Cohort profile: COBLAnCE: a French prospective cohort to study prognostic and predictive factors in bladder cancer and to generate real-world data on treatment patterns, resource use and quality of life.

PURPOSE: Bladder cancer is a complex disease with a wide range of outcomes. Clinicopathological factors only partially explain the variability between patients in prognosis and treatment response. There is a need for large cohorts collecting extensive data and biological samples to: (1) investigate gene-environment interactions, pathological/molecular classification and biomarker discovery; and (2) describe treatment patterns, outcomes, resource use and quality of life in a real-world setting. PARTICIPANTS: COBLAnCE (COhort to study BLAdder CancEr) is a French national prospective cohort of patients with bladder cancer recruited between 2012 and 2018 and followed for 6 years. Data on patient and tumour characteristics, treatments, outcomes and biological samples are collected at enrolment and during the follow-up. FINDINGS TO DATE: We describe the cohort at enrolment according to baseline surgery and tumour type. In total, 1800 patients were included: 1114 patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and 76 patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) had transurethral resection of a bladder tumour without cystectomy, and 610 patients with NMIBC or MIBC underwent cystectomy. Most patients had a solitary lesion (56.3%) without basement membrane invasion (71.7% of Ta and/or Tis). Half of the patients with cystectomy were stage ≤T2 and 60% had non-continent diversion. Surgery included local (n=298) or super-extended lymph node dissections (n=11) and prostate removal (n=492). Among women, 16.5% underwent cystectomy and 81.4% anterior pelvectomy. FUTURE PLANS: COBLAnCE will be used for long-term studies of bladder cancer with focus on clinicopathological factors and molecular markers. It will lead to a much-needed improvement in the understanding of the disease. The cohort provides valuable real-world data, enabling researchers to study various research questions, assess routine medical practices and guide medical decision-making.

Impact of COVID-19 on healthcare organisation and cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Changes in the management of patients with cancer and delays in treatment delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic may impact the use of hospital resources and cancer mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient flows, patient pathways and use of hospital resources during the pandemic were simulated using a discrete event simulation model and patient-level data from a large French comprehensive cancer centre's discharge database, considering two scenarios of delays: massive return of patients from November 2020 (early-return) or March 2021 (late-return). Expected additional cancer deaths at 5 years and mortality rate were estimated using individual hazard ratios based on literature. RESULTS: The number of patients requiring hospital care during the simulation period was 13,000. In both scenarios, 6-8% of patients were estimated to present a delay of >2 months. The overall additional cancer deaths at 5 years were estimated at 88 in early-return and 145 in late-return scenario, with increased additional deaths estimated for sarcomas, gynaecological, liver, head and neck, breast cancer and acute leukaemia. This represents a relative additional cancer mortality rate at 5 years of 4.4 and 6.8% for patients expected in year 2020, 0.5 and 1.3% in 2021 and 0.5 and 0.5% in 2022 for each scenario, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic-related diagnostic and treatment delays in patients with cancer are expected to impact patient survival. In the perspective of recurrent pandemics or alternative events requiring an intensive use of limited hospital resources, patients should be informed not to postpone care, and medical resources for patients with cancer should be sanctuarised.

Cetuximab, docetaxel, and cisplatin versus platinum, fluorouracil, and cetuximab as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (GORTEC 2014-01 TPExtreme): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase 2 trial of the TPEx chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel-platinum-cetuximab) showed promising results, with a median overall survival of 14·0 months in first-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the TPEx regimen with the standard of care EXTREME regimen (platinum-fluorouracil-cetuximab) in this setting. METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, done in 68 centres (cancer centres, university and general hospitals, and private clinics) in France, Spain, and Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC unsuitable for curative treatment; had at least one measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using the TenAlea website by investigators or delegated clinical research associates to the TPEx regimen or the EXTREME regimen, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, previous cetuximab treatment, and country. The TPEx regimen consisted of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2, both intravenously on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (intravenously 400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently). Four cycles were repeated every 21 days with systematic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support at each cycle. In case of disease control after four cycles, intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 was continued every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The EXTREME regimen consisted of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m2 on day 1-4, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently) all delivered intravenously. Six cycles were delivered every 21 days followed by weekly 250 mg/m2 cetuximab as maintenance therapy in case of disease control. G-CSF support was not mandatory per the protocol in the EXTREME regimen. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of chemotherapy or cetuximab. Enrolment is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268695. FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2014, and Nov 29, 2017, 541 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment regimens (271 to TPEx, 270 to EXTREME). Two patients in the TPEx group had major deviations in consent forms and were not included in the final analysis. Median follow-up was 34·4 months (IQR 26·6-44·8) in the TPEx group and 30·2 months (25·5-45·3) in the EXTREME group. At data cutoff, 209 patients had died in the TPEx group and 218 had died in the EXTREME group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 14·5 months [95% CI 12·5-15·7] in the TPEx group and 13·4 months [12·2-15·4] in the EXTREME group; hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·23). 214 (81%) of 263 patients in the TPEx group versus 246 (93%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group had grade 3 or worse adverse events during chemotherapy (p<0·0001). In the TPEx group, 118 (45%) of 263 patients had at least one serious adverse event versus 143 (54%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group. 16 patients in the TPEx group and 21 in the EXTREME group died in association with adverse events, including seven patients in each group who had fatal infections (including febrile neutropenia). Eight deaths in the TPEx group and 11 deaths in the EXTREME group were assessed as treatment related, most frequently sepsis or septic shock (four in each treatment group). INTERPRETATION: Although the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant improvement in overall survival with TPEx versus EXTREME, the TPEx regimen had a favourable safety profile. The TPEx regimen could provide an alternative to standard of care with the EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, especially for those who might not be good candidates for up-front pembrolizumab treatment. FUNDING: Merck Santé and Chugai Pharma.