Wee, Christopher

AbstractIntroductionChemotherapy in combination with immunotherapy has a proven survival benefit compared to chemotherapy alone in extensive stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and is the new standard of care. Since extrapulmonary small cell carcinomas (SCCs) are less common, treatment paradigms are reasonably extrapolated from SCLC regimens. We examined our institution's experience utilizing the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy (as used in SCLC) for SCC and neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate.MethodsUtilizing an institutional database search tool, we queried the electronic medical record to identify patients with SCC or neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate who had been treated with atezolizumab and chemotherapy. We recorded patient characteristics, including age, pathology, and disease extent. Treatment characteristics included number of prior treatments, use of concominant androgen deprivation, number of cycles of immunotherapy, and prior systemic therapies (including those for adenocarcinoma of the prostate). Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were the primary outcomes.ResultsWe identified seven men who received atezolizumab for metastatic prostate cancer with a small cell or neuroendocrine component. In six of the seven patients, the combination of carboplatin, etoposide, and atezolizumab was the first‐line of treatment after diagnosis of small cell or neuroendocrine carcinoma. Two of the seven patients had de novo small cell/neuroendocrine pathology, while the other five had transformation from a preexisting adenocarcinoma. In the patients who received chemotherapy plus immunotherapy in the first‐line setting, at a median follow‐up of 6.5 months (range: 1.5–15.1) the median PFS was 3.4 months and median OS was 8.4 months.ConclusionSmall cell or neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate was associated with poor survival outcomes despite adding immunotherapy (atezolizumab) to chemotherapy (carboplatin and etoposide). To our knowledge, there has been no demonstrable benefit of adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy in this setting.

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.