The impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals: results of the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey collaboration

Background The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on well-being has the potential for serious negative consequences on work, home life, and patient care. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate well-being in oncology over time since COVID-19. Methods Two online anonymous surveys were conducted (survey I: April/May 2020; survey II: July/August 2020). Statistical analyses were performed to examine group differences, associations, and predictors of key outcomes: (i) well-being/distress [expanded Well-being Index (eWBI; 9 items)]; (ii) burnout (1 item from eWBI); (iii) job performance since COVID-19 (JP-CV; 2 items). Results Responses from survey I (1520 participants from 101 countries) indicate that COVID-19 is impacting oncology professionals; in particular, 25% of participants indicated being at risk of distress (poor well-being, eWBI ≥ 4), 38% reported feeling burnout, and 66% reported not being able to perform their job compared with the pre-COVID-19 period. Higher JP-CV was associated with better well-being and not feeling burnout (P < 0.01). Differences were seen in well-being and JP-CV between countries (P < 0.001) and were related to country COVID-19 crude mortality rate (P < 0.05). Consistent predictors of well-being, burnout, and JP-CV were psychological resilience and changes to work hours. In survey II, among 272 participants who completed both surveys, while JP-CV improved (38% versus 54%, P < 0.001), eWBI scores ≥4 and burnout rates were significantly higher compared with survey I (22% versus 31%, P = 0.01; and 35% versus 49%, P = 0.001, respectively), suggesting well-being and burnout have worsened over a 3-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion In the first and largest global survey series, COVID-19 is impacting well-being and job performance of oncology professionals. JP-CV has improved but risk of distress and burnout has increased over time. Urgent measures to address well-being and improve resilience are essential

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study.

Background Previous analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients.Patients and methods This double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics.Results Between 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use.Conclusions These data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting

Generation in vivo of peptide-specific cytotoxic T cells and presence of regulatory T cells during vaccination with hTERT (class I and II) peptide-pulsed DCs

Optimal techniques for DC generation for immunotherapy in cancer are yet to be established. Study aims were to evaluate: (i) DC activation/maturation milieu (TNF-α +/- IFN-α) and its effects on CD8+ hTERT-specific T cell responses to class I epitopes (p540 or p865), (ii) CD8+ hTERT-specific T cell responses elicited by vaccination with class I alone or both class I and II epitope (p766 and p672)-pulsed DCs, prepared without IFN-α, (iii) association between circulating T regulatory cells (Tregs) and clinical responses

Tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy for patients with advanced-stage melanoma.

Immunotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of melanoma over the past decade. Despite these breakthroughs, the 5-year survival rate of patients with advanced-stage melanoma is at most 50%, emphasizing the need for additional therapeutic strategies. Adoptive cell therapy with tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is a therapeutic modality that has, in the past few years, demonstrated long-term clinical benefit in phase II/III trials involving patients with advanced-stage melanoma, including those with disease progression on ICIs and/or BRAF/MEK inhibitors. In this Review, we summarize the current status of TIL therapies for patients with advanced-stage melanoma, including potential upcoming marketing authorization, the characteristics of TIL therapy products, as well as future strategies that are expected to increase the efficacy of this promising cellular immunotherapy

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes in advanced melanoma

Background: Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment’s relative effectiveness and safety. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments. Results: The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57). Conclusions: Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment’s relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice

A redundant role of the CD3 gamma-immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motif in mature T cell function

At least four different CD3 polypeptide chains are contained within the mature TCR complex, each encompassing one (CD3 gamma, CD3 delta, and CD3 epsilon) or three (CD3 zeta) immunoreceptof tyrosine-based activation motifs (ITAMs) within their cytoplasmic domains. Why so many ITAMs are required is unresolved: it has been speculated that the different ITAMs function in signal specification, but they may also serve in signal amplification. Because the CD3 xi chains do not contribute unique signaling functions to the TCR, and because the ITAMs of the CD3-gamma delta epsilon module alone can endow the TCR with normal signaling capacity, it thus becomes important to examine how the CD3 gamma-, delta-, and epsilon -ITAMS regulate TCR signaling. We here report on the role of the CD3 gamma chain and the CD3 gamma -ITAM in peripheral T cell activation and differentiation to effector function. All T cell responses were reduced or abrogated in T cells derived from CD3 gamma null-mutant mice, probably because of decreased expression levels of the mature TCR complex lacking CD3 gamma. Consistent with this explanation, T cell responses proceed undisturbed in the absence of a functional CD3 gamma -ITAM. Loss of integrity of the CD3 gamma -ITAM only slightly impaired the regulation of expression of activation markers, suggesting a quantitative contribution of the CD3 gamma -ITAM in this process. Nevertheless, the induction of an in vivo T cell response in influenza A virus-infected CD3 gamma -ITAM-deficient mice proceeds normally. Therefore, if ITAMs can function in signal specification, it is likely that either the CD3 delta and/or the CD3 epsilon chains endow the TCR with qualitatively unique signaling functions. The Journal of Immunology, 2001, 166: 2576-2588