Wu, Julie

AbstractBackgroundRecent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk‐prediction model (called SPLC‐RAT) was developed and validated using data from population‐based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real‐world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT was evaluated in a hospital‐based cohort of lung cancer survivors.MethodsThe authors analyzed data from 8448 ever‐smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997–2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model‐based surveillance using SPLC‐RAT versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines.ResultsOf 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person‐years. The application of SPLC‐RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10‐year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC‐RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high‐risk versus low‐risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10–6). The risk‐based surveillance through SPLC‐RAT (≥5.6% threshold) outperformed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines with higher sensitivity (86.4% vs. 79.4%) and specificity (38.9% vs. 30.4%) and required 20% fewer computed tomography follow‐ups needed to detect one SPLC (162 vs. 202).ConclusionIn a large, hospital‐based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT in identifying high‐risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk‐based surveillance.Plain Language Summary Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, no evidence‐based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors. Recently, an SPLC risk‐prediction model was developed and validated using data from population‐based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real‐world validation has been lacking. Using a large, real‐world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk‐stratification ability of the SPLC risk‐prediction model. Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model‐based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus‐based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

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

Abstract Introduction: Radiotherapy has long been examined in association with second malignancies, but the impact of radiotherapy for initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) on the risk of second primary lung cancer (SPLC) remains controversial. We evaluated associations between IPLC radiotherapy and the risks of SPLC and overall mortality among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We identified 689,785 patients diagnosed with IPLC in 1988-2013 from SEER. We applied cause-specific Cox (CSC) regression to evaluate association between IPLC radiotherapy and SPLC risk, adjusting for age at IPLC diagnosis, IPLC stage and histology, and prior history of cancer. To allow a latency period of exposure to IPLC radiotherapy on SPLC risk, we performed subgroup analyses restricted to patients who survived ≥5 and ≥10 years after IPLC diagnosis. Using Cox regression, we evaluated association between IPLC radiotherapy and overall mortality, adjusting for the same covariates used in the CSC analysis. Mediation analysis quantified the indirect effect of IPLC radiotherapy on overall mortality mediated through radiotherapy-driven SPLC diagnosis. Validation utilized data from 7,758 IPLC patients (496 SPLCs) at Mayo Clinic. Results: Of 689,785 IPLC patients, 18,818 (2.7%) developed SPLC in SEER. IPLC patients treated with radiotherapy had a reduced SPLC risk versus non-irradiated patients when evaluated at the time of initial diagnosis (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR]=0.90, P&lt;1x10-6). However, the association between IPLC radiotherapy and SPLC risk was reversed when analyses were restricted to those who survived at least 5 years (csHR=1.08, P=0.01) and 10 years (csHR=1.16, P=0.009), thus long-term survivors treated with IPLC radiotherapy having a significantly increased risk of SPLC. Mayo Clinic data showed consistent results, with the effect of IPLC radiotherapy increasing from csHR of 2.41 (P&lt;1x10-6) to 3.38 (P=0.001) among 5-year and 10-year survivors, respectively. Similarly, compared to non-irradiated patients, those treated with IPLC radiotherapy showed a significantly increased risk of overall mortality among 10-year survivors (hazard ratio [HR]=1.46, P&lt;1x10-6 in SEER and HR=1.54, P=5.1X10-5 in Mayo Clinic). Mediation analysis showed that a substantial proportion of the total effect of IPLC radiotherapy on overall mortality—ranging from 32% to 59%—was due to radiotherapy-driven SPLC among 10-year survivors in SEER and Mayo Clinic. Conclusions: IPLC radiotherapy is associated with increased risks of SPLC and overall mortality, with its effects more pronounced among long-term survivors. Citation Format: Eunji Choi, Vicky T. Lam, Jacqueline A. Aredo, Ashok V. Kumar, Jason Wampfler, Julie T. Wu, David C. Christiani, Iona Cheng, Christopher I. Amos, Rayjean J. Hung, Leah M. Backhus, Joel W. Neal, Heather A. Wakelee, Ping Yang, Summer S. Han. Long term effect of radiotherapy on risk of second primary lung cancer and overall mortality among lung cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 3445.

Abstract Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. Significance: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426