COVID-19 vaccine uptake trends in SARS-CoV-2 previously infected cancer patients

Purpose: Cancer patients are at high risk of developing severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, but risk is lowered with receipt of COVID-19 vaccine. COVID-19 vaccination uptake among previously infected cancer patients may be influenced by an assumption of natural immunity, predicted weak immune response, or concerns about vaccine safety. The objective of this study was to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine uptake trends in cancer patients previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Materials and Methods: Medical records of 579 sequential cancer patients undergoing active treatment at Levine Cancer Institute who tested positive for COVID-19 between January 2020 and January 2021 were evaluated. Patients who died prior to vaccine eligibility were excluded from the analysis. Demographic, clinical, and COVID-19 related characteristics were analyzed to identify prognostic factors for COVID-19 vaccine uptake as this information could be important for health policy design for future pandemics. Results: Eighty-one patients died prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccination among 498 previously infected cancer patients was 54.6%. Of the patients with known vaccination dates, 76.8% received their first vaccine by April 17th, 2021. As of November 30, 2021, 23.7.% of eligible patients were boosted. In univariate models, older age, female sex, higher income, solid tumor cancer type, and hormone therapy were significantly associated with higher vaccine uptake, while Hispanic/Latino ethnicity was significantly associated with lower vaccine uptake. In a multivariable model, age (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10–1.28; p < 0.001), female sex (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.22–2.66; p = 0.003), and higher income (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01–1.22; p = 0.032), were predictive of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Conclusions: Overall, vaccine uptake was low among our cohort of previously infected cancer patients. Older age, female sex, and higher income were the only variables associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake within this vulnerable patient population

Reflecting on death: the emotionality of the research encounter

This paper considers some of the issues encountered when researching a particular space in which death is engaged: a cemetery landscape. Building on literature available on research and reflexivity, the paper addresses some of the challenges the author dealt with when both in and away from the cemetery field site. At the core of the paper is the recognition that emotional responses can both contribute and distract from the research process. It is the extent to which emotional baggage enlightens and/or diverts from the research process and the data being generated that underpins this paper

Management of Fibroblast Growth Factor Inhibitor Treatment–emergent Adverse Events of Interest in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Background: Erdafitinib is indicated for the treatment of adults with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations progressing on/after one or more lines of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Objective: To better understand the frequency and management of select treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to enable optimal fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor (FGFRi) treatment. Design, setting, and participants: Longer-term efficacy and safety results of the BLC2001 (NCT02365597) trial in patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were studied. Intervention: Erdafitinib schedule of 8 mg/d continuous in 28-d cycles, with uptitration to 9 mg/d if serum phosphate level was <5.5 mg/dl and no significant TEAEs occurred. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Adverse events were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for the cumulative incidence of the first onset of TEAEs by grade. Time to resolution of TEAEs was summarized descriptively. Results and limitations: At data cutoff, the median treatment duration was 5.4 mo among 101 patients receiving erdafitinib. Select TEAEs (total; grade 3) were hyperphosphatemia (78%; 2.0%), stomatitis (59%; 14%), nail events (59%; 15%), non–central serous retinopathy (non-CSR) eye disorders (56%; 5.0%), skin events (55%; 7.9%), diarrhea (55%; 4.0%), and CSR (27%; 4.0%). Select TEAEs were mostly of grade 1 or 2, and were managed effectively with dose modifications, including dose reductions or interruptions, and/or supportive concomitant therapies, resulting in few events leading to treatment discontinuation. Further work is needed to determine whether management is generalizable to the nonprotocol/general population. Conclusions: Identification of select TEAEs and appropriate management with dose modification and/or concomitant therapies resulted in improvement or resolution of most TEAEs in patients, allowing for continuation of FGFRi treatment to ensure maximum benefit. Patient summary: Early identification and proactive management are warranted to mitigate or possibly prevent erdafitinib side effects to allow for maximum drug benefit in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer

Study EV-103: New randomized cohort testing enfortumab vedotin as monotherapy or in combination with pembrolizumab in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer

TPS5092 Background: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard for first-line (1L) patients (pts) with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (LA/mUC). PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have promising durability of responses but 1L use is restricted to pts ineligible for cisplatin-containing therapy and whose tumors express PD-L1 (CPS ≥10) or pts ineligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status. Enfortumab vedotin (EV), an antibody-drug conjugate, delivers the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E to cells expressing Nectin-4, which is highly expressed in UC. EV recently received FDA accelerated approval based on tumor response rates for adults with LA/mUC who have previously received a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and a platinum-containing chemotherapy. In the ongoing phase 1b/2 study EV-103/KEYNOTE-869 (NCT03288545), the safety and antitumor activity of EV are investigated as monotherapy (mono) (for the first time in the 1L setting) and in combination with PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab (P) +/- chemotherapy in UC. An initial analysis of EV (1.25 mg/kg) + P (200 mg) (both drugs in investigational use here) in this study showed a 73.3% confirmed ORR in 45 1L cisplatin-ineligible LA/mUC pts (dose-escalation + expansion Cohort A) (Rosenberg ASCO 2020). Methods: A new Cohort K randomized 1:1 to 1.25 mg/kg EV mono or 1.25 mg/kg EV + 200 mg P provides additional information on EV + P and the contribution of activity from EV in cisplatin-ineligible pts with LA/mUC in the 1L setting. This cohort will enroll 150 adults (≥18 years) with LA/mUC and measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and exclude pts with prior systemic treatment for LA/mUC, active CNS metastases, ongoing sensory or motor neuropathy (Grade ≥2), or uncontrolled diabetes. Cisplatin-ineligibility in this study is based on ≥1 of the following: ECOG of 2, creatinine clearance of ≥30 and < 60 mL/min, or hearing loss/dysfunction. In each 3-week cycle of this study, EV is administered on days 1 and 8, and P on day 1. The primary endpoint is ORR per RECIST v1.1 by BICR. Secondary endpoints include ORR per RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment, DOR, DCR, PFS per RECIST v1.1 by BICR and investigator assessment, OS, safety, and tolerability. Sample size is not based on power calculation for formal hypothesis testing but is selected based on ORR estimate precision based on 95% CIs. Efficacy is summarized by treatment arm with no formal statistical comparisons between arms. The study opened in Oct 2017. Cohort K opened in Jan 2020. Clinical trial information: NCT03288545

Study EV-103 dose escalation/cohort A: Long-term outcome of enfortumab vedotin + pembrolizumab in first-line (1L) cisplatin-ineligible locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with nearly 4 years of follow-up

4505 Background: Despite available therapeutic options, which include carboplatin-based chemotherapy, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapies, and avelumab maintenance, there is an urgent unmet need for effective and durable 1L therapies for cisplatin-ineligible patients (pts) with la/mUC. Both enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (P) show survival benefits as monotherapies for pts with previously treated la/mUC. The combination of EV+P previously showed a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in Study EV-103 Dose Escalation/Cohort A (DE/A) and Cohort K. Here, we report updated safety, efficacy per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, survival data, and subsequent therapies for DE/A after nearly 4 years of follow-up. Methods: In DE/A of this ongoing phase 1b/2 study, 1L cisplatin-ineligible pts with la/mUC received 3-week cycles of EV 1.25 mg/kg (Days 1, 8) in combination with P (Day 1). The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Key secondary endpoints included confirmed ORR (cORR), DOR, PFS (all per RECIST v1.1 by BICR and investigator), and OS. Safety and subsequent therapy results are also presented. Results: As of 16 Sep 2022, 45 pts with 1L la/mUC (median age 69 yrs [51-90]) received treatment. All pts discontinued treatment and 18 pts remain on study (median follow-up of 47 months). The cORR by BICR after a median of 9 cycles was 73.3% (95% CI: 58.1, 85.4), with a DCR of 84.4% (95% CI: 70.5, 93.5) and CR rate of 15.6%. The median DOR was 22.1 months (95% CI: 8.38, -), with a 12-month DOR of 63.9% (95% CI: 44.19, 78.17). The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 6.11, -), with a 12-month PFS of 55.0% (95% CI: 38.84, 68.58). The median OS was 26.1 months (95% CI: 15.51, -), with a 12-month OS rate of 83.4% (95% CI: 68.25, 91.72). The most common treatment-related adverse events of special interest for EV were skin reactions (66.7%), peripheral neuropathy (62.2%), and ocular disorders (40.0%). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest for P were severe skin reactions (24.4%), pneumonitis (8.9%), colitis (6.7%), and hypothyroidism (6.7%). Sixty percent of pts received subsequent cancer-related therapies, including systemic therapy (48.9%), surgery (8.9%), and palliative radiotherapy (8.9%). The most common 2L systemic anti-cancer therapies were P (17.8%), carboplatin-based therapy (11.1%), and EV (6.7%). Conclusions: EV+P, continues to demonstrate promising survival trends with rapid and durable responses in 1L cisplatin-ineligible pts with la/mUC. The safety profile of the combination is manageable and stable with a longer follow-up, and no new safety concerns have emerged. These results are concordant with previously reported DE/A data by investigator assessment and support the evaluation of EV+P in ongoing phase 3 studies in UC. Clinical trial information: NCT03288545