Delivering adapted physical activity by videoconference to patients with fatigue under immune checkpoint inhibitors: Lessons learned from the PACTIMe-FEAS feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Fatigue is one of the most frequent symptoms in anti-cancer immune therapy. Physical activity has been proven effective in reducing fatigue, but unmet needs remain regarding the provision and access to adapted programmes, which efficiently addresses the main barriers to PA. METHODS: The PACTIMe-FEAS study primarily aimed at primarily to evaluate the feasibility and the acceptability of a videoconference-based 6-month programme promoting physical activity, and secondarily to assess its potential post-immediate and short-term effectiveness in reducing fatigue in cancer patients under immune therapy. Numeric self-reported questionnaires (Visual Analogue Scale-fatigue, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, Échelle de Motivation envers l'Activité Physique en contexte de Santé, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Insomnia Severity Index) were completed by participants through an online secure platform at three time points: just before (T1), and after (T2) the programme, and 3 months later (T3). RESULTS: Sixteen participants (50% male, 50% female, mean age 54 years, 69% melanoma, 31% overweight), with moderate-to-severe fatigue, entered the internet-delivered intervention; 14 completed it, with an average completion rate of physical activity supervised sessions of 75%. Satisfaction was high, confirming a demand for group format, personalised approach, professional guidance and home-based device, to support the practice of regular physical activity. A decrease in fatigue was observed at the end of the programme. DISCUSSION: The recruitment process did prove to be challenging, with a relatively small eligible population, and will need to be reconsidered to envision a larger scale trial. But here and now, this feasibility study provides the first promising foundations to develop further research on the effectiveness of an original remote programme.

Outcomes of Patients With Active Cancer and COVID-19 in the Intensive-Care Unit: A Multicenter Ambispective Study.

Background: Several studies report an increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. However, data in the intensive care unit (ICU) are scarce. Research Question: We aimed to investigate the association between active cancer and mortality among patients requiring organ support in the ICU. Study Design and Methods: In this ambispective study encompassing 17 hospitals in France, we included all adult active cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring organ support and admitted in ICU. For each cancer patient, we included 3 non cancer patients as controls. Patients were matched at the same ratio using the inverse probability weighting approach based on a propensity score assessing the probability of cancer at admission. Mortality at day 60 after ICU admission was compared between cancer patients and non-cancer patients using primary logistic regression analysis and secondary multivariable analyses. Results: Between March 12, 2020 and March 8, 2021, 2608 patients were admitted with SARS-CoV-2 infection in our study, accounting for 2.8% of the total population of patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted in all French ICUs within the same period. Among them, 105 (n=4%) presented with cancer (51 patients had hematological malignancy and 54 patients had solid tumors). 409 of 420 patients were included in the propensity score matching process, of whom 307 patients in the non-cancer group and 102 patients in the cancer group. 145 patients (35%) died in the ICU at day 60, 59 (56%) with cancer and 86 (27%) without cancer. In the primary logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio for death associated to cancer was 2.3 (95%CI 1.24 - 4.28, p=0.0082) higher for cancer patients than for a non-cancer patient at ICU admission. Exploratory multivariable analyses showed that solid tumor (OR: 2.344 (0.87-6.31), p=0.062) and hematological malignancies (OR: 4.144 (1.24-13.83), p=0.062) were independently associated with mortality. Interpretation: Patients with cancer and requiring ICU admission for SARS-CoV-2 infection had an increased mortality, hematological malignancy harboring the higher risk in comparison to solid tumors.

Dynamics of circulating calprotectin accurately predict the outcome of moderate COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 is associated with a high circulating level of calprotectin, the S100A8/S100A9 alarmin heterodimer. Baseline calprotectin amount measured in peripheral blood at diagnosis correlates with disease severity. The optimal use of this biomarker along COVID-19 course remains to be delineated. METHODS: We focused on patients with a WHO-defined moderate COVID-19 requiring hospitalization in a medical ward. We collected plasma and serum from three independent cohorts (N = 626 patients) and measured calprotectin amount at admission. We performed longitudinal measures of calprotectin in 457 of these patients (1461 samples) and used a joint latent class mixture model in which classes were defined by age, body mass index and comorbidities to identify calprotectin trajectories predicting the risk of transfer into an intensive care unit or death. FINDINGS: After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index and comorbidities, the predictive value of baseline calprotectin in patients with moderate COVID19 could be refined by serial monitoring of the biomarker. We discriminated three calprotectin trajectories associated with low, moderate, and high risk of poor outcome, and we designed an algorithm available as online software (https://calpla.gustaveroussy.fr:8443/) to monitor the probability of a poor outcome in individual patients with moderate COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: These results emphasize the clinical interest of serial monitoring of calprotectin amount in the peripheral blood to anticipate the risk of poor outcomes in patients with moderate COVID-19 hospitalized in a standard care unit. FUNDING: The study received support (research grants) from ThermoFisher immunodiagnostics (France) and Gustave Roussy Foundation.

High p16 expression and heterozygous RB1 loss are biomarkers for CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance in ER+ breast cancer.

CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy have demonstrated higher antitumor activity than endocrine therapy alone for the treatment of advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Some of these tumors are de novo resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors and others develop acquired resistance. Here, we show that p16 overexpression is associated with reduced antitumor activity of CDK4/6 inhibitors in patient-derived xenografts (n = 37) and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer cell lines, as well as reduced response of early and advanced breast cancer patients to CDK4/6 inhibitors (n = 89). We also identified heterozygous RB1 loss as biomarker of acquired resistance and poor clinical outcome. Combination of the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib with the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib showed antitumor activity in estrogen receptor-positive non-basal-like breast cancer patient-derived xenografts, independently of PIK3CA, ESR1 or RB1 mutation, also in drug de-escalation experiments or omitting endocrine therapy. Our results offer insights into predicting primary/acquired resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors and post-progression therapeutic strategies.

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method In contrast, saliva sampling can be self-administered. METHODS: In order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words "(SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR COVID19) AND (salivary OR saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type]) NOT (PrePrint[Publication Type])" applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model. FINDINGS: A total of 377 studies were retrieved, of which 50 were eligible, reporting on 16,473 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.5% (95%CI: 89.5-94.7), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.5% (95%CI: 83.4-89.1) and 92.0% (95%CI: 89.1-94.2) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 72.0% for saliva and 85.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. INTERPRETATION: Our meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and "en masse" screening of populations.