Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer: a joint analysis of OnCovid and ESMO-CoCARE registries

COVID-19; Immunogenicity; VaccineCOVID-19; Inmunogenicidad; VacunaCOVID-19; Immunogenicitat; VacunaBackground As management and prevention strategies against COVID-19 evolve, it is still uncertain whether prior exposure to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) affects COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer. Methods In a joint analysis of ICI recipients from OnCovid (NCT04393974) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) CoCARE registries, we assessed severity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer and explored whether prior immune-related adverse events (irAEs) influenced outcome from COVID-19. Findings The study population consisted of 240 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and February 2022 exposed to ICI within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with a 30-day case fatality rate (CFR30) of 23.6% (95% CI 17.8 to 30.7%). Overall, 42 (17.5%) were fully vaccinated prior to COVID-19 and experienced decreased CFR30 (4.8% vs 28.1%, p=0.0009), hospitalization rate (27.5% vs 63.2%, p<0.0001), requirement of oxygen therapy (15.8% vs 41.5%, p=0.0030), COVID-19 complication rate (11.9% vs 34.6%, p=0.0040), with a reduced need for COVID-19-specific therapy (26.3% vs 57.9%, p=0.0004) compared with unvaccinated patients. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-fitted multivariable analysis, following a clustered-robust correction for the data source (OnCovid vs ESMO CoCARE), confirmed that vaccinated patients experienced a decreased risk of death at 30 days (adjusted OR, aOR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.69). Overall, 38 patients (15.8%) experienced at least one irAE of any grade at any time prior to COVID-19, at a median time of 3.2 months (range 0.13–48.7) from COVID-19 diagnosis. IrAEs occurred independently of baseline characteristics except for primary tumor (p=0.0373) and were associated with a significantly decreased CFR30 (10.8% vs 26.0%, p=0.0462) additionally confirmed by the IPTW-fitted multivariable analysis (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.67). Patients who experienced irAEs also presented a higher median absolute lymphocyte count at COVID-19 (1.4 vs 0.8 109 cells/L, p=0.0098). Conclusion Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in ICI recipients. History of irAEs might identify patients with pre-existing protection from COVID-19, warranting further investigation of adaptive immune determinants of protection from SARS-CoV-2.OnCovid is sponsored by Imperial College London and received direct project funding and infrastructural support by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)

"The first ones now, will later be last":understanding the importance of historical context when reading ESMO-MCBS scores

SCOPUS: ed.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

A Phase I/II trial comparing autologous dendritic cell vaccine pulsed either with personalized peptides (PEP-DC) or with tumor lysate (OC-DC) in patients with advanced high-grade ovarian serous carcinoma.

Most ovarian cancer patients are diagnosed at a late stage with 85% of them relapsing after surgery and standard chemotherapy; for this reason, new treatments are urgently needed. Ovarian cancer has become a candidate for immunotherapy by reason of their expression of shared tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) and private mutated neoantigens (NeoAgs) and the recognition of the tumor by the immune system. Additionally, the presence of intraepithelial tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is associated with improved progression-free and overall survival of patients with ovarian cancer. The aim of active immunotherapy, including vaccination, is to generate a new anti-tumor response and amplify an existing immune response. Recently developed NeoAgs-based cancer vaccines have the advantage of being more tumor specific, reducing the potential for immunological tolerance, and inducing robust immunogenicity. We propose a randomized phase I/II study in patients with advanced ovarian cancer to compare the immunogenicity and to assess safety and feasibility of two personalized DC vaccines. After standard of care surgery and chemotherapy, patients will receive either a novel vaccine consisting of autologous DCs pulsed with up to ten peptides (PEP-DC), selected using an agnostic, yet personalized, epitope discovery algorithm, or a sequential combination of a DC vaccine loaded with autologous oxidized tumor lysate (OC-DC) prior to an equivalent PEP-DC vaccine. All vaccines will be administered in combination with low-dose cyclophosphamide. This study is the first attempt to compare the two approaches and to use NeoAgs-based vaccines in ovarian cancer in the adjuvant setting. The proposed treatment takes advantage of the beneficial effects of pre-treatment with OC-DC prior to PEP-DC vaccination, prompting immune response induction against a wide range of patient-specific antigens, and amplification of pre-existing NeoAgs-specific T cell clones. Trial registration This trial is already approved by Swissmedic (Ref.: 2019TpP1004) and will be registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov before enrollment opens

EHA evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for haematological malignancies

Objective Value frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Methods Here we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies. Results In general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described. Conclusions Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials

EHA evaluation of the ESMO—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for haematological malignancies

Objective: Value frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: Here we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies. Results: In general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described. Conclusions: Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials

ESMO Guidance for Reporting Oncology real-World evidence (GROW)

Clinical epidemiolog

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. METHODS: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.SCOPUS: re.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Impact of smoking status on the relative efficacy of the EGFR TKI/angiogenesis inhibitor combination therapy in advanced NSCLC-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND The ETOP 10-16 BOOSTER trial failed to demonstrate a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for adding bevacizumab to osimertinib in second line. An exploratory subgroup analysis, however, suggested a PFS benefit of the combination in patients with a smoking history and prompted us to do this study. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the differential effect of smoking status on the benefit of adding an angiogenesis inhibitor to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy was carried out. All relevant randomized controlled trials appearing in main oncology congresses or in PubMed as of 1 November 2021 were used according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Primarily PFS according to smoking status, and secondarily overall survival (OS) were of interest. Pooled and interaction hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by fixed or random effects models, depending on the detected degree of heterogeneity. Bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB 2). RESULTS Information by smoking was available for 1291 patients for PFS (seven studies) and 678 patients for OS (four studies). The risk of bias was low for all studies. Combination treatment significantly prolonged PFS for smokers [n = 502, HR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.69] but not for nonsmokers (n = 789, HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.27; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.02). Similarly, a significant OS benefit was found for smokers (n = 271, HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.93) but not for nonsmokers (n = 407, HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.42; treatment-by-smoking interaction P = 0.03). CONCLUSION In advanced EGFR-non-small-cell lung cancer patients, the addition of an angiogenesis inhibitor to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy provides a statistically significant PFS and OS benefit in smokers, but not in non-smokers. The biological basis for this observation should be pursued and could determine whether this might be due to a specific co-mutational pattern produced by tobacco exposure

The Polarised Valence Quark Distribution from semi-inclusive DIS

The semi-inclusive difference asymmetry A^{h^{+}-h^{-}} for hadrons of opposite charge has been measured by the COMPASS experiment at CERN. The data were collected in the years 2002-2004 using a 160 GeV polarised muon beam scattered off a large polarised ^6LiD target and cover the range 0.006 < x < 0.7 and 1 < Q^2 < 100 (GeV/c)^2. In leading order QCD (LO) the asymmetry A_d^{h^{+}-h^{-}} measures the valence quark polarisation and provides an evaluation of the first moment of Delta u_v + Delta d_v which is found to be equal to 0.40 +- 0.07 (stat.) +- 0.05 (syst.) over the measured range of x at Q^2 = 10 (GeV/c)^2. When combined with the first moment of g_1^d previously measured on the same data, this result favours a non-symmetric polarisation of light quarks Delta u-bar = - Delta d-bar at a confidence level of two standard deviations, in contrast to the often assumed symmetric scenario Delta u-bar = Delta d-bar = Delta s-bar = Delta s.Comment: 7 pages, 3 figures, COMPASS, revised: details added, author list update

G factor of the 59/2 - isomer in Gd147

The g factor of the 10 995 keV, Je=(59/2-, and T1/2=0.8 ns level in Gd147 has been determined by the transient field method for ions recoiling through a magnetized Gd foil at a temperature of 100 K. The Ge76(76Ge,5n)147Gd reaction at E(76Ge)=310 MeV was used to provide high recoil velocity. A 100 ps flight time in vacuum between the target and the ferromagnet of 100 ps ensured that the -ray cascades fed the (59/2 level before the recoil ions traversed the Gd foil. The g factor was extracted from standard double ratios with the known parametrization of the transient field, yielding g=0.38(7). This value is in agreement with the predicted wave function and experimental single-particle moments in this mass region. Results for levels in 146,148Gd were also obtained