Verma, Vivek

Abstract Background Cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported to have double the case fatality rate of the general population. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was done for studies on cancer patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions were calculated for categorical variables. Odds ratio (OR) and forest plots (random-effects model) were constructed for both primary and secondary outcomes. Results This systematic review of 38 studies and meta-analysis of 181 323 patients from 26 studies included 23 736 cancer patients. Our meta-analysis shows that cancer patients with COVID-19 have a higher likelihood of death (n = 165 980, OR = 2.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.47 to 4.42), which was largely driven by mortality among patients in China. Cancer patients were more likely to be intubated. Among cancer subtypes, the mortality was highest in hematological malignancies (n = 878, OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.17 to 4.87) followed by lung cancer (n = 646, OR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.00 to 3.37). There was no association between receipt of a particular type of oncologic therapy and mortality. Our study showed that cancer patients affected by COVID-19 are a decade older than the normal population and have a higher proportion of comorbidities. There was insufficient data to assess the association of COVID-19–directed therapy and survival outcomes in cancer patients. Conclusion Cancer patients with COVID-19 disease are at increased risk of mortality and morbidity. A more nuanced understanding of the interaction between cancer-directed therapies and COVID-19–directed therapies is needed. This will require uniform prospective recording of data, possibly in multi-institutional registry databases.

Abstract The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has exacted an enormous toll on healthcare systems worldwide. The cytokine storm that follows pulmonary infection is causally linked to respiratory compromise and mortality in the majority of patients. The sparsity of viable treatment options for this viral infection and the sequelae of pulmonary complications have fueled the quest for new therapeutic considerations. One such option, the long-forgotten idea of using low-dose radiation therapy, has recently found renewed interest in many academic centers. We outline the scientific and logistical rationale for consideration of this option and the mechanistic underpinnings of any potential therapeutic value, particularly as viewed from an immunological perspective. We also discuss the preliminary and/or published results of prospective trials examining low-dose radiation therapy for COVID-19.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with RR-AML, particularly older adults, have dismal outcomes and limited therapy options. Given low response rates and high toxicity with salvage intensive chemotherapy, and frequent ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), many patients are treated with HMAs. Robust data regarding use of HMAs in AML predominates in the frontline setting, while their use in RR-AML has limited supportive data. Here wesought to analyze theoutcomes and their predictors in patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs. Methods:We collected data, spanning a period from 2006 to 2016, from 7 centers in the United States and 4 centers in Europe regarding patients treated with HMAs for RR-AML. Responses were defined by International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) from initiation of HMAs to death or end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds for response, and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models estimated hazards ratios (HR) for OS. Covariates considered included HMA received, age at diagnosis (in years), AML classification at diagnosis (AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC], therapy-related [t]-AML), disease status (relapsed vs. refractory), number of therapy lines prior to HMA (1 vs. 2 vs. >=3), duration of first complete remission (CR1), white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast percentage, bone marrow (BM) cellularity (<=20% vs. > 20%), BM blast percentage (<=20% vs. >20%), cytogenetic risk group, and the presence of complex or chromosome 7 abnormalities. Results: Of 514 patients, 217 patients (42.2%) had refractory and 297 (58%) had relapsed AML. By end of study, 415 patients (88.5%) had died. Median follow-up for living patients was 11.6 months.Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range [R], 16-92). AML-MRC was diagnosed in 29.0% while 8.2% had t-AML. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (R, 1-7), with 48.3% receiving 1 prior line, 30.2% receiving 2 prior lines, and 21.5% receiving >=3 prior lines. Prior alloSCT was performed in 21.2%. Only 1.9% had good risk (core binding factor) karyotype, while 56.2% had intermediate risk karyotype, and 41.9% had poor risk karyotype. Azacitidine was used in 45.8% and decitabine in 54.2%; median number of azacitidine cycles was 4 (Interquartile range [IQR], 2-6) compared to 2 for decitabine (IQR, 1-4, p <0.001). Best response to HMAs was CR in 11.7% (95%CI, 9%-14%), CRi in 6.4% (95%CI, 4.3%-8.8%), hematologic improvement (HI) in 8% (95%CI, 5.7%-10.5%), stable disease (SD) in 9.8% (95%CI, 7.2%-12.5%), while 64.1% (95%CI, 57.7%-66.2%) had progressive disease (PD). Median OS from HMA initiation for all patients was 6.9 months (IQR, 3.0-13.3). There was a significant difference in OS based on best response achieved [Figure 1]. Unadjusted OS showed an insignificant trend for worsening with increasing number of prior lines of therapy [Figure 2A]. In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in OS based on HMA received in all patients [Figure 2B] or the subset who received only 1 prior line of therapy (median OS: Azacitidine vs. decitabine 8.4 vs 7.3 months, p=0.88). Following HMA therapy, the median number of subsequent therapies was 0 (R, 0-6), and only 12.8% underwent alloSCT. In multivariate CPH models, HMA used was not significantly associated with OS (HR=0.80, 95%CI, 0.42-1.51, p=0.49), while increasing age, and presence of complex cytogenetics and chromosome 7 abnormalities were significantly associated with risk of death [Table 1]. In multivariable logistic regression models, HMA used was not associated with achieving CR+CRi (Odds ratio=0.56, p=0.32). Conclusions: In this largest reported cohort of patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs, we found that HMAs are often used as alast line of therapy, with a minority of patients receiving subsequent treatment. Nonetheless, the minority of patients who achieve CR (11.7%) with HMA therapy had a median OS of 25.6 months. Therefore, use of HMAs for management of RR-AML is a reasonable intervention in the absence of clinical trial options. There appears to be no difference in OS or probability of achieving CR+CRi based on HMA used. Ongoing analyses in this dataset include further evaluations of predictors, including genetic mutations, and the development of prediction tools for clinical outcomes with HMA therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ritchie:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prebet:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gore:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Key Points In the largest study of HMAs in RR-AML to date, 16% of patients achieved CR/CRi and experienced a median OS of 21 months. Low proliferative disease (peripheral blood blasts <5%) was associated with improved response and OS.

BACKGROUNDExisting data supporting the use of proton‐beam therapy (PBT) for limited‐stage small cell lung cancer (LS‐SCLC) are limited to a single 6‐patient case series. This is the first prospective study to evaluate clinical outcomes and toxicities of PBT for LS‐SCLC.METHODSThis study prospectively analyzed patients with primary, nonrecurrent LS‐SCLC definitively treated with PBT and concurrent chemotherapy from 2011 to 2016. Clinical backup intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were generated for each patient and were compared with PBT plans. Outcome measures included local control (LC), recurrence‐free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) rates and toxicities.RESULTSThirty consecutive patients were enrolled and evaluated. The median dose was 63.9 cobalt gray equivalents (range, 45‐66.6 cobalt gray equivalents) in 33 to 37 fractions delivered daily (n = 18 [60.0%]) or twice daily (n = 12 [40.0%]). The concurrent chemotherapy was cisplatin/etoposide (n = 21 [70.0%]) or carboplatin/etoposide (n = 9 [30.0%]). In comparison with the backup IMRT plans, PBT allowed statistically significant reductions in the cord, heart, and lung mean doses and the volume receiving at least 5 Gy but not in the esophagus mean dose or the lung volume receiving at least 20 Gy. At a median follow‐up of 14 months, the 1‐/2‐year LC and RFS rates were 85%/69% and 63%/42%, respectively. The median OS was 28.2 months, and the 1‐/2‐year OS rates were 72%/58%. There was 1 case each (3.3%) of grade 3 or higher esophagitis, pneumonitis, anorexia, and pericardial effusion. Grade 2 pneumonitis and esophagitis were seen in 10.0% and 43.3% of patients, respectively.CONCLUSIONSIn the first prospective registry study and largest analysis to date of PBT for LS‐SCLC, PBT was found to be safe with a limited incidence of high‐grade toxicities. Cancer 2017;123:4244–4251. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUNDStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is the standard of care for patients with nonoperative, early‐stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) measuring < 5 cm, but its use among patients with tumors measuring ≥5 cm is considerably less defined, with the existing literature limited to small, single‐institution reports. The current multi‐institutional study reported outcomes evaluating the largest such population reported to date.METHODSClinical/treatment characteristics, outcomes, toxicities, and patterns of failure were assessed in patients with primary NSCLC measuring ≥5 cm without evidence of distant/lymph node metastasis who underwent SBRT using ≤5 fractions. Statistics included Kaplan‐Meier survival analyses and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.RESULTSA total of 92 patients treated from 2004 through 2016 were analyzed from 12 institutions. The median follow‐up was 12 months (15 months in survivors). The median age and tumor size among the patients were 73 years (range, 50‐95 years) and 5.4 cm (range, 5.0‐7.5 cm), respectively. The median dose/fractionation was 50 Gray/5 fractions. The actuarial local control rates at 1 year and 2 years were 95.7% and 73.2%, respectively. The disease‐free survival rate was 72.1% and 53.5%, respectively, at 1 year and 2 years. The 1‐year and 2‐year disease‐specific survival rates were 95.5% and 78.6%, respectively. The median, 1‐year, and 2‐year overall survival rates were 21.4 months, 76.2%, and 46.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, lung cancer history and pre‐SBRT positron emission tomography maximum standardized uptake value were found to be associated with overall survival. Posttreatment failures were most commonly distant (33% of all disease recurrences), followed by local (26%) and those occurring elsewhere in the lung (23%). Three patients had isolated local failures. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities included 1 case (1%) and 4 cases (4%) of grade 3 dermatitis and radiation pneumonitis, respectively (toxicities were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Grades 2 to 5 radiation pneumonitis occurred in 11% of patients. One patient with a tumor measuring 7.5 cm and a smoking history of 150 pack‐years died of radiation pneumonitis.CONCLUSIONSThe results of the current study, which is the largest study of patients with NSCLC measuring ≥5 cm reported to date, indicate that SBRT is a safe and efficacious option. Cancer 2017;123:688–696. © 2016 American Cancer Society.