Clinical impact of COVID-19 in a single-center cohort of a prospective study in cancer patients receiving immunotherapy

Aim: Evaluating the incidence and course of COVID-19 in cancer patients treated with immunotherapy. Patients & methods: We reported the influenza-like illness events with diagnosis of COVID-19 within the patient cohort enrolled in the prospective observational multicenter INVIDIa-2 study in the single center of Parma. Results: Among 53 patients, eight experienced influenza-like illness during the influenza season 2019/2020, and three of them had diagnosis of COVID-19. They were males, elderly, with cardiovascular disease. Radiological features of COVID-19 pneumonitis were found in all of three cases, although the pharyngeal swab resulted positive in only two. Two of these three patients died due to respiratory failure. Conclusion: Cancer patients are at high risk of severe events from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection

Soluble PD-L1 and Circulating CD8+PD-1+ and NK Cells Enclose a Prognostic and Predictive Immune Effector Score in Immunotherapy Treated NSCLC patients

Introduction: Upfront criteria to foresee immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) efficacy are far from being identified. Thus, we integrated blood descriptors of pro-inflammatory/immunosuppressive or effective anti-tumor response to non-invasively define predictive immune profiles in ICI-treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Peripheral blood (PB) was prospectively collected at baseline from 109 consecutive NSCLC patients undergoing ICIs as first or more line treatment. Soluble PD-L1 (sPD-L1) (immunoassay), CD8+PD-1+ and NK (FACS) cells were assessed and interlaced to generate an Immune effector Score (IeffS). Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) was computed by LDH levels and derived Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (dNLR). All these parameters were correlated with survival outcome and treatment response. Results: High sPD-L1 and low CD8+PD-1+ and NK number had negative impact on PFS (P < 0.001), OS (P < 0.01) and ICI-response (P < 0.05). Thus, sPD-L1high, CD8+PD-1+low and NKlow were considered as risk factors encompassing IeffS, whose prognostic power outperformed that of individual features and slightly exceeded that of LIPI. Accordingly, the absence of these risk factors portrayed a favorable IeffS characterizing patients with significantly (P < 0.001) prolonged PFS (median NR vs 2.3 months) and OS (median NR vs 4.1) and greater benefit from ICIs (P < 0.01). We then combined each risk parameter composing IeffS and LIPI (LDHhigh, dNLRhigh), thus defining three distinct prognostic classes. A remarkable impact of IeffS-LIPI integration was documented on survival outcome (PFS, HR = 4.61; 95%CI = 2.32-9.18; P < 0.001; OS, HR=4.03; 95%CI=1.91-8.67; P < 0.001) and ICI-response (AUC=0.90, 95%CI=0.81-0.97, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Composite risk models based on blood parameters featuring the tumor-host interaction might provide accurate prognostic scores able to predict ICI benefit in NSCLC patients

PD-L1 SNPs as biomarkers to define benefit in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

Objective: To investigate the role of CTLA-4, PD-1 (programmed death-1), and PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in predicting clinical outcome of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods: A total of 166 consecutive patients were included. We correlated SNPs with clinical benefit, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, and overall survival and evaluated the incidence of SNPs in nonresponder and long clinical benefit groups. Results: Considering the entire cohort, no correlation was found between SNPs and clinical outcome; however, PD-L1 rs4143815 SNP and the long clinical benefit group showed a statistically significant association (p = 0.02). The nonresponder cohort displayed distinctive PD-L1 haplotype (p = 0.05). Conclusion: PD-L1 SNPs seem to be marginally involved in predicting clinical outcome of NSCLC treated with ICI, but further investigations are required

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences

Fourier X-ray Scattering Radiography Yields Bone Structural Information

Purpose: To characterize certain aspects of the microscopic structures of cortical and trabecular bone by using Fourier x-ray scattering imaging

Towards in vivo diffusion tensor MRI on human heart using edge-preserving regularization

International audienc

Vers un modèle statistique des fibres du myocarde chez l\\backslashtextquoteright\homme en IRM de tenseur de diffusion

International audienc