Patients with cancer have been shown to have increased risk of COVID-19 severity. We previously built and validated the COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) to predict the likely severity of COVID-19 in patients with active cancer who present to hospital. We assessed the differences in presentation and outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19, depending on the wave of the pandemic. We examined differences in features at presentation and outcomes in patients worldwide, depending on the waves of the pandemic: wave 1 D614G (n = 1430), wave 2 Alpha (n = 475), and wave 4 Omicron variant (n = 63, UK and Spain only). The performance of CORONET was evaluated on 258, 48, and 54 patients for each wave, respectively. We found that mortality rates were reduced in subsequent waves. The majority of patients were vaccinated in wave 4, and 94% were treated with steroids if they required oxygen. The stages of cancer and the median ages of patients significantly differed, but features associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes remained predictive and did not differ between waves. The CORONET tool performed well in all waves, with scores in an area under the curve (AUC) of >0.72. We concluded that patients with cancer who present to hospital with COVID-19 have similar features of severity, which remain discriminatory despite differences in variants and vaccination status. Survival improved following the first wave of the pandemic, which may be associated with vaccination and the increased steroid use in those patients requiring oxygen. The CORONET model demonstrated good performance, independent of the SARS-CoV-2 variants.

PURPOSE Patients with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease, but have heterogeneous presentations and outcomes. Decision-making tools for hospital admission, severity prediction, and increased monitoring for early intervention are critical. We sought to identify features of COVID-19 disease in patients with cancer predicting severe disease and build a decision support online tool, COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET). METHODS Patients with active cancer (stage I-IV) and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 disease presenting to hospitals worldwide were included. Discharge (within 24 hours), admission (≥ 24 hours inpatient), oxygen (O 2 ) requirement, and death were combined in a 0-3 point severity scale. Association of features with outcomes were investigated using Lasso regression and Random Forest combined with Shapley Additive Explanations. The CORONET model was then examined in the entire cohort to build an online CORONET decision support tool. Admission and severe disease thresholds were established through pragmatically defined cost functions. Finally, the CORONET model was validated on an external cohort. RESULTS The model development data set comprised 920 patients, with median age 70 (range 5-99) years, 56% males, 44% females, and 81% solid versus 19% hematologic cancers. In derivation, Random Forest demonstrated superior performance over Lasso with lower mean squared error (0.801 v 0.807) and was selected for development. During validation (n = 282 patients), the performance of CORONET varied depending on the country cohort. CORONET cutoffs for admission and mortality of 1.0 and 2.3 were established. The CORONET decision support tool recommended admission for 95% of patients eventually requiring oxygen and 97% of those who died (94% and 98% in validation, respectively). The specificity for mortality prediction was 92% and 83% in derivation and validation, respectively. Shapley Additive Explanations revealed that National Early Warning Score 2, C-reactive protein, and albumin were the most important features contributing to COVID-19 severity prediction in patients with cancer at time of hospital presentation. CONCLUSION CORONET, a decision support tool validated in health care systems worldwide, can aid admission decisions and predict COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer.

Introduction The investigation of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) in the over 80-year-olds presents a unique challenge due to co-morbidity, uncertain prognosis and differing attitudes to acceptability of invasive investigation. We evaluated the investigations accepted and the subsequent outcomes for elderly patients. Methods We prospectively collected consecutive GP referrals of IDA patients aged 80+ between 2015 and 2018 seen by a single gastroenterologist. The options of invasive investigation (bidirectional endoscopy), non-invasive investigation (CTC – CT pneumocolon; CT long oral prep; CT TAP – CT thorax, abdomen, pelvis), or no investigation, were discussed and offered in a standardised manner. Results 173 patients (64.7% female, 80–95 yrs) were seen. 28 (16.2%) declined all investigations, while 39 (22.5%) underwent bidirectional endoscopy. Investigations accepted and performed were: OGD 93 (53.7%), colonoscopy 40 (23.1%), CTC 52 (30%), CT long oral prep 47 (27.2%), and CT TAP 34 (19.7%). Carcinoma was identified in 21 (14.5%) patients who underwent investigations - 19 (13.1%) were gastrointestinal (GI) cancers (16 colorectal, 3 gastric), one metastatic. Two patients with GI malignancy were also diagnosed with myeloma. The 2 non-GI cancers were metastatic renal cell carcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma. There were significant differences in investigations undertaken between the elderly (80–84 yrs) and very elderly (85+yrs) as shown in the table 1. Of the 17 potentially operable GI cancers, 9 procedures with curative intent were performed (8 hemicolectomy, 1 transanal resection). Two of these were in patients aged 85+. 1 subject, aged 89, was offered curative surgery but declined. Outcomes from surgery were very positive, with 8/9 patients undergoing surgery still alive (median follow up 984 days, range 454–2151). The single death occurred 1247 days post-clinic. This compared with on-going survival of 2/8 patients who did not undergo surgery (421 and 701 days), with a median survival of 495 days (range 93–1562) for those who died. Conclusions The over 80-year-olds with IDA are a heterogeneous group. Overall 16% of patients declined all investigations, though this rose to 26% in those aged over 85. Non-invasive tests were much more likely to be undertaken in the 85+ age group, with only 3% having ‘gold standard’ bidirectional endoscopy. Half of patients with potentially curable GI cancers discovered underwent surgery, with 8/9 alive at a mean follow-up of 2.5 years.

12026 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is now commonly used in a range of tumours and settings. Most data relating to outcomes and rates of immune-related adverse events (irAE) is derived from clinical trial or registry populations and small case series. Limited data exist for patients aged > 75 years. Here we present a multi-centre, real-world analysis of the outcomes and incidence of irAEs in older adults managed within a single comprehensive public health service. We also compare these outcomes to younger patients in the same cohort. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2049 patients treated with ICIs was undertaken across 12 centres. All patients were managed within the UK National Health Service outside of a trial setting between June 2016 and September 2018. Patients received either ICI monotherapy (MT) or duel combination ICI therapy (CT) for malignant melanoma (MM), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or renal cell cancer (RCC). Data were collected using a standardised, collection tool. IrAEs ≥ grade 2 or all-grade endocrinopathies were recorded as per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (V5) (CTCAE). Statistical analyses were performed using T-tests, Mann-Whitney and Chi-squared. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test were used for overall survival (OS) analysis. Results: 409 (20%) of patients were aged > 75 years(a), 1413 (69%) aged 50-75(b) and 227 (11.1%) aged < 50(c). There was no difference in sex, ethnicity or PD-L1 status (in the NSCLC cohort) between groups. Older patients were less likely to receive combination therapy (3%(a) v 13%(b) v 34%(c), p < 0.001). There was no difference in median OS across age groups in the cohort as a whole (p = 0.822) or for the individual tumour groups when treated with single agent ICI. Across the total cohort patients aged > 75 had no increased risk of any irAE (35%(a) v 33%(b) v 41%(c),p = 0.074). However there was an increase in irAEs in older patients treated with MT (36%(a) v 26(b) v 25%(c), p = 0.011) However there was no difference in the > 75s with regard to severe (G3/4) toxicity, toxicity type, admission or discontinuation due to toxicity in the aPD-1 group. In the overall cohort younger patients were more likely to develop irAEs and be admitted. Conclusions: Patients aged > 75 years treated with anti-PD1 therapy in the standard of care setting derive similar survival benefit to younger patients. There was no increase in ≥G3 toxicity. Our data support the safety of single agent aPD-1 ICI therapy in older adults and provide reassurance relating to the impact of toxicity.[Table: see text]

Background Using two large datasets from Dorset, we previously reported an internally validated multivariable risk model for predicting the risk of GI malignancy in IDA—the IDIOM score. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to validate the IDIOM model using two independent external datasets. Methods The external validation datasets were collected, in a secondary care setting, by different investigators from cohorts in Oxford and Sheffield derived under different circumstances, comprising 1117 and 474 patients with confirmed IDA respectively. The data were anonymised prior to analysis. The predictive performance of the original model was evaluated by estimating measures of calibration, discrimination and clinical utility using the validation datasets. Results The discrimination of the original model using the external validation data was 70% (95% CI 65, 75) for the Oxford dataset and 70% (95% CI 61, 79) for the Sheffield dataset. The analysis of mean, weak, flexible and across the risk groups’ calibration showed no tendency for under or over-estimated risks in the combined validation data. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the clinical value of the IDIOM model with a net benefit that is higher than ‘investigate all’ and ‘investigate no-one’ strategies up to a threshold of 18% in the combined validation data, using a risk cut-off of around 1.2% to categorise patients into the very low risk group showed that none of the patients stratified in this risk group proved to have GI cancer on investigation in the validation datasets. Conclusion This external validation exercise has shown promising results for the IDIOM model in predicting the risk of underlying GI malignancy in independent IDA datasets collected in different clinical settings.

Results: We identified three different groups.We recommend that pts with a low risk score should be offered IV if necessary, while high-risk pts are best managed with best supportive care.Pts in the intermediate-risk group deserve a case-by-case discussion to derive a decision (Table ).Conclusions: A considerable proportion of oncology pts may experience clinical deterioration due to the worsening course of the infection.These cases require a comprehensive evaluation before considering ICU admission and IV.The division between groups is arbitrary and the score needs further validation.Therefore, we plan to assess the clinical history of all cancer pts admitted to Milano Hospital Maggiore Policlinico's ICU and retrospectively apply the score to this cohort.[1]

7065 Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAE) are a recognised complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Previous characterisation of irAEs has been limited to clinical trial or registry populations and small case series. Here we present a multi-centre, granular, real-world analysis of the prevalence and outcomes of irAEs experienced by patients managed within a single comprehensive public health service. Methods: A multi-centre retrospective analysis of 2125 consecutive patients treated with ICIs was undertaken across 12 centres. All patients were managed within the UK National Health Service outside of a trial setting between June 2016 and September 2018. Patients received either ICI monotherapy (MT) or combination therapy (CT). Data were collected using a standardised, pre-piloted, collection tool. IrAEs ≥ grade 2 or endocrinopathies of any grade were considered clinically significant and recorded as per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (V5) (CTCAE). Descriptive statistics were employed using Stata v15 (College Station, TX). Results: Patients received αPD-1 (1757; 82%), combination αPD-1/αCTLA-4 (285, 13%), αCTLA-4 (51; 2%) and αPD-L1 (31; 1%) immunotherapy for malignant melanoma (961), non-small cell lung cancer (788) or renal cell carcinoma (335). The median age was 66 (MT) and 57 (CT). Clinically significant irAEs occurred in 732 (34%) individuals; 28% (524) on MT and 73% (208) on CT. Colitis (206,10%), thyroiditis (194, 9%), hepatitis (142, 7%) and dermatitis (126, 6%) were most commonly observed. Grade 1 endocrinopathies occurred in 20% (173) of cases. Grade 2 irAEs occurred in 43% (359), grade 3 31% (269) and grade 4 6% (51). The were 3 (0.4%) cases of grade 5 irAE; pneumonitis (2) and hepatitis, all following αPD-1 MT. 93% (680) required corticosteroids with 64% (490) requiring systemic corticosteroids and 11% (80) steroid sparing immunosuppression. 16% (336) of patients had pre-existing autoimmune disease of whom 40% (136) experienced irAEs. IrAEs led to admission in 42% (308) of cases, accounting for 2996 bed days. Length of stay was 7 days (1-67; IQR 4-13). Higher dependency care was required in 0.7% (15) of cases. Colitis (35%, 107) and hepatitis (25%, 77) accounted for the most admissions. Pneumonitis accounted for 3% (66) of irAEs but 12% of admissions. Conclusions: One third of patients experienced a clinically-significant irAE resulting in significant morbidity and admission burden highlighting the need for effective management strategies to optimise patient outcomes.