Rubinstein, Samuel M.

Abstract Patients with multiple myeloma have an elevated risk of severe complications from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19) infection. To demonstrate proof of concept for a pandemic preparedness and response network, the American Society of Hematology Research Collaborative Multiple Myeloma Program developed a prospective, decentralized study within a site-based provider network. In the COVID-19 outcomes in myeloma and the impact of vaccines (COSMIC) study, patients provided consent, permitted electronic health record data collection, completed patient-reported outcomes at baseline, day 30, and day 180 through an electronic study portal, and were compensated for participation. Clinicians at participating sites facilitated study recruitment and shared best practices monthly to accelerate study execution. The COSMIC study rapidly consented 201 patients from 8 participating sites over 4 months (22 January 2024 through 17 May 2024). Consented participants were 30 to 93 years old, with a median age of 67; 46% were female, 69% were non-Hispanic White, 17% were non-Hispanic Black, and 8% were Hispanic/Latino. Patient-reported data completion was 97% at baseline, 81% at 1 month, and 79% at 6 months. At baseline, 55% of patients reported a history of COVID-19 infection and had received a median of 4 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. For all patients, there were an additional 18 COVID-19 infections and 57 vaccines received during the 6-month observation period. There were no significant differences in health-related quality of life over time or by history of COVID-19 infection. COSMIC demonstrates the feasibility of an innovative evidence generation strategy to drive rapid accrual of patients to address an evolving area of need. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT05831787.

Abstract Introduction: While the incidence of multiple myeloma (MM) is 2-3 fold higher in Black compared to white individuals, the impact of racial differences on treatment outcomes remains unclear due to the confounding effect of socioeconomic barriers and disparities in access to effective therapies and clinical trials. In this study, we explored the relationship between race, social deprivation, and outcomes in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients (pts) receiving modern therapies with triplet or quadruplet regimens. Methods: Pts with NDMM diagnosis, who received first line treatment between 2015-2025, and had data available on response and survival outcomes were identified through the ASH Research Collaborative MM Data Hub (a real-world database with pts across 11 U.S. institutions). Data on patient demographics (age, race, ethnicity, sex), disease risk status (ISS/R-ISS stage, FISH cytogenetics), treatment regimens (triplet vs quadruplet, anti CD38 monoclonal antibody-based vs not), and disparity measures were abstracted from electronic medical records. Race and ethnicity were self-reported by pts. Social Deprivation Index (SDI) score was calculated based on ZIP code, where higher scores reflect greater deprivation. Progression free survival (PFS) was defined as time from start of treatment until progression or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from start of treatment until death from any cause. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare PFS and OS between groups, and cox regression models with log-rank tests were used to evaluate the influence of various factors on outcomes. Results: A total of 1,743 patients were identified; 1,116 (63.8%) identified as non-Hispanic White (NHW) and 402 (23.3%) as non-Hispanic Black (NHB) [note: 85 pts (4.9%) were Hispanic but not included due to limited numbers]. The median age (years) at the start of treatment (61.8 vs. 65.6) was lower for NHB compared to NHW pts (p<0.001). The proportion of females was greater in NHBthan NHW pts(53.5% vs. 41.1%, p=0.0016). Median SDI scores were significantly higher for NHBcompared to NHW pts (68.4 vs. 39.4; respectively; p<0.001), reflecting significantly higher rates of social deprivation. While NHB ptshad higher rates of advanced stage disease (ISS III 26.9% vs. 20.9%, p=0.009), lower rates of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) (56.7% vs. 63.6%, p=0.014), and longer median time from treatment initiation to ASCT (6.5 vs. 5.9 months, p=0.043), the rates of standard risk cytogenetics on FISH (72.3% vs. 77.6%), and utilization of CD38 monoclonal antibody-based regimen (29.9% vs. 27.7%) were similar between the two groups. Best response after treatment initiation was similar between the NHB and NHW pts (p=0.12) with complete response 45.7% vs. 52.6% and very good partial response 37.3% vs 34.7%; respectively. However, time to best response (months) was longer in NHB pts (7.2 vs. 6.5, p=0.005). Median follow-up for OS was 4.2 years (95% CI 3.9-4.4; 182 OS events) and for PFS was 1.3 years (95% CI: 1.1-1.6; 302 PFS events) across the two groups. Unadjusted PFS was similar for NHB vs NHW pts (HR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.81- 1.36; median: 5.0 vs 4.9 years; 3-year PFS: 66% vs. 71%). Similarly, unadjusted OS was not significantly different in NHB vs NHW pts (HR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.79-1.59; 5-year OS: 86.4% vs 85.6%). Higher SDI scores were significantly associated with worse OS (HR=1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.12; p=0.0065) but not PFS (HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.95-1.02; p=0.46). Though not statistically significant, univariate analyses indicated a greater impact of high SDI scores (≥70, 75th percentile across all pts) in NHW (HR=1.45, p=0.068) than in NHB pts (HR=0.78, p=0.35) for OS. Adjusting for age, sex, ISS stage, and SDI, NHB did not appear to have worse OS (HR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.60; p=0.46) or PFS (HR=1.23, 95% CI: 0.78-1.96; p=0.37) compared to NHW pts. Conclusions: Our study represents a diverse population enriched for pts who received modern day standard of care frontline therapies including triplet and quadruplet regimens with or without ASCT. Based on SDI scores, higher social deprivation levels were seen in NHB compared to NHW pts without a difference in outcomes between the two races. Our analysis supports that higher social deprivation among different races rather than race and ethnicity alone may drive differential outcomes and adjustment for factors like SDI is critical to interpretation of survival outcomes by race.

Background: Contemporary questions about treatment and outcomes of patients (pts) living with multiple myeloma (MM) demand efficient and timely evidence generation methods, where real-world/ everyday practice data can play an important role. Relevant potential applications include understanding and addressing disparities in treatment access, mitigating toxicities of novel therapies while maintaining quality of life, appropriately sequencing treatments within long-term management strategies, and disseminating and appropriately using surrogate endpoints in practice, such as minimal residual disease. However, existing real-world data (RWD) repositories are limited by an inability to implement interventions in response to issues identified through retrospective data analysis, which is pivotal for the use of newer therapies. The ASH Research Collaborative (ASH RC) MM Data Hub Program was developed to address these gaps. Methods: We developed a multicenter network of US-based tertiary academic medical centers, engaging site clinicians, patients, biostatisticians, informaticians, and data scientists. Initial activities included constructing a shared real-world MM data model comprised of consensus core data elements. Pt data from each site, dating back to at least 2019, is currently being entered through electronic case report forms, batch uploaded utilizing existing institutional data repositories, and soon direct electronic health record import in standard data acquisition formats. Data are aggregated in the Data Hub and shared in a confidential Site Portal with each site. The Portal allows sites to track their own pts, analyze outcomes, and identify ways to improve the quality of care provided to individuals living with MM. We also developed an innovative evidence generation learning community of site clinicians who meet monthly and collaborate on the “COVID-19 OutcomeS in Myeloma and the Impact of VaCcines (COSMIC)” study, a prospective, decentralized observational study that rapidly accrued pts and collects relevant practice information. The group also shares best practices in study conduct to accelerate study enrollment and execution. Results: The MM Data Hub Program now contains twelve centers: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, University of California San Francisco, University of California Davis, Medical College of Wisconsin, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, University of North Carolina Medical Center at Chapel Hill, Emory University Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Atrium Health. From this Network, six centers have contributed data from 8,824 pts (2,825 with sufficiently complete data are included in this analysis). The median age at time of MM diagnosis is 63, and of the 627 deceased pts, the median age at death is 70.6 years, with median time to death from first MM diagnosis of 6 years. The proportions of pts by decade of diagnoses are 34.9% from 2020-2024; 57.6% from 2010-2019; 7.3% from 2000-2009; and 0.9% prior to 2000. 83.1% of pts had a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma (non-light chain), and 14.4% of pts had a diagnosis of light chain myeloma. 42.3% of pts are female, and the self-reported patient races are: 85.0% white; 9.2% black or African; and 4.3% all other races (race was not documented in 1.5% of pts). 2.8% of pts are of Hispanic ethnicity. Participant data files are currently undergoing completion and cleaning procedures; the analysis will include updated results at the meeting, and a Network-wide analytic data set will be available for initial retrospective data analyses in early 2025. The COSMIC study opened for enrollment on January 22, 2024, and completed enrollment of 200 pts on May 17, 2024. Conclusions: The ASH RC Data Hub MM Program launched in 2023 and is comprised of 12 sites that collectively have contributed participant files for 8,824 pts thus far. Utilizing the structure of the Network, we successfully implemented and established the feasibility of collecting data directly from pts electronically to monitor SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and COVID-19 related outcomes. The Program serves as a successful proof-of-concept model, providing an enduring RWD resource and a prospective evidence generation platform for the myeloma community.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had an outsized impact on individuals with immune compromise, such as multiple myeloma, leading to increased rates of severe COVID, hospitalization, and death in these groups. The pandemic also demonstrated the need for rapid and efficient evidence generation to address rapidly changing medical needs and accelerated the use of innovative trial designs to accomplish this goal. Methods: We designed and established a prospective, decentralized study within a site-based provider network, COVID-19 OutcomeS in Myeloma and the Impact of VaCcines (COSMIC), for patients with multiple myeloma at ASH Research Collaborative sites to monitor outcomes related to COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The direct-to-patient approach was accomplished using a study application accessed with a QR code provided to patients during usual clinical care. All study activities occurred within the patient portal at Baseline, Day 30, and Day 180, minimizing burden on site personnel and staff. Study activities included eligibility confirmation, consenting, electronic health record (EHR) data permissions, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys. PRO data (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ MY-20) were made available to clinicians through the portal to visualize results from their patients. Patients shared if they received a COVID-19 vaccination or booster and if they had a COVID-19 infection. Patients with a history of COVID-19 infection included method of confirmation and if hospitalization was required. Patients were provided compensation for participation. Automated text and email messages were sent at three separate intervals: 24 hours, Day 8, and Day 15 for participants who initiated but did not complete study activities. A personal email reminder per participant was sent for those whose second study visit window was approaching. ASH Research Collaborative clinicians met regularly to share best practices related to enrollment and study conduct, thereby creating an innovative evidence generation learning community. We studied the feasibility of data collection in a decentralized format by focusing on the number of participants who interacted with the system, those who consented, and those who completed baseline PRO assessments. Results: The COSMIC study rapidly accrued and consented 200 patients from eight participating ASH Research Collaborative sites over four months (1/22/2024 through 5/17/2024): 69% self-reported as non-Hispanic White (NHW). Of enrolled participants, 57.5% opted to permission sharing of their EHR data, which included disease and treatment-related clinical data, laboratory results, pathology reports, and imaging reports. A total of 196 patients (98%) provided demographic and COVID-related disease and vaccine data at baseline; nearly all of these patients (n=195) provided baseline PRO data, and 150 patients provided further information at Day 30 at the time of this analysis. Those who did not provide Day 30 data were not significantly different from those who did in terms of age (median: 68 [no Day 30 data] vs. 67 [Day 30 data] years; p=0.44), sex (41% [no Day 30 data] vs. 47% [Day 30 data] Female; p=0.47), or race (65% [no Day 30 data] vs. 71% [Day 30 data] NHW; p=0.60). A higher proportion of Hispanic patients were retained at Day 30 (13/15=87%) vs. 78% of non-Hispanic patients or those who declined reporting ethnicity (2/7=29%; p=0.007). COVID-19 vaccination data were submitted by 196 patients, 186 of whom had ever received a COVID-19 vaccination. Data on number, type, brand, and dates for these vaccinations were provided. Conclusions: The COSMIC study conducted by the ASH Research Collaborative was able to rapidly accrue a diverse cohort of patients using a decentralized workflow within a site-based provider network, with high consent and compliance rates. This platform, and the innovative evidence generation learning community of ASH Research Collaborative investigators and patients, sets a precedent to address a variety of real-world questions related to disease management, infections, vaccinations, and PROs in this population of patients with multiple myeloma.

Background: Data from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology demonstrated that patients with multiple myeloma and other immune compromise had elevated risk for severe complications from COVID-19 infection. To address current evidence gaps and to demonstrate proof of concept for a pandemic preparedness and response network, the ASH Research Collaborative Multiple Myeloma Program developed a prospective, decentralized study within a site-based provider network to investigate COVID-19 infections, vaccinations, and quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma. Methods: We designed and established the COVID-19 OutcomeS in Myeloma and the Impact of VacCines (COSMIC) to study COVID-19 in patients with multiple myeloma at ASH Research Collaborative network sites. A study application was accessed with a QR code and shared with patients during usual clinical care. Patients provided consent, optionally gave permission for electronic health record data collection, and completed patient-reported outcomes (EORTC QLQ-C30 and MY20) at baseline, Day 30, and Day 180 through the study portal. Clinicians at participating sites facilitated study enrollment and shared best practices monthly to accelerate study execution. Study objectives related to feasibility of data collection in a decentralized format are reported in a separate abstract. Here, we report interim results related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination history, COVID-19 infection, and how these relate to patient reported outcomes and clinical outcomes in enrolled participants. Results: The COSMIC study rapidly accrued and consented 200 patients from eight participating ASH Research Collaborative sites over four months (1/22/2024 through 5/17/2024). Consented participants' ages ranged from 29 to 93 years, with median of 67 years; 46% were female, 69% were non-Hispanic White (NHW), 17% were non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and 8% were Hispanic/Latino. Of the 196 patients who reported COVID-19 data, 111 (57%) reported at baseline that they had a history of COVID-19 infection, with 12 having required hospitalization for this (12/111=11%). Overall, 95% (186/196) reported a history of COVID-19 vaccination, where the median number of vaccinations was 4 (range: 1 to 6); 44 patients (23%) expressed willingness to discuss getting a yearly booster vaccine with their provider. At 1-month follow-up, there were 3 additional patients who reported a COVID-19 infection and 18 patients who received an additional COVID-19 vaccination. The baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 median Global Health Status/QOL score was 66.7 (mean=64.4, range: 8.3 - 100, n=196). This overall global QOL score was not significantly different between those who did vs. did not have a history of COVID-19 infection (mean [SD]: 63.7 [19.3] vs. 65.8 [17.6]; p=0.57). In analyses adjusted for age, biological sex, and race/ethnicity group, history of COVID-19 infection was not associated with HRQOL (odds ratio=0.93, 95% CI: 0.78 - 1.10; p=0.38). Data collection is ongoing and final study results will be reported at a later date. Conclusion: COSMIC is a prospective, decentralized study within a site-based provider network conducted by the ASH Research Collaborative Multiple Myeloma Program that demonstrates the feasibility of using an innovative evidence generation strategy to drive rapid accrual of patients to address a rapidly evolving area of need. The COSMIC study also provides proof of concept that a real-world evidence generation network can play an important role in national pandemic preparedness and response. The COSMIC experience reinforces the ability to accrue diverse patient populations representing the demographic of myeloma patients in the US.

CONCLUSION The most widely used multiple myeloma (MM) staging system, the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS), is based on lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), albumin, high-risk genetic markers by FISH, and beta-2 microglobulin (B2M). However, it does not account for additional risk impacted by multiple genetic abnormalities, or the risk imparted by presence of gain of chromosome 1q, and most patients are staged as R-ISS Stage 2. Two new staging systems, the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), and the Second Revision of the International Staging System (R2-ISS) have been recently proposed. A comparison of the performance of these two systems has not previously been done. We aimed to externally demonstrate the application of these staging systems and compare their performances in a large, contemporary cohort of patients in the United States. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database, comprising de-identified patient-level structured and unstructured data, curated via technology-enabled abstraction and originating from approximately 280 US cancer clinics (~800 sites of care). The study included newly diagnosed MM patients initiating treatment between January 1, 2016 and October 1, 2022. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to evaluate real-world overall survival (rwOS) and patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation (index date) until the first of death, end of the study period or last recorded activity. The log-rank test to compare survival curves across derived stages. Multivariable analysis was conducted using stratified Cox models to account for non-proportional hazards by age with covariate adjustment for race/ethnicity, sex, practice type (academic or community) and diagnosis year (2016-2019 vs 2020-2022). Discrimination and calibration were evaluated in crude models using Harrell's c-index and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. There were 497 patients with MM included. Patient characteristics are listed in Panel A. The distribution of patients across R-ISS stages were as follows, 24%, 63% and 13% for Stage 1, 2 and 3 respectively. rwOS differed across R-ISS stage (log-rank p = 0.0006) and the median OS (OS) was not reached (NR), 63, and 37 months for R-ISS stage 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 34%, 35% and 31% for MASS 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The corresponding survival curves were significantly different (p < 0.0001), with associated mOS of 77, 61 and 45 months for MASS stages 1, 2, and 3, respectively. R2-ISS includes four risk categories (stages I-IV) and in our cohort, 20% (n = 100) were stage I (low), 126 (25%) were stage II (low-intermediate), 229 (46%) were stage III (intermediate), and 42 (9%) were stage IV (high). Survival across stages were significantly different (p<0.0001), though the survival curves for low and low-intermediate, and intermediate-high and high, were clustered, suggesting comparable outcomes in stages I-II and stages III-IV. mOS for R2-ISS stages I, II, III, and IV was NR, 69, 50 and 51 months respectively (Panel B). In fully adjusted analyses, as compared to MASS I, the hazards of death were 2.0 (95% CI 1.3-3.2) for MASS II and 2.7 (1.7-4.2) for MASS III. The hazards of death were similar for R2-ISS low and low-int (HR for low-int vs low: 1.2 [0.7, 2.3]). As compared to R2-ISS low, the hazards of death were similarly higher for int-high and high (HRs: 2.4 [1.4, 4.1] and 2.6 [1.3, 5.2], respectively). Discrimination and calibration were similar across all staging systems (c = 0.6, and Hosmer-Lemeshow p>0.05 for all three staging systems). Application of contemporary MM staging systems in a large cohort of US patients shows that they are prognostic for OS in MM. MASS demonstrated a greater separation for OS across stages, whereas R2-ISS intermediate-high and high were largely overlapping. Although our results demonstrate similar accuracy and reliability of MASS and R2-ISS, the discrimination of patients across different stages seen with the newer staging systems, as opposed to R-ISS, calls for greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice.

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.

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