Ohri, Nitin

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo 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 ParticipantsThis 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.ExposureTreatments 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 MeasuresMain 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.ResultsOf 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 RelevanceIn 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.

489 Background: To determine if SBRT followed by sorafenib (SBRT/S) improves overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QOL) vs. sorafenib alone (S), in patients (pts) with HCC. Methods: Eligible pts had new or recurrent HCC, unsuitable for surgery, ablation or TACE, with Zubrod performance status (PS) 0-2, Child-Pugh (CP) A, BCLC stage B or C, ≤ 5 HCCs, sum of hepatic HCCs ≤ 20 cm, and distant metastases ≤ 3 cm. Pts were randomized 1:1 to S 400 mg BID vs. SBRT (27.5-50 Gy in 5 fractions) followed by S 200 mg BID, increased to 400 mg BID after 28 days. Primary endpoint was OS; reported secondary endpoints - PFS, adverse events (AEs - CTCAEv4), and QOL (improvement in FACT-Hep score by ≥ 5 points from baseline to 6 months). Planned sample size was 292 pts (238 OS events, HR=0.72, 80% power, 1-sided α=0.05). Accrual closed early, due to a change in HCC standard of care. Statistics were amended to report as of 7/1/2022, projecting 155 OS events, with 65% power and the same α. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and arms compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze treatment effect. Secondary endpoints were tested with 2-sided α=0.05. Results: Of 193 pts accrued from April 2013 to March 2021 from 23 sites, 177 eligible pts were randomized to S (n=92) vs. SBRT/S (n=85). Median age was 66 yrs (27-84); 41% had Hep. C; 19% had Hep. B or B/C. 82% were BCLC stage C. 74% had macrovascular invasion (MVI), 63% with VP3 or VP4 MVI. 4% had metastases. Median sum of max diameter of HCCs was 8.2 cm for S and 6.7 cm for SBRT/S; 40% had a single HCC. Median follow-up for all and alive pts was 13.2 and 33.7 mo. 22% of S pts received SBRT after discontinuing S. With 153 OS events, median OS was improved from 12.3 mo. (90% CI 10.6, 14.3) with S to 15.8 mo. (90% CI 11.4-19.2) with SBRT/S (HR=0.77, 1-sided p=0.0554). After adjusting for PS, M stage, CP A5 vs. 6, and degree of MVI, OS was statistically significantly improved for SBRT/S (HR=0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99, 2-sided Cox p=0.042). Median PFS was improved from 5.5 mo. (95% CI 3.4-6.3) with S to 9.2 months (95% CI 7.5-11.9) with SBRT/S (HR=0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.75, 2-sided p=0.0001). 8 grade (G) 3+ bleeds were seen: 5 in S arm (1 G3 variceal, 2 G3 upper GI, 1 G3 hepatic, and 1 G4 abdominal) and 3 post SBRT/S (2 G3 upper GI, 1 G3 lower GI). Treatment-related G3+ AEs were not significantly different (S - 42%; SBRT/S - 47%; p=0.52), with 3 G5 AEs (S - 1 hepatic failure, 1 death NOS; SBRT/S - 1 lung infection). 83 (47%) pts consented to QoL. Of 20 S and 17 SBRT/S pts with QoL assessments at baseline and 6 months, 10% on S improved in FACT-Hep score vs 35% on SBRT/S. Conclusions: Compared to S alone, SBRT improved OS & PFS in patients with HCC, with no observed increase in AEs, and a strong suggestion for QOL benefit at 6 months. Supported by U10CA180868 (NRG Onc. Op., U10CA180822 (NRG Onc. SDMC), UG1CA189867 (NCORP), and U24CA180803 (IROC) from the NCI. Clinical trial information: NCT01730937 .

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701