative for coping with sleep disturbances, anxiety, depression and fatigue symptoms. A study based on the "Yoga in Oncology" project of the Foundation Poliambulanza was carried out, and it was designed to explore the benefits of Yoga, therefore corroborating Yoga as a therapeutic activity that can have a beneficial impact on patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Seventy patients were recruited, of whom 20% were males and 80% were females 18 years of age and older. All patients were being treated at the oncology department for gastrointestinal, mammary or genital carcinoma, and the disease was metastatic in 80% of patients. Data were collected between April 2013 and May 2017. The protocol consisted of a weekly 90-minute Yoga lesson for 8 consecutive weeks, and the data collection was carried out in 2 phases: (T0) preprotocol assessment and (T1) postprotocol assessment. Psychophysiological assessment was carried out with the following scales: the (BFI) Brief Fatigue Inventory, (HADS) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and (PSQI) Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. RESULTS: Data analysis showed a significant difference between the (T0) and (T1) HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) scores. The constructs of this scale consist of psychological variables for the assessment of anxiety and depression. In contrast, scores from the (BFI) Brief Fatigue Inventory and (PSQI) Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index did not show significant differences between (T0) and (T1): such scales are relative to psychophysiological variables for an assessment of the perception of fatigue and quality of sleep. CONCLUSION: It is noteworthy that the data, once analyzed, showed a significant difference between preprotocol and postprotocol levels of anxiety and depression but not for the perception of fatigue or the quality of sleep. In accordance with the scientific literature, data from this study highlight that practicing Yoga may promote changes in the levels of perceived anxiety and depression in patients undergoing treatment for cancer, thus positively affecting their (QoL). It is clear that the difference in significance between the psychological and physiological variables considered here and the statistical significance found only in levels of anxiety and depression encourage further studies to account for the nature of fatigue and sleep disturbances and how to address these symptoms in oncological patients. Moreover, other points of interest for future clinical research regard the evaluation of the reason for the possible denial to participate to this kind of study, as well as the social-cultural differences in patients' behavior.

Clear Cell Sarcoma-like Tumor of the Gastrointestinal Tract: Clinical Outcome and Pathologic Features of a Molecularly Characterized Tertiary Center Case Series.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Clear cell sarcoma-like tumor of the gastrointestinal tract (CCSLTGT) is a very rare and relatively recently characterized mesenchymal neoplasm arising within the wall of the small bowel, stomach, or large bowel, predominantly in adolescents and young adults. Only few anecdotal reports or small series have been published and a consensus on treatment has not been formulated. Complete resection remains the only curative option for localized disease, but despite optimal surgery, CCSLTGT typically shows highly aggressive behavior with a high rate of local recurrence, metastases, and death from disease. The hallmark of CCSLTGT is the presence of EWSR1-CREB1 or EWSR1-ATF1 gene fusions, detectable with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The aim of this study was to assess all referred cases of CCSLTGT, and document the pathological features, treatment and outcome of these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all cases of histologically- and molecularly-confirmed CCSLTGT with EWSR1-CREB1 or EWSR1-ATF1 fusions at our tertiary sarcoma center, between 2009 and 2016. RESULTS: We assessed six patients diagnosed with CCSLTGT. In a median follow-up of 8 months, all patients received surgery, and additionally one patient was treated with chemotherapy and had progressive disease. Five of six patients experienced recurrence or progression of disease and 4 of 6 patients died of disease. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that CCSLTGT is a very rare aggressive sarcoma subtype with a very poor outcome. Greater international collaboration is required to obtain a better understanding of this disease.

Impact of a Psycho-Educational Team in early Breast Cancer Patients' Coping Strategies: The Venere Project.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: The main purpose of our psycho-educational groups was to help women with breast cancer, learn how to cope with the physical, emotional, and lifestyle changes associated with cancer as well as with medical treatments that can be painful and traumatic. With this study, we wanted to detect the effects that group action had on the women who participated in it. METHODS: We studied a total of 97 patients who participated in 13 psycho-education groups. The whole sample was female patients who had breast cancer with no recurrence or metastases. RESULTS: All patients were evaluated with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Body Image Scale (BIS). We found no significant effect on anxiety and body image for the brief psycho- educational group for women with breast cancer in this study. It is possible to highlight a statistical difference and hence an improvement between the results of the HADS depression test at T0 (first evaluation at the first meeting) and T1 (retest in the final meeting). CONCLUSION: The tests did not show a significant effect on anxiety and body image perception, but the patients reported that the psycho-educational group was an important intervention for their life. Outcome measurement is more complex in psychosocial research because many variables come into play and each phase of treatment is characterized by different types of problems for the patient: physical, relational and psychological aspects are involved.