COVID-19 mortality: are comorbidities, socio-economic status and ethnicity more important than cancer?

No abstract availabl

Percutaneous Image-Guided Electrochemotherapy of Spine Metastases: Initial Experience

International audienc

The 10-month mortality rate among older patients treated for digestive system cancer during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: The CADIGCOVAGE multicentre cohort study

International audienceIntroduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a dramatic impact on cancer diagnosis and care pathways. Here, we assessed the mid-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults with cancer before, during and after the lockdown period in 2020.Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective, observational, multicentre cohort study of prospectively collected electronic health records. All adults aged 65 or over and having been newly treated for a digestive system cancer in our institution between January 2018 until August 2020 were enrolled.Results: Data on 7,881 patients were analyzed. Although the overall 10-month mortality rate was similar in 2020 vs. 2018-2019, the mortality rate among for patients newly treated in the 2020 post-lockdown period was (after four months of follow-up) significantly higher. A subgroup analysis revealed higher mortality rates for (i) patients diagnosed in the emergency department during the pre-lockdown period, (ii) patients with small intestine cancer newly treated during the post-lockdown period, and (iii) patients having undergone surgery with curative intent during the post-lockdown period. However, when considering individuals newly treated during the lockdown period, we observed lower mortality rates for (i) patients aged 80 and over, (ii) patients with a biliary or pancreatic cancer, and (iii) patients diagnosed in the emergency department.Discussion: There was no overall increase in mortality among patients newly treated in 2020 vs. 2018-2019. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the consequences of the pandemic. A subgroup analysis revealed significant intergroup differences in mortality

Effect of lockdown on digestive system cancer care amongst older patients during the first wave of COVID-19: The CADIGCOVAGE multicentre cohort study

International audienceBackground: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a dramatic impact on cancer diagnosis and treatment. Most patients newly diagnosed with digestive system cancer are aged 65 and over. Methods: We performed a retrospective, observational, multicentre cohort study based on prospectively collected electronic health records. All adults aged 65 or over and having been newly treated for a digestive system cancer between January 2018 until August 2020 were enroled. Results: Data on 7882 patients were analysed. The first COVID-19 lockdown period led to a 42.4% decrease in newly treated digestive system cancers, and the post-lockdown period was associated with a 17% decrease. The decrease in newly treated digestive system cancer did not differ as a function of age, sex, comorbidities, primary tumour site, and disease stage. The proportion of patients admitted to an emergency department increased during the lockdown period. We do not observe a higher 3-month mortality rate in 2020, relative to the corresponding calendar periods in 2018 and 2019. Conclusion: To avoid a decrease in newly treated cancers during future lockdown periods, access to healthcare will have to be modified. Although 3-month mortality did not increase in any of the patient subgroups, the 2020 cohort must be followed up for long-term mortality

The Prognostic Value of Eight Comorbidity Indices in Older Patients with Cancer: The ELCAPA Cohort Study

Background: A prognostic assessment is crucial for making cancer treatment decisions in older patients. We assessed the prognostic performance (relative to one-year mortality) of eight comorbidity indices in a cohort of older patients with cancer. Methods: We studied patients with cancer aged ≥70 included in the Elderly Cancer Patient (ELCAPA) cohort between 2007 and 2010. We assessed seven nonspecific indices (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), three modified versions of the CCI, the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, the Gagne index, and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G)) and the National Cancer Institute Comorbidity Index. Results: Overall, 510 patients were included. Among patients with nonmetastatic cancer, all the comorbidity indices were independently associated with 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of 1.44 to 2.51 for one standard deviation increment; p 0.8 for the eight indices), but were poorly calibrated. Among patients with metastatic cancer, only the CIRS-G was independently associated with 1-year mortality (aHR (95% confidence interval): 1.26 [1.06–1.50]). Discriminant ability was moderate (0.61 to 0.70) for the subsets of patients with metastatic cancer and colorectal cancer. Conclusion: Comorbidity indices had strong prognostic value and discriminative ability for one-year mortality in older patients with nonmetastatic cancer, although calibration was poor. In older patients with metastatic cancer, only the CIRS-G was predictive of one-year mortality

New cancer cases at the time of SARS-Cov2 pandemic and related public health policies: A persistent and concerning decrease long after the end of national lockdown

International audienceIntroductionThe dissemination of SARS-Cov2 may have delayed the diagnosis of new cancers. This study aimed at assessing the number of new cancers during and after the lockdown.MethodsWe prospectively collected the clinical data of the 11.4 million patients referred to the Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris Teaching Hospital. We identified new cancer cases between 1st January 2018 and 31st September 2020 and compared indicators for 2018 and 2019 to 2020 with a focus on the French lockdown (17th March to 11th May 2020) across cancer types and patient age classes.ResultsBetween January and September, 28,348, 27,272 and 23,734 new cancer cases were identified in 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. The monthly median number of new cases reached 3168 (interquartile range, IQR, 3027; 3282), 3054 (IQR 2945; 3127) and 2723 (IQR 2085; 2,863) in 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. From March 1st to May 31st, new cancer decreased by 30% in 2020 compared to the 2018–19 average; then by 9% from 1st June to 31st September. This evolution was consistent across all tumour types: −30% and −9% for colon, −27% and −6% for lung, −29% and −14% for breast, −33% and −12% for prostate cancers, respectively. For patients aged <70 years, the decrease of colorectal and breast new cancers in April between 2018 and 2019 average and 2020 reached 41% and 39%, respectively.ConclusionThe SARS-Cov2 pandemic led to a substantial decrease in new cancer cases. Delays in cancer diagnoses may affect clinical outcomes in the coming years

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical presentation, treatments, and outcomes of new breast cancer patients: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

International audienceBackgroundThe SARS CoV-2 pandemic disrupted healthcare systems. We compared the cancer stage for new breast cancers (BCs) before and during the pandemic.MethodsWe performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on the data warehouse of Greater Paris University Hospitals (AP-HP). We identified all female patients newly referred with a BC in 2019 and 2020. We assessed the timeline of their care trajectories, initial tumor stage, and treatment received: BC resection, exclusive systemic therapy, exclusive radiation therapy, or exclusive best supportive care (BSC). We calculated patients' 1-year overall survival (OS) and compared indicators in 2019 and 2020.ResultsIn 2019 and 2020, 2055 and 1988, new BC patients underwent cancer treatment, and during the two lockdowns, the BC diagnoses varied by −18% and by +23% compared to 2019. De novo metastatic tumors (15% and 15%, p = 0.95), pTNM and ypTNM distributions of 1332 cases with upfront resection and of 296 cases with neoadjuvant therapy did not differ (p = 0.37, p = 0.3). The median times from first multidisciplinary meeting and from diagnosis to treatment of 19 days (interquartile 11–39 days) and 35 days (interquartile 22–65 days) did not differ. Access to plastic surgery (15% and 17%, p = 0.08) and to treatment categories did not vary: tumor resection (73% and 72%), exclusive systemic therapy (13% and 14%), exclusive radiation therapy (9% and 9%), exclusive BSC (5% and 5%) (p = 0.8). Among resected patients, the neoadjuvant therapy rate was lower in 2019 (16%) versus 2020 (20%) (p = 0.02). One-year OS rates were 99.3% versus 98.9% (HR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77–1.2), 72.6% versus 76.6% (HR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.95–1.72), 96.6% versus 97.8% (HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.61–1.94), and 15.5% versus 15.1% (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72–1.37), in the treatment groups.ConclusionsDespite a decrease in the number of new BCs, there was no tumor stage shift, and OS did not vary

Alpelisib and fulvestrant efficacy in HR-positive HER2-negative PIK3CA -mutant advanced breast cancer: Data from the French early access program.

International audience1064 Background: In 11.2018, the PIK3CA-inhibitor alpelisib was made available in France through an early access program (EAP), in combination with fulvestrant in pre-treated PIK3CA-mutant, HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients. Patients had to received two or more prior systemic treatments for ABC, including an aromatase inhibitor and a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the absence of contraindications. This retrospective real-life, EAP-based study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of alpelisib/fulvestrant combination in the post CDK4/6 inhibitor setting. Methods: The IRB-approved protocol and call for data were sent on 10.2020 to the cancer centers which participated the most in the EAP prospective registry. Eligible patients were women who started alpelisib/fulvestrant between 11. 2018 and 10.2020 as part of the EAP (which excluded patients with visceral crisis or inflammatory BC). Alpelisib and fulvestrant were used at standard doses. Primary endpoint was PFS by local investigators using RECIST1.1. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate and safety (NCI CTCAE v5.0). Results: 10 centers provided individual data regarding 209 consecutive patients. Patients had received a median number of 4 (1-14) previous systemic treatments for ABC, including CDK4/6 inhibitors, chemotherapy, fulvestrant (alone or in combination) and everolimus for 206 (98.8%), 159 (76.1%), 163 (78%) and 123 (58.8%) patients, respectively. With a median FU of 7.0 months, median PFS was 4.0 months (95%CI [3.5;5.0]) and 35.4% of 164 evaluable patients had an objective response. After stratification on the number of prior lines of treatment, prior exposure to everolimus had no impact on PFS (mPFS in the 123 patients pretreated with everolimus: 4.0m, 95%CI [3.5-5.5]). Of note, this population was enriched in patients who had a long disease control by everolimus (median time spent on everolimus: 7.0m, range (6.5-9.0)). In multivariable analysis, characteristics significantly associated with longer PFS were PS < 3 (HR = 0.03, 95%CI [0.02-0.29]) and prior treatment with fulvestrant (HR = 0.53, 95%CI [0.32-0.89]). N = 81(38.8%) patients discontinued alpelisib due to adverse events (AEs). Most frequent grade 3/4 AEs were hyperglycemia, skin rash, diarrhea and fatigue occurring in 13.4, 8.1, 4.8 and 1.9 % of patients, respectively. Conclusions: Despite heavy pre-treatments, alpelisib +fulvestrant had a clinically relevant efficacy in the French EAP population. Interestingly, prior treatment with either everolimus or fulvestrant did not overtly impair alpelisib-fulvestrant efficacy. The best treatment sequence for PI3KCA/mTOR inhibitors could be examined in future trials in PIK3CA-mutant ER+/HER2- ABC patients