Antithrombotic Therapies in COVID-19 Disease: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Infection with coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, causing COVID-19 disease, leads to inflammation and a prothrombotic state. OBJECTIVE: This rapid systematic review aims to synthesize evidence on thromboembolism incidence and outcomes with antithrombotic therapies in COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Rapid Reviews, PROSPERO, and the WHO COVID-19 Database from January 1, 2003, to April 22, 2020, for studies meeting pre-specified inclusion criteria. STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION, AND SYNTHESIS: One investigator identified articles for inclusion, abstracted data, and performed quality assessment, with second reviewer checking. RESULTS: Incidence of thromboembolism among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranged from 25 to 53% in 4 retrospective series. We identified 3 studies (1 retrospective cohort study, 1 prospective uncontrolled observational study, and 1 case series) examining outcomes among COVID-19 patients who received antithrombotic therapies. These studies all included different interventions (thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular-weight heparin (LMWH); an intensive thromboprophylaxis protocol with LMWH, antithrombin, and clopidogrel; and salvage therapy with tissue plasminogen activator and heparin). These studies are overall poor quality due to methodological limitations including unclear patient selection protocols, lack of reporting or adjustment for patient baseline characteristics, inadequate duration of follow-up, and partial reporting of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: New evidence on thromboembolism in COVID-19 does not warrant a change in current guidance on thromboprophylaxis among hospitalized patients. Prospective trials of antithrombotic treatment strategies among patients with COVID-19 are urgently needed.

A Phase II Trial of the WEE1 Inhibitor Adavosertib in SETD2-Altered Advanced Solid Tumor Malignancies (NCI 10170).

PURPOSE: Evaluate the efficacy of WEE1 inhibitor adavosertib in patients (pts) with solid tumor malignancies (cohort A) and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC; cohort B). PATIENTS AND METHODS: NCT03284385 was a parallel cohort, Simon two-stage, phase II study of adavosertib (300 mg QDAY by mouth on days 1-5 and 8-12 of each 21-day cycle) in pts with solid tumor malignancies harboring a pathogenic SETD2 mutation. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Correlative assays evaluated loss of H3K36me3 by immunohistochemistry (IHC), a downstream consequence of SETD2 loss, in archival tumor tissue. RESULTS: Eighteen pts were enrolled (9/cohort). Median age was 60 years (range 45 - 74). The median duration of treatment was 1.28 months (range 0 - 24+). No objective responses were observed in either cohort; accrual was halted following stage 1. Minor tumor regressions were observed in 4/18 (22%) evaluable pts. Stable disease (SD) was the best overall response in 10/18 (56%) pts, including three pts with SD >4 months. One pt with ccRCC remains on treatment for >24 months. The most common adverse events (AE) of any grade were nausea (59%), anemia (41%), diarrhea (41%), and neutropenia (41%). Nine pts (50%) experienced a Grade ≥ 3 AE. Of 8 evaluable archival tissue samples, 6 (75%) had loss of H3K36me3 by IHC. CONCLUSIONS: Adavosertib failed to exhibit objective responses in SETD2-altered ccRCC and other solid tumor malignancies though prolonged stable disease was observed in a subset of pts. Combination approaches may yield greater depth of tumor response.

Somatic alterations of TP53 and MDM2 associated with response to enfortumab vedotin in patients with advanced urothelial cancer.

Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is an antibody-drug conjugate approved for patients with treatment-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), however data on biomarkers of response is lacking. Methods: We retrospectively identified all aUC patients at our institution who received EV monotherapy and had next-generation sequencing (NGS) data available. Patients were considered responders if they had a complete response or partial response on restaging scans during treatment. Observed response rate (ORR) was evaluated by local investigator and compared between responders and non-responders using Chi-squared test. A univariable analysis was conducted using the Cox proportional hazard test to assess for associations between baseline characteristics and most common somatic alterations (in ≥10% of patients) with patient survival outcomes [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)]. Somatic alterations were then individually evaluated in separate multivariate models while accounting for patient and clinical characteristics using Cox regression models. Results: Among 29 patients treated with EV monotherapy, 27 had available NGS data. Median age was 70, 24 (83%) were men, 19 (62%) were Caucasian, 15 (52%) had pure urothelial histology and 22 (76%) had primary tumor in the bladder. ORR was 41%, and PFS and OS for the overall cohort were 5.1 months and 10.2 months. Responders were enriched among patients with TP53, KDM6A and MDM2 alterations. Patients with these alterations, as well as those with composite TP53/MDM2 alterations (alterations in either TP53 or MDM2), also had increased ORR with EV treatment compared to patients without these alterations. In the univariable analysis, baseline albumin level ≥ 3.0g/dL and presence of composite TP53/MDM2 alterations were associated with a prolonged OS. Baseline ECOG 0/1, TP53 alterations and TP53/MDM2 alterations were associated with a prolonged PFS. In the multivariable analysis, TP53 and TP53/MDM2 alterations were genomic markers predictive of improved PFS after accounting for the relevant clinical characteristics. Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective analysis of aUC patients treated with EV, presence of TP53 or MDM2 somatic alterations, lower ECOG PS scores (ECOG 0 or 1) and higher albumin levels (≥3 g/dL) were associated with improved outcomes with EV treatment. Prospective and external validation of these findings in larger cohorts is warranted.

Impact of Squamous Histology on Clinical Outcomes and Molecular Profiling in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors or Enfortumab Vedotin.

INTRODUCTION: Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation (UCS) is associated with increased resistance to chemotherapy, but outcomes associated with newer therapies approved in this space over the last 5 to 10 years are less well defined. We investigated clinical outcomes and molecular profiling of patients with UCS treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and/or Enfortumab vedotin (EV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook a retrospective analysis of UC patients treated with ICI and/or EV. Objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between pure UC (pUC) and UCS using X2 and log-rank tests, respectively. Prevalence of the most commonly detected somatic alterations were also compared between the 2 histologic subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients (40 UCS, 120 pUC) were identified for this analysis. Among 151 patients treated with ICI (38 UCS, 113 pUC), UCS patients had a shorter mPFS (1.9 vs. 4.8 months, P < 0.01) and mOS (9.2 vs. 20.7 months, P < 0.01) compared to pUC. Among 37 patients treated with EV (12 UCS, 25 pUC), UCS patients had a lower ORR (17% vs. 70%, P < 0.01) and shorter mPFS (3.4 vs. 15.8 months, P < 0.01). UCS samples were enriched for CDKN2A, CDKN2B, PIK3CA, while pUC samples were enriched for ERBB2 alterations. CONCLUSION: In this single-center retrospective analysis, patients with UCS had a distinct somatic genomic profile relative to patients with pUC. Patients with UCS also had inferior outcomes to ICIs and EV compared to patients with pUC.

Early relapse identifies MCL patients with inferior survival after intensive or less intensive frontline therapy.

Although an expanding array of effective treatments has resulted in recent improvement in survival of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), outcomes remain heterogeneous, and identification of prognostic factors remains a priority. We assessed the prognostic impact of time to progression of disease (POD) after first-line therapy among 455 patients with relapsed MCL. Patients were categorized by duration of first remission as PRF/POD6, defined as progressive disease during induction or POD within 6 months of diagnosis (n = 65; 14%); POD6-24, defined as POD between 6 and 24 months after diagnosis (n = 153; 34%); and POD>24, defined as POD >24 months after diagnosis (n = 237; 53%). The median overall survival from POD (OS2) was 1.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.4) for patients with PRF/POD6, 3 years (95% CI, 2-6.8) for those with POD6-24, and 8 years (95% CI, 6.2-NR) for those with POD>24. Median OS2 was inferior in patients with early POD (defined as PRF/POD6 or POD6-24) after both intensive and less intensive frontline treatment. The prognostic performance of time until POD was replicated in an independent cohort of 245 patients with relapsed MCL, with median OS2 of 0.3 years (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) for PRF/POD6, 0.8 years (95% CI, 0.6-0.9) for POD6-24, and 2.4 years (95% CI 2.1-2.7) for POD>24. Early POD is associated with inferior OS2 in patients with relapsed MCL, identifying a high-risk population for future prospective studies.

Comparison of Drugs Used for Adjuvant and Metastatic Therapy of Colon, Breast, and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers.

Importance: Drugs are used in the adjuvant, metastatic, or both settings in cancer, but the rate, direction, and speed with which drugs are tested and indicated in each setting are unknown. Objective: To identify the number of unique agents that are currently category 1 or 2A per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines in metastatic and adjuvant settings of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer, and colon cancer, as well as the mean delay between use in these 2 settings and the quality of supporting evidence. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used NCCN treatment guidelines current as of May 15, 2019, and the clinical trials cited either by these guidelines or within corresponding drug labels. Trials published between 1970 and 2019 were evaluated. The analysis included published clinical trials of systemic therapy options deemed by the NCCN as category 1 or 2A. Participants included patients with early or metastatic NSCLC, breast cancer, or colon cancer who were included in clinical trials evaluating current NCCN-recommended systemic therapy options. Data analysis was performed from March 2019 to May 2019. Exposures: Systemic therapy regimens used as either adjuvant treatment or as therapy for metastatic disease in the 3 cancer types. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of agents recommended for use in adjuvant and metastatic settings of NSCLC, colon cancer, and breast cancer, the mean delay between use in these 2 settings, and the percentage of agents supported by trials with substantial improvement in either progression-free survival (disease-free survival for adjuvant agents) or overall survival. Results: This study identified 69 agents recommended for use in metastatic disease compared with 25 agents recommended for adjuvant use. For agents used in both settings, the mean (SD) delay between use in metastatic disease and as adjuvant therapy was 10.0 (7.5) years. On the basis of trials with positive outcomes, 39 of 69 agents (56.5%) were approved or recommended in the metastatic setting, compared with 23 of 25 agents (92.0%) approved for use as adjuvant therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: There is a substantial difference in the number of agents available for use, as well as the timing of supporting evidence, in the metastatic and adjuvant settings for NSCLC, breast cancer, and colon cancer. Given the potential benefit of adjuvant therapy in these cancer types, further investigation into additional adjuvant systemic therapy options is warranted.

Estimation of US patients with cancer who may respond to cytotoxic chemotherapy.

AIMS PATIENTS & METHODS: In this retrospective review, we sought to estimate the proportion of patients in the USA with advanced or metastatic cancer who are eligible for and may respond to recommended first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines. RESULTS: Among 609,640 patients, we estimate 479,823 (78.7%, 95% CI: 78.6-78.8%) may be eligible for cytotoxic chemotherapy while 189,159 out of 609,640 patients (31.0%, 95% CI: 30.9-31.1%) may have achieved treatment response. The average objective response rate from these regimens was 48.6% (range 9.2 to 90.6%). CONCLUSION: Given the large role of cytotoxic agents in cancer, drug development in this space may remain of interest in specific cancer types, and regulatory approval of novel oncology drugs may justify head-to-head comparisons against cytotoxic regimens.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Early-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma in the Elderly: A National Cancer Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The outcome for early-stage (I/II) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has improved significantly during the past few decades. However, older age (≥ 60 years) has continued to be associated with poor outcomes, and a paucity of data is available defining the optimal treatment regimens. In the present study, we sought to identify the practice patterns and outcomes in elderly patients with early-stage HL using the National Cancer Database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients aged 60 years with early-stage classic HL diagnosed from 2004 to 2012. The overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing chemotherapy (CT), radiation therapy (RT), or CT plus RT were compared. Kaplan-Meier curves of OS for individual therapy were constructed and compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis for predictors of mortality was conducted using the Cox proportional hazard method. RESULTS: A total of 3795 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, 41% patients had stage I disease. Of the 3795 patients, 51% underwent CT, 16% underwent RT, and 33% underwent CT plus RT. With a median follow-up duration of 40.4 months, the unadjusted OS rates for patients receiving CT, RT, or CT plus RT were 58.1%, 54%, and 77.7%, respectively (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, CT plus RT improved OS compared with monotherapy. CONCLUSION: In older patients (age ≥ 60 years) with stage I/II HL, the combination of CT plus consolidative RT resulted in improved OS compared with monotherapy. However, the use of combination therapy in this age group seems suboptimal. This could be, in part, secondary to comorbidities limiting the use of CT plus RT in the elderly.