Background To our knowledge, there is no clinical data pertaining to COVID-19 outcomes and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in Russian patients with genitourinary (GU) malignancies. Aim of our analysis was to describe the characteristics of the COVID-19 infection course as well as preliminary safety and efficacy of Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine in patients with active GU malignancies. Methods Patients were retrospectively identified at nine cancer centers in different regions. Patients were included if COVID-19 was diagnosed by a polymerase chain reaction. Data from additional patients with GU cancers who had no positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test before vaccination and who received two doses of Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V) between 11 February and 31 August 2021 were collected for safety assessment. Anonymized data were collected through an online registry covering demographics, treatments, and outcomes. Results The Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine was well tolerated; no grade 3–5 toxicities were reported in 112 vaccinated metastatic GU cancer patients. The most common grade 1 adverse events (81%) were injection site reactions (76%), flu-like illness (68%), and asthenia (49%). Five patients experienced grade 2 chills (4.5%) and 3 patients had grade 2 fever (2.7%). With median follow-up of 6.2 months, two COVID-19 cases were confirmed by RT-PCR test in the vaccine group (of 112 participants; 1.8%). Eighty-eight patients with COVID-19 disease were included in the analysis. The average age as of the study enrollment was 66 (range 39–81) and the majority of patients were male with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Thirty-six patients (41%) had evidence of metastatic disease, of these 22 patients were receiving systemic therapy. More than half of patients required hospitalization. Fifty-four patients (61%) experienced complications. Sixteen patients who developed COVID-19 pneumonia required mechanical ventilator support. Sixteen patients (18%) died in a median of 23.5 days after the date of COVID-19 diagnosis was established. The 3-month survival rate was 82%. Clinical and/or radiographic progression of cancer during COVID-19 infection or the subsequent 3 months was observed in 10 patients (11.4%). Conclusion Patients with GU malignancies are at increased risk of mortality from COVID-19 infection when compared to the general population. Vaccination could be safe in GU cancer patients. Trial registration : retrospectively registered.
BACKGROUND:Definitive concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) is offered to only 3% of Russian patients with stage III NSCLC. To determine the patterns of care and barriers to cCRT utilization in Russia, we conducted a survey of practicing radiation oncologists (ROs).METHODS:Electronic IRB-approved survey containing 15 questions was distributed to Russian ROs. Fisher's exact test or Cochran-Armitage test of trend was used to assess the associations between clinical experience, practice type, and patterns of care.RESULTS:We analyzed 58 questionnaires completed by ROs-16 respondents from tertiary referral hospitals, and 42 from community or private centers. A total of 88% of respondents formulate treatment recommendations in multi-disciplinary tumor boards. For unresectable stage III NSCLC, the most common recommendation is sequential CRT (50%), followed by concurrent CRT (40%), with an observed higher utilization of cCRT in tertiary centers (9/16, 56% vs 14/42, 33%). Of the respondents, 31% do not offer cCRT to their pts. Among reasons for avoiding cCRT are (1) poor performance of pts (76%); (2) high toxicity of therapy (55%); (3) lack of consensus among tumor board members (33%); and (4) preference for sequential CRT (31%). Only 3% do not irradiate elective LNs. Eighty-six percent of respondents counsel their NSCLC pts regarding smoking cessation.CONCLUSIONS:Despite level 1 evidence, cCRT is rarely used in Russia for pts with locally advanced NSCLC, and preference for sequential therapy and concerns over high toxicity are the most common barriers. Education of Russian ROs may increase cCRT utilization, leading to improved survival, notably in the era of maintenance immunotherapy.
1016 Background: The ph III EMBRACE trial of E vs physician’s choice of tx led to FDA approval of E as ≥3rd-line tx for MBC pts with prior exposure to anthracyclines/taxanes. The ph III BOLD 301 trial of E vs capecitabine in advanced BC treated with anthracyclines/taxanes showed a nonsignificant trend to improved median OS for all pts; pre-planned analysis by HER2 status revealed a nominally significant benefit for HER2- pts. Methods: RU011201I is an investigator initiated ph III trial with 1:1 randomization to E (1.4 mg/m2 D1,8 q21days) vs P (90 mg/m2 D1,8,15 q28days) within strata defined by (neo)adjuvant taxanes (yes/no), HR status (+/-), and line of tx (1st/2nd). Pts had measurable or non-measurable disease by RECIST v1.1; new or progressive mets; peripheral neuropathy (PN) gr<2; ≤1 prior chemotx regimens for advanced or MBC. Asymptomatic brain mets with stable MRIs for >3 mos were allowed. (Neo)adjuvant taxanes were allowed if >12 mos between tx completion and disease recurrence. Radiographic studies occur q12wks. Survival data are collected q12wks after the Off-Tx Visit. Pts reported side effects weekly; post-baseline symptomatic AE rates worse than baseline were compared between arms using Fisher’s exact tests. We report clinical outcomes and the primary objective related to PRO-CTCAE use. Results: 201 pts enrolled 3/2014 - 5/2018 with 33.8 mos median f/u; 3 are on tx as of 2/20/20 (1E, 2P). Pt characteristics were the same between E vs P: median age 62 yrs (range 27-85); 42% prior taxane; 78% ER+; 70% starting 1st line tx. Baseline lesion distribution was similar except for lung mets (37E, 53P). No difference was seen between E vs P in PFS (5.7 vs 5.9 mos; P=0.72), OS (18.1 vs 16.4 mos; P=0.75), TTF (5.3 vs 4.9 mos; P=0.82), DOR (10.8 vs 12.3 mos; P=0.84), or number of metastatic events (55 vs 54). 37E and 36P pts required ≥1 dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities ≥ gr 3 were higher with E (40 vs 22%). PN events were similar: 56 vs 58 total, 4 vs 7 motor, 52 vs 51 sensory. Median duration of PN and median time to 1st PN event were 74 vs 140 and 56 vs 41 days. Worsened numbness/tingling severity and other pt-reported AE rates were similar, but worsened numbness/tingling interference (63% vs 78%, P=0.04) and vomiting frequency (35% vs 57%, P=0.005) were lower with E. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were equivalent with E vs P as 1st/2nd line tx for HER2- advanced BC. The nature and severity of PN were similar between arms, but time of onset, duration, and interference with daily living favor E. E may be a suitable treatment option in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02037529 .
Trimodality bladder preservation (BP) is an accepted alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The global utilization of BP is variable, and practice patterns have not been previously studied in Russia. We sought to elucidate the contemporary BP practice patterns in Russia and determine the impact of the BP workshop on attitudes of Russian radiation oncologists (ROs) towards BP. The workshop was focused on patient workup, selection for BP, chemotherapy choices, radiation therapy (RT) contouring and planning, patient counseling. A total of 77 pre- and 32 matched post-workshop IRB-approved surveys, based on the workshop content, were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care. The impact was judged by changes in participants’ responses. A total of 56% of respondents had experience with delivering bladder-directed RT, and 60% of those treated both operable and inoperable MIBC patients. Only 10% felt uncomfortable offering an operable patient BP modality. Prior to the workshop, almost half of respondents estimated universal poor bladder (44%) and erectile functions (47%) after BP. The workshop resulted in dramatic change in participants’ attitudes towards long-term urinary (Stuart-Maxwell test, p < 0.01) and sexual (exact McNemar test, p < 0.01) side effects. Prior to the workshop, only 47% of respondents routinely discussed smoking cessation (SC) with their patients, whereas after workshop, 88% agreed that SC discussion is mandatory (exact McNemar test, p = 0.04). BP for MIBC is commonly used in Russia. Our workshop resulted in dramatically improved understanding of long-term BP toxicities and inspired Russian ROs to incorporate SC counseling into routine clinical management.
e15007 Background: Afl is one of the antiagiogenic agents used for the treatment for mCRC. Cardiovascular toxicity of Afl is shown to be a main reason of the drug discontinuation but there are no studies on factors associated with nonhem adverse events(AEs). The aim of the study was to define clinical factors associated with the development of Gd.3-4 nonhem AEs. Methods: Pts with mCRC treated with FOLFIRI+Afl were included in a multicenter prospective base from 2016-18. Multivariative regression analysis was performed with Chicago, IL v.22.0. Factors studied included demographic, disease characteristics, data about concomitant diseases(CD) and concomitant medications. Results: 278 pts with mCRC from 18 centers were included. Mean age – 58.7, 48.6% were male, mean number of metastases– 2. ECOG 0-1–97.5%pts. RASm had 133 (47.8%) pts. Afl+FOLFIRI was used as the 2nd line therapy–in 67.6%. CD were in 194 (69.8%), cardiovascular–in 175 (62.9%). ORR(CR+PR)17.3%, SD-43.9%. MedPFS was 6.0 mos. Afl discontinuation due to AEs 11.9%. AE were reported in 201 (72.3%), Gd3-4 – in 69 (24.8%); nonhem AEs – in 178 (64%), Gd3-4–52 (18.8%)pts. Among Gd3-4 nonhem AEs were arterial hypertension Gd1-2–77 (27.7%), Gd3-4-in 36 (12.9%), vomiting Gd1-2–45 (16.2%), diarrhea Gd1-2–in 32 (11.5%), asthenia Gd1-2 –in 29 (10.4%), hepatotoxicity Gd1-2–in 2(5%), thrombosis–in 2 (5%) pts. Multivariate regression analysis showed that among the factors studied number of lines of treatment (OR1.4,95%CI1.1-2.1,p=0.03) and CD requiring medical support (OR 2.0,95%CI1.1-3.7,p=0.03) were found as independent factors of nonhem AE Gd3-4 development. ACE-inhibitors (OR2.2,95%CI1.2-4.3,p=0.02), calcium-channel blockers (CCB)(OR4.1,95%CI1.6-10.4,p=0.003 ) were the medical drugs considered to be significant. Conclusions: Number of lines and CD requiring medical support, especially with ACE-inhibitors or CCB, identifies a significant risk of developing cardiovascular non-hem AEs Gd3-4 with FOLFIRI + Afl.
