Citations

9000 Background: Despite IMGs accounting for up to one-third of all practicing oncologists in the United States, little is known about their contributions to presentations at international oncology meetings, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Therefore, we investigated the representation of IMGs in invited faculty roles at ASCO Annual Meetings. Methods: Speaker presentation details at ASCO 2022 and 2023 Annual Meetings were collected using publicly available program guides. We collected presentation-level variables of invited faculty roles (discussant, moderator, chairmanship, session topic presenter) and original research type (oral abstract, poster discussion, plenary session). Speaker-level variables comprised presumed gender, academic rank, and institution. Speakers were categorized into the following groups - American Medical Graduate (AMG): currently affiliated with a US institution, completed medical school in the US; IMG: affiliated with a US institution, completed medical school outside the US; non-US based speakers: affiliated with an institution outside the US; non-MD speakers. Univariable and multivariable analyses were employed to assess factors associated with the selection of presenters for invited faculty roles. Results: A total of 3337 presentations (1649 from 2022, 1688 from 2023) were included. 71.6% of the speakers were US-based, 56.6% were male and 40.5% were full professors. The highest proportion of podium presentations was by AMGs (48.5%), followed by non-US based (28.3%), IMGs (14.1%), and non-MD (9.1%) speakers. 57% of IMG presentations consisted of original research compared to 48.7% for AMGs (Table). Notably, compared to AMGs, IMGs were significantly less likely to be included in invited faculty roles (odds ratio [OR] 0.72 [95% CI 0.58 – 0.88], p <0.01), a finding that remained significant after accounting for gender and academic rank (adjusted OR 0.75 [0.61 – 0.94], p= 0.01). Conclusions: Relative to IMGs’ original research output, IMGs appear to receive less invitations for ASCO Annual Meeting invited faculty roles compared to AMGs. Our findings suggest potential under-representation and under-recognition of IMGs in these roles, despite their contributions to the oncology workforce in the US. [Table: see text]

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

e17615 Background: Germline BRCA1/2 mutations are associated with response to Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). In addition to BRCA1/2 mutations, there are other Homologous Recombinations Deficiency (HRD) biomarker candidates already available in clinical practice including genome-wide loss-of-heterozygosity (gLOH) and myChoice score. Inconsistencies in biomarkers used in clinical trials with PARPi are a challenge to clinical interpretation. This study aims to compare clinically available HRD biomarkers in terms of benefits from PARPi. Methods: We performed database search for phase II or III randomized clinical trials comparing PARPi versus chemotherapy, and meta-analysis using generic inverse variance and a random-effects model. Patients were classified into three categories according to their HRD status: 1) BRCAmut (patients with BRCA1/2 mutation of germline or somatic origin), 2) non-BRCA HRD (patients BRCA wild-type (wt) with a different HRD biomarker - gLOH or myChoice); and 3) homologous recombination proficiency (HRP) (BRCAwt and without HRD biomarkers). From those that were BRCAwt, we compared myChoice+ with gLOH-high. Results: Eight studies (n = 4372 patients) with PARPi as first-line and recurrence settings were included. BRCAmut had PFS HR 0.29 (95%CI, 0.24-0.35), BRCAwt & HRD 0.43 (95%CI, 0.34-0.53) and HRP 0.74 (95%CI, 0.62-0.89). In a secondary analysis by HRD stratification method, patients with BRCAwt & myChoice > = 42 had PFS HR 0.43 (95%CI, 0.34-0.56), similar to patients with BRCAwt & gLOH-high with PFS HR 0.42 (95%CI, 0.28-0.62). Conclusions: Patients with BRCA mutations benefited the most from PARPi. From patients with BRCA1/2 wild-type, a similar benefit was found in patients with gLOH-high and those myChoice+, which was superior to HRP patients. The clinical development of further HRD biomarkers (i.e. Sig3, HRDetect) may help identify more patients who benefit from PARPi.

3079 Background: RET fusions are targetable oncogenic drivers in multiple solid tumor types. ARROW study (NCT03037385) data supported the US FDA approval of pralsetinib, a once-daily (QD) oral highly potent and selective RET inhibitor, for RET-altered metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and advanced/metastatic thyroid cancer. Here we provide an update on the clinical activity of pralsetinib in patients (pts) with advanced RET fusion-positive solid tumors other than NSCLC and thyroid cancer (“other” RET fusion–positive solid tumors). Methods: The global ongoing ARROW study (84 sites in 13 countries) includes phase 1 dose-escalation (30–600 mg [QD or twice daily]) and phase 2 expansion cohorts (400 mg QD) defined by tumor type and RET alteration status. Primary objectives are overall response rate (ORR; blinded independent central review per RECIST v1.1) and safety. Results: Updated analyses were completed as of Nov 6, 2020 (data cut-off) for 21 pts with other RET fusion–positive solid tumors enrolled by May 22, 2020 (enrollment cut-off) (lung other than NSCLC, n = 4; pancreatic, n = 3; colon, n = 3; cholangiocarcinoma, n = 3; unknown primary [UP], n = 2; other, n = 6). Overall, 11 (52%) pts received ≥2 prior lines of therapy for metastatic disease. The most common RET fusion partners were CCDC6 and KIF5B (24% each), NCOA4 (19%), other (10%), and unknown (24%). Two pts with colon cancer were excluded from efficacy analyses due to other driver mutations ( KRAS, PIK3CB). In 19 evaluable pts, ORR was 53% (95% CI, 29–76) with 2 (11%) complete responses (CR) and 8 (42%) partial responses (PR). Responses occurred across multiple tumor types including 3/3 pts with pancreatic cancer (including a CR ongoing at 20.8 months on treatment), 2/2 pts with UP, 2/3 pts with cholangiocarcinoma, and in pts with mesenchymal, salivary duct, and lung carcinoid tumors. Median duration of response was 19.0 months (95% CI, 5.5–not estimable). Clinical benefit rate (proportion with CR, PR, or stable disease persisting ≥16 weeks) was 68% (95% CI, 43–87). Tumor shrinkage was observed in 89% of 18 evaluable pts with post-baseline tumor assessment. In all pts enrolled in ARROW who received pralsetinib 400 mg QD irrespective of tumor type (n = 471) the most common (≥25%) treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were increased aspartate aminotransferase (39%), anemia (35%), increased alanine aminotransferase (28%), constipation (26%), and hypertension (25%). Overall, 6% of pts discontinued treatment due to TRAEs. Conclusions: Pralsetinib showed robust, durable antitumor activity in patients with multiple RET fusion‒positive, heavily pre-treated, advanced solid tumors, and was well tolerated. These data highlight the need for broad RET testing to identify candidates who could benefit from treatment with pralsetinib. Enrollment of patients with other RET fusion–positive solid tumors in ARROW is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03037385.

Abstract Background: Overall, patients with cancer experience a greater risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, little is known for those with BC. Methods: CCC19 (NCT04354701) is an international cohort study aimed at investigating the impact of COVID-19 in patients with a history of or active cancer using de-identified data on patient demographics, cancer history, clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19. The current analysis includes patients from U.S. and Canada with invasive BC and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 entered between March 17, 2020 and July 2, 2020. Co-primary outcomes were hospitalization during COVID-19 illness and 30-day all-cause mortality. Frequencies for categorical variables and medians (range) for continuous variables were estimated. Final presentation will include bivariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to identify risk factors (including BC subtypes and therapies, for which data collection is ongoing) associated with 30-day all-cause mortality and severe COVID-19 illness (composite of any hospitalization requiring supplemental oxygen, admission to an intensive care unit [ICU], use of mechanical ventilation, or death). Results: During the study period, a total of 2683 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were accrued in the CCC19 registry including 529 (20%) with invasive BC. Among patients with BC, 352 (67%) were 60 years or older; 518 (98%) were women; 275 (52%) non-Hispanic White, 116 (22%) non-Hispanic Black, 70 (13%) Hispanic, 56 (11%) in other categorizations; 178 (34%) had a smoking history; 75 (14%) ECOG performance status ≥2; 191 (36%) with &gt;2 active comorbidities; 64 (12%) with AJCC stage IV disease at BC diagnosis; and 267 (50%) were on anti-cancer treatment including systemic therapy, radiation, or surgery within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis. At least 323 (61%) patients with BC had 30-day follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis, and 35 (7%) had 90-day follow-up. COVID-19 illness at initial diagnosis required outpatient care in 288 (54%), inpatient care in 193 (36%), and ICU care in 40 (8%). Overall, 247 (47%) were hospitalized and 30-day all-cause mortality was 9%. 30-day all-cause mortality rates by receipt of major BC treatment modalities (within past 3 months) were: 10% for those on cytotoxic systemic therapy vs 5% and 12% for noncytotoxic systemic therapy and local therapy, respectively. The table shows hospitalization and mortality outcomes by major demographic and BC treatment strata. The final presentation will incorporate the latest patient accrual and evaluate independent clinical risk factors associated with serious COVID-19 outcomes in patients with BC. Conclusions: This represents the largest study to date of COVID-19 outcomes in patients with invasive BC. Nearly half of the patients with BC required hospitalization during their COVID-19 disease course and we observed a 9% 30-day all-cause mortality. Submitted on behalf of the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (ccc19us.org) Table 1. COVID-19 related hospitalization and 30-day all-cause mortality for all patients with invasive BCNAny Hospitalization30-day all-cause MortalityN% [95% CI]N% [95% CI]Total population52924747 [42-51]499 [7-12]Age&lt;601774425 [19-32]21 [0-4]60-691155144 [35-54]87 [3-13]70-791206655 [46-64]1714 [8-22]80+1178674 [65-81]2219 [12-27]ECOG PS0-132212238 [33-43]165 [3-8]2+756181 [71-89]1621 [13-32]Active Comorbidities0741014 [7-23]00 [0-5]1-22239442 [36-49]178 [5-12]&gt;219112968 [60-74]2915 [10-21]Treatment IntentCurative1866434 [28-42]95 [2-9]Palliative743953 [41-64]1216 [9-27]Cancer StatusRemission/NED33115447 [41-52]247 [5-11]Active disease, stable or responding to treatment1194840 [31-50]76 [2-12]Active disease, progressing372773 [56-86]1130 [16-47]Treatment Modality (within 3 months)Cytotoxic chemotherapy833542 [31-54]810 [4-18]Noncytotoxic therapy1856435 [28-42]105 [3-10]Local therapy (surgery or radiation)341750 [32-68]412 [3-27] Citation Format: Ali Raza Khaki, Dimpy P Shah, Maryam B Lustberg, Melissa K Accordino, Daniel G Stover, Gayathri Nagaraj, Donna R Rivera, Edith A Perez, Sara M Tolaney, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Petros Grivas, Jeremy L Warner, Corrie A Painter, Gilberto de Lima Lopes, Jr, Solange Peters, Michael A Thompson, Toni K Choueiri, Brian I Rini, Gary H Lyman, Nicole M Kuderer, Shaveta Vinayak. Characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC) from the COVID-19 and cancer consortium (CCC19) cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS7-01.

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