The impact of cancer metastases on COVID-19 outcomes: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can have a particularly detrimental effect on patients with cancer, but no studies to date have examined if the presence, or site, of metastatic cancer is related to COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, the authors identified 10,065 patients with COVID-19 and cancer (2325 with and 7740 without metastasis at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis). The primary ordinal outcome was COVID-19 severity: not hospitalized, hospitalized but did not receive supplemental O2 , hospitalized and received supplemental O2 , admitted to an intensive care unit, received mechanical ventilation, or died from any cause. The authors used ordinal logistic regression models to compare COVID-19 severity by presence and specific site of metastatic cancer. They used logistic regression models to assess 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Compared to patients without metastasis, patients with metastases have increased hospitalization rates (59% vs. 49%) and higher 30 day mortality (18% vs. 9%). Patients with metastasis to bone, lung, liver, lymph nodes, and brain have significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted odds ratios [ORs], 1.38, 1.59, 1.38, 1.00, and 2.21) compared to patients without metastases at those sites. Patients with metastasis to the lung have significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.00) when adjusting for COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic cancer, especially with metastasis to the brain, are more likely to have severe outcomes after COVID-19 whereas patients with metastasis to the lung, compared to patients with cancer metastasis to other sites, have the highest 30-day mortality after COVID-19.

Guadecitabine vs TC in relapsed/refractory AML after intensive chemotherapy: a randomized phase 3 ASTRAL-2 trial.

ABSTRACT: Guadecitabine is a novel hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to deamination by cytidine deaminase. Patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) were randomly assigned to guadecitabine or a preselected treatment choice (TC) of high-intensity chemotherapy, low-intensity treatment with HMAs or low-dose cytarabine, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). A total of 302 patients were randomly assigned to guadecitabine (n = 148) or TC (n = 154). Preselected TCs were low-intensity treatment (n = 233 [77%; mainly HMAs]), high-intensity chemotherapy (n = 63 [21%]), and BSC (n = 6 [2%]). The median OS were 6.4 and 5.4 months for guadecitabine and TC, respectively (hazard ratio 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.14]; log-rank P = .33). Survival benefit for guadecitabine was suggested in several prospective subgroups, including age <65 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1, refractory AML, and lower peripheral blood blasts ≤30%. Complete response (CR) + CR with partial hematologic recovery rates were 17% for guadecitabine vs 8% for TC (P < .01); CR+CR with incomplete count recovery rates were 27% for guadecitabine vs 14% for TC (P < .01). Safety was comparable for the 2 arms, but guadecitabine had a higher rate of grade ≥3 neutropenia (32% vs 17%; P < .01). This study did not demonstrate an OS benefit for guadecitabine. Clinical response rates were higher for guadecitabine, with comparable safety to TC. There was an OS benefit for guadecitabine in several prespecified subgroups. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02920008.

Transfusion avoidance in myelodysplastic neoplasms.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are diseases of stem cell aging associated with complications from inadequate hematopoiesis (red cells, neutrophils and platelets) and variable risk for transformation to acute myeloid leukemia. Those with low-risk disease also suffer and die from MDS-related complications. Among the most challenging is development of anemia and transfusion dependence, which impacts quality of life and is associated with reduced survival. Appreciating and measuring the quality-of-life impact, preventing (if possible), treating, and managing the complications from anemia in MDS are of critical importance. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent developments in basic science highlight the potential deleterious impact of iron overload within the developing red cell niche. Iron overload can compromise red cell maturation from healthy as well as malignant clones and produces an environment favoring expansion of mutant clonal cells, potentially driving disease progression. Observational studies in nontransfusion dependent MDS highlight that iron overload occurs even in the nontransfusion dependent. The newly approved (and established) therapies for management of MDS-related anemia work best when begun before patients become heavily transfusion-dependent. SUMMARY: Iron overload is detrimental to hematopoiesis. Understanding the benefit afforded by transfusion is critical to optimal application and patient reported outcomes can inform this. Recently developed therapies are active and optimized application may improve response.

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacitidine and decitabine for individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are available in parenteral form. Oral therapy with similar exposure for these diseases would offer potential treatment benefits. We aimed to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of oral decitabine plus the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine. METHODS: We did a registrational, multicentre, open-label, crossover, phase 3 trial of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and individuals with acute myeloid leukaemia, enrolled as separate cohorts; results for only participants with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are reported here. In 37 academic and community-based clinics in Canada and the USA, we enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older who were candidates to receive intravenous decitabine, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 days of oral decitabine-cedazuridine (one tablet once daily containing 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine as a fixed-dose combination) or intravenous decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day by continuous 1-h intravenous infusion) in a 28-day treatment cycle, followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. Thereafter, all participants received oral decitabine-cedazuridine from the third cycle on until treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was total decitabine exposure over 5 days with oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for cycles 1 and 2, measured as area under the curve in participants who received the full treatment dose in cycles 1 and 2 and had decitabine daily AUC0-24 for both oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine (ie, paired cycles). On completion of the study, all patients were rolled over to a maintenance study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03306264. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2018, and June 7, 2021, 173 individuals were screened, 138 (80%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment sequence, and 133 (96%) participants (87 [65%] men and 46 [35%] women; 121 [91%] White, four [3%] Black or African-American, three [2%] Asian, and five [4%] not reported) received treatment. Median follow-up was 966 days (IQR 917-1050). Primary endpoint of total exposure of oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine was 98·93% (90% CI 92·66-105·60), indicating equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure on the basis of area under the curve. The safety profiles of oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine were similar. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were thrombocytopenia (81 [61%] of 133 participants), neutropenia (76 [57%] participants), and anaemia (67 [50%] participants). The incidence of serious adverse events in cycles 1-2 was 31% (40 of 130 participants) with oral decitabine-cedazuridine and 18% (24 of 132 participants) with intravenous decitabine. There were five treatment-related deaths; two deemed related to oral therapy (sepsis and pneumonia) and three to intravenous treatment (septic shock [n=2] and pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Oral decitabine-cedazuridine was pharmacologically and pharmacodynamically equivalent to intravenous decitabine. The results support use of oral decitabine-cedazuridine as a safe and effective alternative to intravenous decitabine for treatment of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals.

Classification, risk stratification and response assessment in myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS): A state-of-the-art report on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS).

The guidelines for classification, prognostication, and response assessment of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) have all recently been updated. In this report on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS) we summarize these developments. We first critically examine the updated World Health Organization (WHO) classification and the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of MDS. We then compare traditional and molecularly based risk MDS risk assessment tools. Lastly, we discuss limitations of criteria in measuring therapeutic benefit and highlight how the International Working Group (IWG) 2018 and 2023 response criteria addressed these deficiencies and are endorsed by the icMDS. We also address the importance of patient centered care by discussing the value of quality-of-life assessment. We hope that the reader of this review will have a better understanding of how to classify MDS, predict clinical outcomes and evaluate therapeutic outcomes.

Systemic Anticancer Therapy and Thromboembolic Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With Cancer and COVID-19.

Importance: Systematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking. Objective: To assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022. Exposure: Treatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up. Results: Of 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19-related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Evaluation of hypereosinophilia in a case of FLT3-mutant acute myeloid leukemia treated with gilteritinib.

Acute myeloid leukemias (AMLs) frequently harbor activating mutations in Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3). The use of FLT3 inhibitors (FLT3i) is the standard of care for treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed patients with AML. Differentiation responses including clinical differentiation syndrome have been previously reported with FLT3i when used as single agents in relapsed disease. We present a case of hypereosinophilia in a patient on FLT3i therapy with persistent FLT3 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity in peripheral blood. We sorted mature leukocytes by lineage to determine if the eosinophils were leukemia-derived. FLT3 PCR and next-generation sequencing analysis demonstrated monocytic differentiation of the FLT3-ITD leukemic clone with reactive hypereosinophilia that was derived from a preleukemic SF3B1, FLT3 wild-type clone. Our case is the first to definitively demonstrate the emergence of clonal FLT3-ITD monocytes with FLT3i and the first to demonstrate a differentiation response following decitabine, venetoclax, and gilteritinib triplet therapy.

Guadecitabine vs treatment choice in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: a global phase 3 randomized study.

This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the new hypomethylating agent guadecitabine (n = 408) vs a preselected treatment choice (TC; n = 407) of azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine in patients with acute myeloid leukemia unfit to receive intensive induction chemotherapy. Half of the patients (50%) had poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (2-3). The coprimary end points were complete remission (19% and 17% of patients for guadecitabine and TC, respectively [stratified P = .48]) and overall survival (median survival 7.1 and 8.5 months for guadecitabine and TC, respectively [hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.14; stratified log-rank P = .73]). One- and 2-year survival estimates were 37% and 18% for guadecitabine and 36% and 14% for TC, respectively. A large proportion of patients (42%) received <4 cycles of treatment in both the arms. In a post hoc analysis of patients who received ≥4 treatment cycles, guadecitabine was associated with longer median survival vs TC (15.6 vs 13.0 months [hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.96; log-rank P = .02]). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) between guadecitabine (92%) and TC (88%); however, grade ≥3 AEs of febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, and pneumonia were higher with guadecitabine. In conclusion, no significant difference was observed in the efficacy of guadecitabine and TC in the overall population. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02348489.

COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Background: Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. Objectives: To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated. Results: Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31-1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], pinteraction <0.001). Conclusions: Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).

Demonstrating proof of concept for value-based agreements in Europe: two real-world cases.

OBJECTIVES: Value-based agreements (VBAs) link access, reimbursement, or price to the real-world usage and impact of a medicine, thereby enabling patient access while reducing clinical or financial uncertainty for the payer. VBAs have the potential to support improved patient outcomes, given the value-oriented approach to care, and lead to overall savings, while enabling payers to share risk and reduce uncertainty. METHODS: This commentary outlines the key challenges, enablers, and a framework for successful implementation by comparing the experience of two VBAs for AstraZeneca medicines, aiming to increase confidence in their future use. RESULTS: Engagement by payers, manufacturers, physicians, and provider institutions, and robust data collection systems that are accessible, simple to use, and add little burden to physicians were key to successfully negotiating a VBA that worked for all stakeholders. In both country systems, a legal/policy framework enabled innovative contracting. CONCLUSIONS: These examples demonstrate proof of concept for VBA implementation in different settings, and may inform future VBAs.

Current landscape of translational and clinical research in myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS): Proceedings from the 1st International Workshop on MDS (iwMDS) Of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS).

Biological events that contribute to the pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) are becoming increasingly characterized and are being translated into rationally designed therapeutic strategies. Herein, we provide updates from the first International Workshop on MDS (iwMDS) of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS) detailing recent advances in understanding the genetic landscape of MDS, including germline predisposition, epigenetic and immune dysregulation, the complexities of clonal hematopoiesis progression to MDS, as well as novel animal models of the disease. Connected to this progress is the development of novel therapies targeting specific molecular alterations, the innate immune system, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. While some of these agents have entered clinical trials (e.g., splicing modulators, IRAK1/4 inhibitors, anti-CD47 and anti-TIM3 antibodies, and cellular therapies), none have been approved for MDS. Additional preclinical and clinical work is needed to develop a truly individualized approach to the care of MDS patients.

Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with cancer following two and three doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a retrospective observational study from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

Background: Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections following vaccination against COVID-19 are of international concern. Patients with cancer have been observed to have worse outcomes associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic. We sought to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after 2 or 3 doses of mRNA vaccines. Methods: We evaluated the clinical characteristics of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough infections using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19; NCT04354701). Analysis was restricted to patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed in 2021 or 2022, to allow for a contemporary unvaccinated control population; potential differences were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for potential baseline confounding variables. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with key secondary endpoints of hospitalization and ICU and/or mechanical ventilation (ICU/MV). Findings: The analysis included 2486 patients, of which 564 and 385 had received 2 or 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine prior to infection, respectively. Hematologic malignancies and recent receipt of systemic anti-neoplastic therapy were more frequent among vaccinated patients. Vaccination was associated with improved outcomes: in the primary analysis, 2 doses (aOR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.88) and 3 doses (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.36) were associated with decreased 30-day mortality. There were similar findings for the key secondary endpoints of ICU/MV (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82 and 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58) and hospitalization (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.75 and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.46) for 2 and 3 doses, respectively. Importantly, Black patients had higher rates of hospitalization (aOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.12-1.92), and Hispanic patients presented with higher rates of ICU/MV (aOR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.06-2.44). Interpretation: Vaccination against COVID-19, especially with additional doses, is a fundamental strategy in the prevention of adverse outcomes including death, among patients with cancer. Funding: This study was partly supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to C-YH, YS, SM, JLW; T32-CA236621 and P30-CA046592 to C.R.F; CTSA 2UL1TR001425-05A1 to TMW-D; ACS/FHI Real-World Data Impact Award, P50 MD017341-01, R21 CA242044-01A1, Susan G. Komen Leadership Grant Hunt to MKA. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH).

Consensus proposal for revised International Working Group 2023 response criteria for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

Myelodysplastic syndromes/myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are associated with variable clinical presentations and outcomes. The initial response criteria developed by the International Working Group (IWG) in 2000 have been used in clinical practice, clinical trials, regulatory reviews, and drug labels. Although the IWG criteria were revised in 2006 and 2018 (the latter focusing on lower-risk disease), limitations persist in their application to higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS) and their ability to fully capture the clinical benefits of novel investigational drugs or serve as valid surrogates for longer-term clinical end points (eg, overall survival). Further, issues related to the ambiguity and practicality of some criteria lead to variability in interpretation and interobserver inconsistency in reporting results from the same sets of data. Thus, we convened an international panel of 36 MDS experts and used an established modified Delphi process to develop consensus recommendations for updated response criteria that would be more reflective of patient-centered and clinically relevant outcomes in HR-MDS. Among others, the IWG 2023 criteria include changes in the hemoglobin threshold for complete remission (CR), the introduction of CR with limited count recovery and CR with partial hematologic recovery as provisional response criteria, the elimination of marrow CR, and specific recommendations for the standardization of time-to-event end points and the derivation and reporting of responses. The updated criteria should lead to a better correlation between patient-centered outcomes and clinical trial results in an era of multiple emerging new agents with novel mechanisms of action.

MEETING HIGHLIGHTS: THE THIRD MARIE SKLODOWSKA-CURIE SYMPOSIUM ON CANCER RESEARCH AND CARE AT ROSWELL PARK COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER, BUFFALO, NY, SEPTEMBER 20-22, 2023.

Marie Sklodowska-Curie Symposia on Cancer Research and Care (MSCS-CRC) promote collaborations between cancer researchers and care providers in the United States, Canada and Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), to accelerate the development of new cancer therapies, advance early detection and prevention, increase cancer awareness, and improve cancer care and the quality of life of patients and their families. The third edition of MSCS-CRC, held at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, in September 2023, brought together 137 participants from 20 academic institutions in the US, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Croatia and Hungary, together with 16 biotech and pharma entities. The key areas of collaborative opportunity identified during the meeting are a) creating of a database of available collaborative projects in the areas of early-phase clinical trials, preclinical development, and identification of early biomarkers; b) promoting awareness of cancer risks and efforts at cancer prevention; c) laboratory and clinical training; and d) sharing experience in cost-effective delivery of cancer care and improving the quality of life of cancer patients and their families. Examples of ongoing international collaborations in the above areas were discussed. Participation of the representatives of the Warsaw-based Medical Research Agency, National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the United States, National Cancer Research Institutes of Poland and Lithuania, New York State Empire State Development, Ministry of Health of Ukraine and Translational Research Cancer Center Consortium of 13 cancer centers from the US and Canada, facilitated the discussion of available governmental and non-governmental funding initiatives in the above areas.