Association Between Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Mortality Among Patients With Prostate Cancer and COVID-19

Importance: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been theorized to decrease the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with prostate cancer owing to a potential decrease in the tissue-based expression of the SARS-CoV-2 coreceptor transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2). Objective: To examine whether ADT is associated with a decreased rate of 30-day mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed patient data recorded in the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry between March 17, 2020, and February 11, 2021. The consortium maintains a centralized multi-institution registry of patients with a current or past diagnosis of cancer who developed COVID-19. Data were collected and managed using REDCap software hosted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Initially, 1228 patients aged 18 years or older with prostate cancer listed as their primary malignant neoplasm were included; 122 patients with a second malignant neoplasm, insufficient follow-up, or low-quality data were excluded. Propensity matching was performed using the nearest-neighbor method with a 1:3 ratio of treated units to control units, adjusted for age, body mass index, race and ethnicity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, smoking status, comorbidities (cardiovascular, pulmonary, kidney disease, and diabetes), cancer status, baseline steroid use, COVID-19 treatment, and presence of metastatic disease. Exposures: Androgen deprivation therapy use was defined as prior bilateral orchiectomy or pharmacologic ADT administered within the prior 3 months of presentation with COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality after COVID-19 diagnosis for patients receiving ADT compared with patients not receiving ADT after propensity matching. Results: After exclusions, 1106 patients with prostate cancer (before propensity score matching: median age, 73 years [IQR, 65-79 years]; 561 (51%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White) were included for analysis. Of these patients, 477 were included for propensity score matching (169 who received ADT and 308 who did not receive ADT). After propensity matching, there was no significant difference in the primary end point of the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.42-1.42). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this cohort study suggest that ADT use was not associated with decreased mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, large ongoing clinical trials will provide further evidence on the role of ADT or other androgen-targeted therapies in reducing COVID-19 infection severity

A subset of platinum-containing chemotherapeutic agents kills cells by inducing ribosome biogenesis stress

Cisplatin and its platinum analogs, carboplatin and oxaliplatin, are some of the most widely used cancer chemotherapeutics. Although cisplatin and carboplatin are used primarily in germ cell, breast and lung malignancies, oxaliplatin is instead used almost exclusively to treat colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers. Here we utilize a unique, multi-platform genetic approach to study the mechanism of action of these clinically established platinum anti-cancer agents, as well as more recently developed cisplatin analogs. We show that oxaliplatin, unlike cisplatin and carboplatin, does not kill cells through the DNA-damage response. Rather, oxaliplatin kills cells by inducing ribosome biogenesis stress. This difference in drug mechanism explains the distinct clinical implementation of oxaliplatin relative to cisplatin, and it might enable mechanistically informed selection of distinct platinum drugs for distinct malignancies. These data highlight the functional diversity of core components of front-line cancer therapy and the potential benefits of applying a mechanism-based rationale to the use of our current arsenal of anti-cancer drugs

Supplemental Protein during Heavy Cycling Training and Recovery Impacts Skeletal Muscle and Heart Rate Responses but Not Performance

The effects of protein supplementation on cycling performance, skeletal muscle function, and heart rate responses to exercise were examined following intensified (ICT) and reduced-volume training (RVT). Seven cyclists performed consecutive periods of normal training (NT), ICT (10 days; average training duration 220% of NT), and RVT (10 days; training duration 66% of NT). In a crossover design, subjects consumed supplemental carbohydrate (CHO) or an equal amount of carbohydrate with added protein (CP) during and following each exercise session (CP = +0.94 g/kg/day protein during ICT; +0.39 g/kg/day during RVT). A 30-kilometer time trial performance (following 120 min at 50% Wmax) was modestly impaired following ICT (+2.4 ± 6.4% versus NT) and returned to baseline levels following RVT (−0.7 ± 4.5% versus NT), with similar responses between CHO and CP. Skeletal muscle torque at 120 deg/s benefited from CP, compared to CHO, following ICT. However, this effect was no longer present at RVT. Following ICT, muscle fiber cross-sectional area was increased with CP, while there were no clear changes with CHO. Reductions in constant-load heart rates (at 50% Wmax) following RVT were likely greater with CP than CHO (−9 ± 9 bpm). Overall it appears that CP supplementation impacted skeletal muscle and heart rate responses during a period of heavy training and recovery, but this did not result in meaningful changes in time trial performance

Phase II study of pevonedistat (P) + azacitidine (A) versus A in patients (pts) with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS)/chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), or low-blast acute myelogenous leukemia (LB AML) (NCT02610777)

7506 Background: P, the first and only small-molecule inhibitor of the NEDD8-activating enzyme, disrupts proteasomal degradation of select proteins and has shown promising clinical activity and good tolerability in combination with A in AML. Methods: 120 pts with higher-risk (Revised International Prognostic Scoring System risk > 3) MDS/CMML or LB AML naïve to hypomethylating agents were randomized 1:1 to receive P 20 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on days (d) 1, 3, 5 + A 75 mg/m2 (IV/subcutaneously) on d 1–5, 8, 9 (n = 58), or A alone (n = 62), in 28-d cycles until unacceptable toxicity, relapse, transformation to AML, or progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), although the study was underpowered for OS. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between arms. Pts received a median of 13.0 vs 8.5 cycles of P+A vs A. Median OS in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population with P+A vs A (n = 120) was 21.8 vs 19.0 mos (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.51–1.26; P = .334; median follow-up 21.4 vs 19.0 mos). Subanalyses showed median OS with P+A vs A in higher-risk MDS (n = 67) of 23.9 vs 19.1 mos (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.39–1.27; P = .240) and in LB AML (n = 36) of 23.6 vs 16.0 mos; HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.22–1.11; P = .081). Event-free survival (EFS – time from randomization to death/transformation to AML) with P+A vs A trended longer in the ITT population (median 21.0 vs 16.6 mos; HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.41–1.02; P = .060) and was significantly longer in higher-risk MDS (median 20.2 vs 14.8 mos; HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.29–1.00; P = .045). In response-evaluable pts, overall response rate was 71% (n = 39/55; 46% complete remission [CR] + CR with incomplete blood count recovery [CRi], 5% partial response [PR], 20% hematologic improvement [HI]) with P+A vs 60% (n = 32/53; 38% CR+CRi, 8% PR, 15% HI) with A. In higher-risk MDS, CR rate was 52% vs 27% ( P = .050) with P+A vs A. Median A dose intensity was 97% vs 98% with P+A vs A. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events were 90% vs 87% with P+A vs A; the most common were 31% vs 27% neutropenia, 26% vs 29% febrile neutropenia, 19% vs 27% anemia, and 19% vs 23% thrombocytopenia. On-study deaths occurred in 9% of P+A pts and 16% of A pts. Conclusions: P+A had a comparable safety profile to A alone, did not increase myelosuppression, and maintained A dose intensity. Although not statistically significant, P+A increased OS, EFS, and response rates vs A, particularly in pts with higher-risk MDS. Further evaluation of P+A vs A is ongoing in a randomized phase. Clinical trial information: NCT02610777

Metal swap between Zn7metallothionein–3 and amyloid–β–Cu protects against amyloid–β toxicity

Aberrant interactions of copper and zinc ions with the amyloid–β peptide (Aβ) potentiate Alzheimer disease (AD) by participating in the aggregation process of Aβ and in the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). The ROS production and the neurotoxicity of Aβ are associated with copper binding. Metallothionein–3 (Zn7MT–3), an intra– and extracellularly occurring metalloprotein, is highly expressed in the brain and down–regulated in AD. This protein protects, by an unknown mechanism, cultured neurons from the toxicity of Aβ. Herein, we show that a metal swap between Zn7MT–3 and soluble and aggregated Aβ1–40–Cu(II) abolishes the ROS production and the related cellular toxicity. In this process, copper is reduced by the protein thiolates forming Cu(I)4Zn4MT–3 in which an air stable Cu(I)4–thiolate cluster and two disulfide bonds are present. The discovered protective effect of Zn7MT–3 from the copper–mediated Aβ1–40 toxicity may lead to new therapeutic strategies in treating AD

A Systematic Framework to Rapidly Obtain Data on Patients with Cancer and COVID-19:CCC19 Governance, Protocol, and Quality Assurance

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, formal frameworks to collect data about affected patients were lacking. The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) was formed to collect granular data on patients with cancer and COVID-19 at scale and as rapidly as possible. CCC19 has grown from five initial institutions to 125 institutions with >400 collaborators. More than 5,000 cases with complete baseline data have been accrued. Future directions include increased electronic health record integration for direct data ingestion, expansion to additional domestic and international sites, more intentional patient involvement, and granular analyses of still-unanswered questions related to cancer subtypes and treatments

A Systematic Framework to Rapidly Obtain Data on Patients with Cancer and COVID-19: CCC19 Governance, Protocol, and Quality Assurance

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, formal frameworks to collect data about affected patients were lacking. The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) was formed to collect granular data on patients with cancer and COVID-19 at scale and as rapidly as possible. CCC19 has grown from five initial institutions to 125 institutions with >400 collaborators. More than 5,000 cases with complete baseline data have been accrued. Future directions include increased electronic health record integration for direct data ingestion, expansion to additional domestic and international sites, more intentional patient involvement, and granular analyses of still-unanswered questions related to cancer subtypes and treatments. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, formal frameworks to collect data about affected patients were lacking. The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) was formed to collect granular data on patients with cancer and COVID-19 at scale and as rapidly as possible. CCC19 has grown from five initial institutions to 125 institutions with >400 collaborators. More than 5,000 cases with complete baseline data have been accrued. Future directions include increased electronic health record integration for direct data ingestion, expansion to additional domestic and international sites, more intentional patient involvement, and granular analyses of still-unanswered questions related to cancer subtypes and treatments