Drug development for major chronic health conditions-aligning with growing public health needs: Proceedings from a multistakeholder think tank.

The global pharmaceutical industry portfolio is skewed towards cancer and rare diseases due to more predictable development pathways and financial incentives. In contrast, drug development for major chronic health conditions that are responsible for a large part of mortality and disability worldwide is stalled. To examine the processes of novel drug development for common chronic health conditions, a multistakeholder Think Tank meeting, including thought leaders from academia, clinical practice, non-profit healthcare organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), payors as well as investors, was convened in July 2022. Herein, we summarize the proceedings of this meeting, including an overview of the current state of drug development for chronic health conditions and key barriers that were identified. Six major action items were formulated to accelerate drug development for chronic diseases, with a focus on improving the efficiency of clinical trials and rapid implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

Risk Model Development and Validation in Clinical Oncology: Lessons Learned.

Reliable risk models can greatly facilitate patient-centered inferences and decisions. Herein we summarize key considerations related to risk modeling in clinical oncology. Often overlooked challenges include data quality, missing data, effective sample size estimation, and selecting the variables to be included in the risk model. The stability and quality of the model should be carefully interrogated with particular emphasis on rigorous internal validation.

Grade 4 Neutropenia Frequency as a Binary Risk Predictor for Adverse Clinical Consequences of Chemotherapy­Induced Neutropenia: A Meta-analysis.

Neutropenia is the major toxicity of myelosuppressive cancer chemotherapy. Grade 4 neutropenia (Gr4N) is a measure of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) severity. We conducted a meta-analysis of CIN data. Gr4N incidence was significantly correlated with febrile neutropenia (FN), days of severe neutropenia (DSN), and nadir absolute neutrophil count (ANC), which are all important predictors of morbidity. With a Gr4N threshold of 65%, both FN and DSN were below levels for low risk of adverse CIN outcomes. Gr4N was highly predictive for adverse CIN outcomes, and a 65% threshold demarcated low vs. high risk for FN and other adverse CIN outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 in patients on active melanoma therapy and with history of melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors. RESULTS: Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors.

Real-World Impact of Prophylactic Growth Factor Use on Timing of Febrile Neutropenia and Infection After High-Risk Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic growth-factor therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with breast cancer initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy. However, little is known about the protective benefit early in the chemotherapy cycle. METHODS: To assess the relationship between G-CSF prophylaxis and incidence of FN/infection in week 1 versus beyond week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle, a retrospective study was conducted using Medicare claims from 2005 through 2020 among patients with breast cancer initiating high-risk chemotherapy. Two cohorts were compared based on G-CSF prophylaxis within 3 days following chemotherapy initiation. The primary outcome was FN or infection, defined as hospitalization with neutropenia, fever, or infection diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were a stricter definition of FN and infection-related hospitalization. Unadjusted and regression-adjusted proportions of patients experiencing each outcome during week 1 versus beyond week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle were compared. RESULTS: Of 78,810 patients meeting all inclusion criteria (>98% female; mean age, 69 years), 79% initiated TC (docetaxel/cyclophosphamide), 14% TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab), and 7% TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide). Among patients receiving G-CSF (74%), incidence of first-cycle FN/infection was lower compared with patients not receiving G-CSF (overall, 6% vs 13%; TAC, 12% vs 19%; TC, 6% vs 12%; TCH, 5% vs 15%). However, patients who received G-CSF were generally more likely to experience FN/infection in week 1 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.24 for all; 1.73 for TAC; 1.35 for TC; and 0.76 for TCH). Results were similar for strictly defined FN (overall aOR, 1.29 for week 1 and 0.12 for beyond week 1) and infection-related hospitalization (overall aOR, 1.33 for week 1 and 0.27 for beyond week 1). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the rates of chemotherapy-related FN and infection in week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle are similar for patients receiving and not receiving G-CSF, suggesting continued risk in week 1 despite prophylactic G-CSF.

American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The American Cancer Society Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline was developed to assist primary care clinicians and other health practitioners with the care of head and neck cancer survivors, including monitoring for recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of long-term and late effects, health promotion, and care coordination. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015, and a multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, dentistry, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, clinical psychology, speech-language pathology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, the patient perspective, and nursing was assembled. While the guideline is based on a systematic review of the current literature, most evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong recommendation. Therefore, recommendations should be viewed as consensus-based management strategies for assisting patients with physical and psychosocial effects of head and neck cancer and its treatment. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:203-239. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made.

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk. RESULTS: Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis in High-Risk Ambulatory Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory patients receiving systemic cancer therapy are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism. However, the benefit of thromboprophylaxis in these patients is uncertain. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial involving high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer (Khorana score of ≥2, on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of venous thromboembolism), we randomly assigned patients without deep-vein thrombosis at screening to receive rivaroxaban (at a dose of 10 mg) or placebo daily for up to 180 days, with screening every 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of objectively confirmed proximal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis in an upper limb or distal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, and death from venous thromboembolism and was assessed up to day 180. In a prespecified supportive analysis involving the same population, the same end point was assessed during the intervention period (first receipt of trial agent to last dose plus 2 days). The primary safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 1080 enrolled patients, 49 (4.5%) had thrombosis at screening and did not undergo randomization. Of the 841 patients who underwent randomization, the primary end point occurred in 25 of 420 patients (6.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 37 of 421 (8.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.09; P = 0.10) in the period up to day 180. In the prespecified intervention-period analysis, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (2.6%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 27 (6.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.80). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 patients (2.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (1.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer, treatment with rivaroxaban did not result in a significantly lower incidence of venous thromboembolism or death due to venous thromboembolism in the 180-day trial period. During the intervention period, rivaroxaban led to a substantially lower incidence of such events, with a low incidence of major bleeding. (Funded by Janssen and others; CASSINI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878.).

Webinar as an Informational Resource on Trastuzumab Biosimilars: Planning, Promotion, Execution, and Evaluation.

Despite the incorporation of trastuzumab biosimilars (to treat HER2-positive breast cancer) in clinical practice guidelines, gaps remain such as patient and clinician education. We hosted a webinar comprised of a panel of biosimilars experts, oncologists, pharmacist, infusion nurse, and a patient advocate. The outcomes of the webinar include audience responses to pre- and post-webinar questionnaires, educational benefits, real-time opportunities to ask questions, and a recording. Education needs to be tailored to the needs of both, patients and clinicians.

Multicenter Study of Antibody Seroprevalence against COVID-19 in Patients Presenting to Iranian Cancer Centers after One Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Patients with cancer are at significantly greater risk of COVID-19 and its complications than the general population. Since IgG antibodies remain detectable well after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, seroprevalence can be used to estimate the proportion of the cancer population previously infected and potentially immune to SARS-CoV-2. The current study is a multi-center, prospective observational study to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody in a cancer population referred for vaccination between April and June 2021. Of a total of 270 adult patients with cancer accrued, 16% reported a history of COVID-19 more than four weeks previously confirmed by PCR. At the same time, serologic positivity for SARSCoV2 IgG was found in 29% of patients prior to vaccination including nearly 20% of patients without a history of confirmed COVID-19. Seropositivity was significantly greater in females consistent with higher rates in patients with breast cancer and gynecologic cancers. A seroconversion rate of 79.5% was observed in cancer patients with a history of PCR confirmed COVID-19, less than observed in the general population. In multivariable analysis, gender and prior history of COVID-19 were both independently associated with seropositivity prior to vaccination. Follow-up is continuing of this cohort of patients with cancer following vaccination to assess antibody and clinical outcomes.

Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19 from a Specialized Cancer Care Emergency Room.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to identify discrete clinical characteristics associated with safe discharge from an emergency department/urgent care for patients with a history of cancer and concurrent COVID-19 infection during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and prior to widespread vaccination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 255 adult patients with a history of cancer who presented to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) urgent care center (UCC) from March 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020 with concurrent COVID-19 infection. We evaluated associations between patient characteristics and 30-day mortality from initial emergency department (ED) or urgent care center (UCC) visit and the absence of a severe event within 30 days. External validation was performed on a retrospective data from 29 patients followed at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center that presented to the local emergency department. A late cohort of 108 additional patients at MSKCC from June 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021 was utilized for further validation. RESULTS: In the MSKCC cohort, 30-day mortality and severe event rate was 15% and 32% respectively. Using stepwise regression analysis, elevated BUN and glucose, anemia, and tachypnea were selected as the main predictors of 30-day mortality. Conversely, normal albumin, BUN, calcium, and glucose, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio <3, lack of (severe) hypoxia, lack of bradycardia or tachypnea, and negative imaging were selected as the main predictors of an uneventful course as defined as a Lack Of a Severe Event within Thirty Days (LOSETD). Utilizing this information, we devised a tool to predict 30-day mortality and LOSETD which achieved an area under the operating curve (AUC) of 79% and 74% respectively. Similar estimates of AUC were obtained in an external validation cohort. A late cohort at MSKCC was consistent with the prior, albeit with a lower AUC. CONCLUSION: We identified easily obtainable variables that predict 30-day mortality and the absence of a severe event for patients with a history of cancer and concurrent COVID-19. This has been translated into a bedside tool that the clinician may utilize to assist disposition of this group of patients from the emergency department or urgent care setting.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Hematopoietic Growth Factors, Version 1.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide recommendations for the appropriate use of growth factors in the clinical management of febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT), and chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Management and prevention of these sequelae are an integral part of supportive care for many patients undergoing cancer treatment. The purpose of these guidelines is to operationalize the evaluation, prevention, and treatment of FN, CIT, and CIA in adult patients with nonmyeloid malignancies and to enable the patient and clinician to assess management options for FN, CIT, and CIA in the context of an individual patient's condition. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of the important recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors, with particular emphasis on the incorporation of a newly developed section on CIT.

Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.

BACKGROUND: Cancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions. METHODS: The order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems. RESULTS: The average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596 , registered April 5, 2016.

Mortality in hospitalized patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneous evidence exists on the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the clinical outcomes of patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases and the World Health Organization Novel Coronavirus website to identify studies that reported mortality and characteristics of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19. The primary study outcome was mortality, defined as all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality within 30 days of initial COVID-19 diagnosis. The pooled proportion of mortality was estimated using a random-effects model, and study-level moderators of heterogeneity were assessed through subgroup analysis and metaregression. RESULTS: Among 2922 patients from 13 primarily inpatient studies of individuals with COVID-19 and cancer, the pooled 30-day mortality rate was 30% (95% CI, 25%-35%). The overall pooled 30-day mortality rate among 624 patients from 5 studies that included a mixture of inpatient and outpatient populations was 15% (95% CI, 9%-22%). Among the hospitalized studies, the heterogeneity (I2 statistic) of the meta-analysis remained high (I2 , 82%). Cancer subtype (hematologic vs solid), older age, male sex, and recent active cancer therapy each partially explained the heterogeneity of mortality reporting. In multivariable metaregression, male sex, along with an interaction between the median patient age and recent active cancer therapy, explained most of the between-study heterogeneity (R2 , 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled mortality estimates for hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19 remain high at 30%, with significant heterogeneity across studies. Dedicated community-based studies are needed in the future to help assess overall COVID-19 mortality among the broader population of patients with cancer.

Expenditures among young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia by site of care.

BACKGROUND: Individuals diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between the ages of 22 and 39 years experience worse outcomes than those diagnosed when they are 21 years old or younger. Treatment at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) mitigates these disparities but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: Using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), the cancer-related expenditures were examined among patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014. Multivariable generalized linear model with log-link modeled average monthly health-plan-paid (HPP) expenditures and amount owed by the patient (out-of-pocket [OOP]). Cost ratios were used to calculate excess expenditures (CCC vs non-CCC). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) compared CCC and non-CCC monthly visit rates. Models adjusted for sociodemographics, comorbidities, adverse events, and months enrolled. RESULTS: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were comparable between CCC (n = 160) and non-CCC (n = 139) patients. Higher monthly outpatient expenditures in CCC patients ($15,792 vs $6404; P < .001) were driven by outpatient hospital HPP expenditures. Monthly visit rates and per visit expenditures for nonchemotherapy visits (IRR = 1.6; P = .001; CCC = $8247, non-CCC = $1191) drove higher outpatient hospital expenditures among CCCs. Monthly OOP expenditures were higher at CCCs for outpatient care (P = .02). Inpatient HPP expenditures were significantly higher at CCCs ($25,918 vs $13,881; ꞵ = 0.9; P < .001) before accounting for adverse events but were no longer significant after adjusting for adverse events (ꞵ = 0.4; P = .1). Hospitalizations and length of stay were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with ALL at CCCs have higher expenditures, likely reflecting differences in facility structure, billing practices, and comprehensive patient care. It would be reasonable to consider CCCs comparable to the oncology care model and incentivize the framework to achieve superior outcomes and long-term cost savings. LAY SUMMARY: Health care expenditures in young adults (aged 22-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are higher among patients at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) than those at non-CCCs. The CCC/non-CCC differences are significant among outpatient expenditures, which are driven by higher rates of outpatient hospital visits and outpatient hospital expenditures per visit at CCCs. Higher expenditures and visit rates of outpatient hospital visits among CCCs may also reflect how facility structure and billing patterns influence spending or comprehensive care. Young adults at CCCs face higher inpatient HPP expenditures; these are driven by serious adverse events.

Opportunities and Challenges of Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials for Evaluating the Therapeutic Efficacy of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.

Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy. However, observational studies, including non-randomized cohort studies, as well as small RCTs have gained increasing attention especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic where critical evaluation of limited therapeutic options are sought to improve patient care while awaiting results for subsequent RCTs. As the authors have previously discussed, RCTs and observational studies are complementary approaches which often appear synergistic with one another. While not all real-world studies are the same, the results of observational studies are notoriously subject to both known and unknown confounding factors. The utilization of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma is a timely illustration of evaluating the efficacy and safety of a COVID-19 therapy given the dangerous and often lethal effects of the virus and the limited approved therapeutic options for the disease. While awaiting the results of large RCTS of convalescent plasma, serval observational cohorts and small RCTs have attempted to assess the efficacy and safety of this approach with very mixed results. Among the likely reasons for this failure to provide a definitive answer concerning the value of convalescent plasma are the many limitations inherent to addressing treatment efficacy in non-randomized studies. While such studies are often able to capture information on large numbers of individuals rapidly, it is important to understand that although larger numbers may enhance the precision of estimates provided, larger numbers, in and of themselves, do not increase the accuracy of estimates due to patient selection and other biases. At the same time, both observational studies and small RCTS are at risk for publication bias due to investigator, reviewer and editorial bias toward positive studies. In this commentary we discuss the advantages and limitations of these methodologic approaches when addressing urgently needed evidence on the effectiveness and safety of therapies in a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Challenges and Opportunities for COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Cancer.

Given the rapidly expanding global spread of the SARS-Co-V-2 virus and the expanding number of individuals with the serious and potentially fatal illness, COVID-19, there is an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines. Based on compelling evidence that patients with cancer are at increased risk for greater morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, several professional organizations have provided early guidance on the role of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with malignant disease. In this commentary we review the available data on the efficacy and safety of the approved and forthcoming vaccines in patients with cancer. Based on a review of the totality of available evidence, we recommend that most patients with cancer should receive the recommended dose and schedule of one of the COVID-19 vaccines when available. We encourage industry, regulators and professional research organizations to carefully track the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer in the real world setting and routinely report unanticipated adverse events and signs of loss of efficacy. Particular attention is needed for patients on active cancer therapy to carefully evaluate efficacy and safety in relationship to the timing of vaccination relative to that of active cancer treatment and immunosuppression.

Outcomes of Patients with Sarcoma and COVID-19 Infection: A Single Institution Cohort Analysis.

Outcomes for patients (pts) with sarcoma and COVID-19 are unknown. This is a single institution retrospective study of adults with sarcoma and COVID-19. Ten pts [median age 60 (range 24-69)] were identified. Five were hospitalized; two died from COVID-19 complications; another died from sarcoma. Time between last systemic treatment dose and COVID-19 diagnosis was 6-41 days in pts who died. 5 underwent prior radiation (RT); time between RT and COVID-19 diagnosis was 20-62 days for pts who died. All three pts with WBC differential data (two died) were lymphopenic. Efforts to capture outcomes for a larger cohort are urgently needed.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with metastatic cancer not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in US clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in US patients with selected metastatic cancers and chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence and associated outcomes among the subgroup who did not receive prophylaxis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at four US health systems and included adults with metastatic cancer (breast, colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL]) who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy (2009-2017). Patients were stratified by FN risk level based on risk factors and chemotherapy (low/unclassified risk, intermediate risk without any risk factors, intermediate risk with ≥ 1 risk factor [IR + 1], high risk [HR]). G-CSF use was evaluated among all patients stratified by FN risk, and FN/FN-related outcomes were evaluated among patients who did not receive first-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis. RESULTS: Among 1457 metastatic cancer patients, 20.5% and 28.1% were classified as HR and IR + 1, respectively. First-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis use was 48.5% among HR patients and 13.9% among IR + 1 patients. In the subgroup not receiving first-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis, FN incidence in cycle 1 was 7.8% for HR patients and 4.8% for IR + 1 patients; during the course, corresponding values were 16.9% and 15.9%. Most (> 90%) FN episodes required hospitalization, and mortality risk ranged from 7.1 to 26.9% across subgroups. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, the majority of metastatic cancer chemotherapy patients for whom G-CSF prophylaxis is recommended did not receive it; FN incidence in this subgroup was notably high. Patients with elevated FN risk should be carefully identified and managed to ensure appropriate use of supportive care.