Shyr, Yu

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.

Abstract The North American Airway Collaborative (NoAAC) previously published a 3‐year multi‐institutional prospective cohort study showing variation in treatment effectiveness between 3 primary surgical techniques for idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS). In this report, we update these findings to include 5 years of data evaluating treatment effectiveness. Patients in the NoAAC cohort were re‐enrolled for 2 additional years and followed using the prespecified published protocol. Consistent with prior data, prospective observation of 487 iSGS patients for 5 years showed treatment effectiveness differed by modality. Cricotracheal resection maintained the lowest rate of recurrent operation (5%), followed by endoscopic resection with adjuvant medical therapy (30%) and endoscopic dilation (50%). These data support the initial observations and continue to provide value to providers and patients navigating longitudinal decision‐making. Level of evidence: 2—prospective cohort study.

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

Objectives: To examine whether social determinants of health (SDH) factors are associated with time to diagnosis, treatment selection, and time to recurrent surgical intervention in idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS) patients. Methods: Adult patients with diagnosed iSGS were recruited prospectively (2015-2017) via clinical providers as part of the North American Airway Collaborative (NoAAC) and via an online iSGS support community on Facebook. Patient-specific SDH factors included highest educational attainment (self-reported), median household income (matched from home zip code via U.S. Census data), and number of close friends (self-reported) as a measure of social support. Main outcomes of interest were time to disease diagnosis (years from symptom onset), treatment selection (endoscopic dilation [ED] vs cricotracheal resection [CTR] vs endoscopic resection with adjuvant medical therapy [ERMT]), and time to recurrent surgical intervention (number of days from initial surgical procedure) as a surrogate for disease recurrence. Results: The total 810 participants were 98.5% female, 97.2% Caucasian, and had a median age of 50 years (IQR, 43-58). The cohort had a median household income of $62 307 (IQR, $50 345-$79 773), a median of 7 close friends (IQR, 4-10), and 64.7% of patients completed college or graduate school. Education, income, and number of friends were not associated with time to diagnosis via multivariable linear regression modeling. Univariable multinominal logistic regression demonstrated an association between education and income for selecting ED versus ERMT, but no associations were noted for CTR. No associations were noted for time to recurrent surgical procedure via Kaplan Meier modeling and Cox proportional hazards regression. Conclusions: Patient education, income, and social support were not associated with time to diagnosis or time to disease recurrence. This suggests additional patient, procedure, or disease-specific factors contribute to the observed variations in iSGS surgical outcomes.

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

LBA110 Background: There are limited data on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. We characterize the outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors. Methods: The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) cohort study includes patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies reported across academic and community sites. Results: We included 1,018 cases accrued March-April 2020. Median age was 66 years (range, 18-90). Breast (20%) and prostate (16%) cancers were most prevalent; 43% of patients were on active anti-cancer treatment. At time of data analysis, 106 patients (10.4%) have died and 26% met the composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, and/or mechanical ventilation. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality were age, male sex, former smoking, ECOG performance status (2 versus 0/1: partially adjusted odds ratio (pAOR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.31-5.7; 3/4 versus 0/1: pAOR 5.34, 95% CI 2.44-11.69), active malignancy (stable/responding, pAOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.06-3.5; progressing, pAOR 3.79, 95% CI 1.78-8.08), and receipt of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. Tumor type, race/ethnicity, obesity, number of comorbidities, recent surgery, and type of active cancer therapy were not significant factors for mortality. Conclusions: All-cause 30-day mortality and severe illness in this cohort were significantly higher than previously reported for the general population and were associated with general risk factors as well as those unique to patients with cancer. Cancer type and treatment were not independently associated with increased 30-day mortality. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments.

PURPOSE: ASCO is the premier and largest global professional society for oncology care professionals. In 2015, ASCO launched a longitudinal Learning Cohort Pilot Project to catalog and better understand the learning behaviors and preferences of oncology health care providers. A secondary goal was to assess learner preferences and utilization related to ASCO’s portfolio of educational resources. METHODS: The Learning Cohort Pilot Project was conducted between November 2015 and August 2016 with 49 ASCO members. Participants were selected via convenience sampling and stratified random sampling to generate a cohort that mirrored the demographic distribution of overall ASCO membership. Participants completed a different ASCO resource-specific feedback activity each month, which measured professional educational needs, sources sought, and preferences for educational resources. Responses were organized by demographic variables in our participant pool to identify trends in provider learning preferences. Fisher’s exact test was used to assess the association between participant demographics and practice setting and responses. Holm’s procedure was used to adjust for multiple testing. RESULTS: The Learning Cohort Pilot Project revealed statistically significant relationships between participant demographic variables and learning preferences. Age and practice setting were the demographic variables most consistently associated with the different preferences explored throughout the targeted activities. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot cohort reinforced the hypothesis that oncology care providers have different professional educational needs and preferences that can be potentially anticipated and met with tailored resources. Delivering solutions to meet these needs represents an opportunity for further research and resource development.

Abstract Purpose: Preclinical data demonstrating androgen receptor (AR)–positive (AR+) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells are sensitive to AR antagonists, and PI3K inhibition catalyzed an investigator-initiated, multi-institutional phase Ib/II study TBCRC032. The trial investigated the safety and efficacy of the AR-antagonist enzalutamide alone or in combination with the PI3K inhibitor taselisib in patients with metastatic AR+ (≥10%) breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Phase Ib patients [estrogen receptor positive (ER+) or TNBC] with AR+ breast cancer received 160 mg enzalutamide in combination with taselisib to determine dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Phase II TNBC patients were randomized to receive either enzalutamide alone or in combination with 4 mg taselisib until disease progression. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks. Results: The combination was tolerated, and the MTD was not reached. The adverse events were hyperglycemia and skin rash. Overall, CBR for evaluable patients receiving the combination was 35.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months. Luminal AR (LAR) TNBC subtype patients trended toward better response compared with non-LAR (75.0% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.06), and increased PFS (4.6 vs. 2.0 months, P = 0.082). Genomic analyses revealed subtype-specific treatment response, and novel FGFR2 fusions and AR splice variants. Conclusions: The combination of enzalutamide and taselisib increased CBR in TNBC patients with AR+ tumors. Correlative analyses suggest AR protein expression alone is insufficient for identifying patients with AR-dependent tumors and knowledge of tumor LAR subtype and AR splice variants may identify patients more or less likely to benefit from AR antagonists.