Case-control study assessing the impact of COVID19 in advanced kidney cancer patients treated with antiangiogenics or immunotherapy: the COVID-REN study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a risk factor for developing severe COVID19. Additionally, SARS-CoV2 has a special tropism for renal cells and complications like thrombosis or cytokine storm could be enhanced by standard treatments in kidney cancer (i.e., antiangiogenics or immunotherapy). Thus, understanding the impact of COVID19 in patients with this tumor is key for their correct management. METHODS: We designed a retrospective case-control study comparing the outcome of three groups of advanced kidney cancer patients on systemic treatment: cohort A (developed COVID19 while on antiangiogenics), cohort B (developed COVID19 while on immunotherapy) and cohort C (non-infected). Matching factors were age, gender, and treatment. RESULTS: 95 patients were recruited in 16 centers in Spain from September 2020 to May 2021. Finally, 85 were deemed as eligible (23 cohort A, 21 cohort B, 41 cohort C). Patients with COVID required more dose interruptions (25 vs. six) and hospitalizations (10 vs. none) than those without COVID (both p = 0.001). No difference between cohorts A and B was observed regarding hospitalization or length of stay. No ICU admission was registered and one patient in cohort B died due to COVID19. Regarding cancer evolution, three patients in cohort A presented progressive disease after COVID19 compared to two in cohort B. One case in cohort B, initially deemed as stable disease, achieved a partial response after COVID19. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney cancer patients who developed COVID19 while on systemic therapy required more treatment interruptions and hospitalizations than those non-infected. However, no significant impact on cancer outcome was observed. Also, no difference was seen between cases on antiangiogenics or immunotherapy.

The multimodal management of locally advanced N2 non-small cell lung cancer: is there a role for surgical resection? A single institution's experience.

BACKGROUND: The management of operable locally advanced N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a controversial topic. Concurrent chemoradiation (CT-RT) is considered the standard of care for inoperable or unresectable patients, but the role of trimodality treatment remains controversial. We present our institution's experience with the management of stage III (N2) NSCLC patients, analyzing whether the addition of surgery improves survival when compared with definitive CT-RT alone. METHODS: From 1996 to 2006, 72 N2 NSCLC patients were treated. Thirty-four patients received cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy, followed by paclitaxel-cisplatin CT-RT, and 38 patients underwent surgery preceded by induction and/or followed by adjuvant therapy. Survival curves were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and the differences were assessed with the log-rank test. RESULTS: Most of the patients (87 %) were men. The median age was 59 years. A statistically significant association between T3-T4c and definitive CT-RT as well as between T1-T2c and surgery was noted (p < 0.0001). After a median follow-up period of 35 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 42 months for the surgery group versus 41 months for the CT-RT patients (p = 0.590). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14 months after surgery and 25 months after CT-RT (p = 0.933). Responders to radical CT-RT had a better OS than non-responders (43 vs. 17 months, respectively, p = 0.011). No significant differences were found in the OS or PFS between the pN0 [14 (37.8 %) patients] and non-pN0 patients at thoracotomy. Three treatment-related deaths (7.8 %) were observed in the surgical cohort and none in the CT-RT group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of surgery did not render a median OS or PFS benefit when compared with CT-RT alone in our series of stage III-N2 NSCLC patients, in accordance with previously published data. However, responses to CT-RT had a greater impact in terms of OS and PFS. Although the patients selected for management including surgery showed a favorable T clinical staging in comparison to patients exclusively treated with definitive CT-RT, similar survival outcomes were found.

SEOM clinical guidelines for using molecular markers in clinical practice.

Nowadays, treatment selection for most types of cancers is based on anatomical, histological and clinical criteria, which are defi ned by the selection criteria used in registration phase III trials. However, different cancers present distinct molecular features, so the current approach results in a lack of specificity of cancer therapy, which is associated with decreased efficacy and unnecessary toxicities and costs. Molecular diagnostics has proved able to predict the efficacy of selected targeted therapies. This allows the selection of specific treatments for different types of cancer, increasing their efficiency. Even though the number of treatments for solid tumours that can be selected based on molecular diagnostic tools is limited, much effort is being put into the identification of new biomarkers. This guideline reviews molecular diagnostic biomarkers that allow selection of specific therapies that have obtained regulatory approval as treatment of solid tumours.

Selection of extreme phenotypes: the role of clinical observation in translational research.

Systematic collection of phenotypes and their correlation with molecular data has been proposed as a useful method to advance in the study of disease. Although some databases for animal species are being developed, progress in humans is slow, probably due to the multifactorial origin of many human diseases and to the intricacy of accurately classifying phenotypes, among other factors. An alternative approach has been to identify and to study individuals or families with very characteristic, clinically relevant phenotypes. This strategy has shown increased efficiency to identify the molecular features underlying such phenotypes. While on most occasions the subjects selected for these studies presented harmful phenotypes, a few studies have been performed in individuals with very favourable phenotypes. The consistent results achieved suggest that it seems logical to further develop this strategy as a methodology to study human disease, including cancer. The identification and the study with high-throughput techniques of individuals showing a markedly decreased risk of developing cancer or of cancer patients presenting either an unusually favourable prognosis or striking responses following a specific treatment, might be promising ways to maximize the yield of this approach and to reveal the molecular causes that explain those phenotypes and thus highlight useful therapeutic targets. This manuscript reviews the current status of selection of extreme phenotypes in cancer research and provides directions for future development of this methodology.