HER2 copy number variation in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Background: The value of increased HER2 gene copy number (GCN) in NSCLC is unclear. In this study we defined its frequency and characterized a cohort of patients harboring it. Methods: Patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC enrolled in the Gustave Roussy MSN study (NCT02105168) between Oct. 2009 and Feb. 2016 were screened by FISH (positivity defined as HER2 GCN to centromeres ratio ≥ 2) and tested for other molecular alterations. Descriptive analyses of clinical-pathological data were performed, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: HER2 FISH tested positive in 22 of 250 screened patients (9%). Median age was 60 years (range 47-80), 68% (n=15) were male, 91% (n=20) were current or former tobacco smokers (median exposure 47 pack-year), 64% (n=14) had adenocarcinoma, 18% (n=4) squamous cell and 18% (n=4) large cell carcinoma. 91% (n=20) had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. Stage IV with extra-thoracic involvement was the most common clinical presentation (64%, n=14). Overall, 95% of patients (n=21) had 1 or 2 metastatic sites at diagnosis (bone 32%, lung 27%, nodes 18%, liver 18%, brain 18%). In 9 patients (41%) 12 concurrent molecular alterations were detected: 5 KRAS mutation (3 G12C, 1 G12D, 1 G61H), 2 HER2 exon 20 insertion, 1 EGFR exon 19 deletion, 1 BRAF V600E mutation, 1 ALK rearrangement, 1 FGFR1 and 1 MET amplification. 18 patients received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, with 33% (95% CI 16-56) objective response rate and 83% (95% CI 61-94) disease control rate. After a median follow-up of 28 months (95% CI 23-45), median PFS and OS were 5.9 (95% CI 3.4-11.0) and 15.3 (95% CI 10.3-NR) months, respectively. Median PFS was longer in patients with higher GCN. As further line of treatment, 5 patients received trastuzumab: 4 in combination with chemotherapy and 1 as monotherapy, with 1 stabilization of disease as best response. 3 patients received nivolumab (1 partial response and 1 stable disease) and 3 a targeted therapy (anti ALK, EGFR, BRAF). Conclusions: Increased HER2 GCN was found in 9% of patients with unresectable NSCLC, was not correlated to particular clinical characteristics, but frequently occurred with other molecular alterations. Its clinical actionability and the correlation with protein expression deserve further characterization. Clinical trial identification: NCT02105168. Legal entity responsible for the study: Gustave Roussy. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: M. Tagliamento: Other, Personal, Other, Travel grants: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Eli Lilly;Other, Personal, Writing Engagements, Honoraria as medical writer: Novartis, Amgen. E. Auclin: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Amgen, Sanofi. E. Rouleau: Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, GSK;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Clovis, BMS;Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding, Data base: AstraZeneca. A. Bayle: Non-Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Principal/Sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials: AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, BeiGene, BicycleTx Ltd, Non-Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, INCA, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi;Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, drug supplied: AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MedImmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche. F. Barlesi: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Takeda;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Pierre Fabre, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. D. Planchard: Financial I terests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Celgene, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, priME Oncology, Peer CME, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator, Institutional financial interests: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi-Aventis, Pierre Fabre;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator: AbbVie, Sanofi, Janssen. B. Besse: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: 4D Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cergentis, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Onxeo, Ose Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Takeda, Tolero Pharmaceuticals;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Chugai Pharmaceutical, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, Inivata, Ipsen, Turning Point Therapeutics. L. Mezquita: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Takeda, AstraZeneca, Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Roche, BMS, AstraZeneca, Takeda;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant, SEOM Beca Retorno 2019: BI;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant, ESMO TR Research Fellowship 2019: BMS;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant, COVID research Grant: Amgen;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Inivata, Stilla. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

PET-derived parameters for response assessment in neoadjuvant atezolizumab: A secondary analysis of PRINCEPS phase II trial

Background: Immune Checkpoint Blockade (ICB) is moving from metastatic to curative setting in different diseases including NSCLC. While for metastatic disease radiological endpoints are currently the standard surrogate marker of benefit from ICBs, based on RECIST or PERCIST criteria, in neoadjuvant setting they often underestimate the response and then pathological response (PR) criteria were developed to evaluate Major PR (MPR), defined as ≤10% viable tumor cells after neoadjuvant treatment, and PR, defined as less than 50% residual tumor cells. Anyway, a non-invasive approach to determine the response to treatment is still an unmet need. Methods: PRINCEPS was a phase 2 clinical trial including limited-stage (IB-IIIA) NSCLC patients who received one administration of atezolizumab before surgery. 18-F FDG PET was performed within 28 days and after 15-22 days from atezolizumab. Surgery was performed at day 22-29 from atezolizumab. PET derived parameters including MTV and TLG was extracted by experienced nuclear physicians. Results: 30 patients were enrolled, all received A and underwent surgical resection after a median of 23 days. MPR was identified in 4, pPR in 8 tumors. Paired PET were available for 28 pts. Mean time from A to PET was 18 days (IQR 3.5). Total TLG and MTV reduction was not correlated with percentage of pPR (p=0.117 and p=0.843, respectively). Reduction of MTV (Pearson correlation 0.509, p=0.006) and TLG (Pearson correlation 0.562, p=0.002) in the primary tumor were strongly correlated with pPR, while no correlation was observed between percentage of pPR and variation in tumor diameters by RECIST criteria (-0.24, p=0.2) nor metabolic response (-0.12, p=0.55). The appearance of metabolically active hilar and mediastinal, non-pathological lymph nodes (LN) was noted in 12/28 patients, and specifically in. 2 out of 4 MPR and 5 out of 8 pPR. A trend toward an higher pPR was observed with LN appearance (mean 52% reduction in pts with LN appearance vs 29% without, p 0.061), probably reflecting immune activation. LN appearance was associated with hyperplasia and histiocytosis in resected, non-metastatic LNs. Conclusions: PET is able to early detect tumor response in localized NSCLC patients treated with ICBs in neoadjuvant setting. Clinical trial identification: NCT02994576. Legal entity responsible for the study: Institut Gustave Roussy. Funding: Roche. Disclosure: N. Chaput-Gras: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Strong-Iopredi Scientific Advisory Board: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker, Educational Session On Immune Cell Death: Servier;Financial Interests, Institutional, Expert Testimony, Expertise On Immune Cell Death Biomarkers: Servier;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Cytune Pharma;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant, Research grant to identify immune biomarkers associated to clinical response in patients treated with agonistic mAbs: GSK;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant, Preclinical studies in mice: GSK;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant, Immune profiling of Head & Neck tumors: Sanofi. D. Planchard: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Celgene, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, priME Oncology, Peer CME, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator, Institutional financial interests: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi-Aventis, Pierre Fabre;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator: AbbVie, Sanofi, Janssen. L. Mezquita: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Takeda, AstraZeneca, Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Roche, BMS, AstraZeneca, Takeda;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant, SEOM Beca Retorno 2019: BI;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant, ESMO TR Research Fellowship 2019: BMS;Financial Interests, Institutional, Resea ch Grant, COVID research Grant: Amgen;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Inivata, Stilla. J. Remon Masip: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Boehringer-Ingelheim;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi;Financial Interests, Personal, Expert Testimony: Ose Immunotherapeutics;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator, PI of PECATI trial in Thymic malignancies endorsed by a grant by MSD: MSD;Non-Financial Interests, Other, Co-PI of APPLE trial (EORTC-1525): AstraZeneca. F. Barlesi: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Takeda;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Pierre Fabre, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. B. Besse: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: 4D Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cergentis, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Onxeo, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Takeda, Tolero Pharmaceuticals;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Genzyme Corporation, Inivata, Ipsen, Turning Point Therapeutics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Postgraduate oncology educational shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of faculty and medical student surveys.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted clinical practice, research and teaching. During peaks, virtual courses were implemented but these changes are poorly described, especially for oncology postgraduate students and faculty teachers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We administered two surveys from June 2021 to October 2021 to students and faculty teachers (250 and 80 responses, respectively) who registered at Gustave Roussy School of Cancer Sciences (Université Paris-Saclay) during 3 consecutive university years (October 2018 to October 2021), where a major shift to e-learning was associated with COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Most students were female (53%), attending physicians (50%), aged 30-39 years (54%) and 2020-2021 (66.4%) was the main year of training. Most faculty teachers were male (58%), aged 40-50 years (44%) and had participated in training for at least 3 years (83%). More than half of the students received 100% virtual training [55% versus 45% face-to-face/mixed teaching modalities; online (84%) versus remote teaching (16%)]. Only 34% of students declared >80% 'active listening' and only 16% of teachers considered e-learning to be more suitable (compared with face-to-face) for postgraduate education. Virtual teaching decreased student-teacher interactions as compared with mixed/face-to-face (lessons were sufficiently interactive for 54% students if virtual only teaching versus for 71% if other teaching modalities; P = 0.009). Teachers stated that virtual learning did not lead to any improvements in terms of attendance (68%), interaction (74%) and quality of teaching (68%). However, most faculty (76%) acknowledged that partial e-learning training should be maintained outside the pandemic, if it represents ≤50% of the whole teaching (teachers: 79% versus student: 66%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 accelerated the transition toward novel practices. Students and faculty teachers agreed on the need for future mixed (≤50% e-learning) teaching modalities. Adequate formation and the use of codified best newer virtual practices are required.

Impact of COVID-19 on ongoing oncological and hematological treatment strategy

Background: Outcomes and risk factors associated with COVID-19 worsening among cancer patients have previously been reported. However, the actual impact of SARs-Co-V2 infection on the cancer treatment strategy remains unknown. Here, we report the Gustave Roussy (GR) experience, one year after the onset of the pandemic focusing on the impact of COVID-19 in patients with ongoing management of oncohematological disease. Methods: All patients positively tested for SARS-CoV-2 and managed at GR between Mar 14th 2020 and Feb 15th 2021 (data cut-off) have been included. Patients underlying oncohematological disease and COVID19 characteristics have been collected. Cancer and COVID-19 management and outcomes have been assessed. Primary endpoint was the overall impact of COVID-19 on oncological and hematological treatment strategy assessed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results: At the time of the analysis, 423 patients (median age: 62 years) were found positive for SARS-CoV-2 and managed at GR with a median follow up of 5.6 months (0-13 months). Among them, 284 (67%) were admitted due to COVID-19. Clinical deterioration occurred in 87 patients (21%), 43 patients (10%) were transferred in intensive care unit and 123 (29%) patients died, among which 47 (11%) died from COVID-19. Overall, 329 (78%) patients were on active treatment for underlying oncohematological disease at time of COVID diagnosis. Impact of COVID-19 on cancer treatment strategy in those patients is presented in the Table. The majority (N=268, 81%) had no change in oncological strategy. For those who experienced a delay, median delay in treatment was 21 days (N=99, [1-77]), 30 days (N=15, [15-56]), 7 days (N=8,[3-35]) for systemic treatment, surgery and radiotherapy respectively. [Formula presented] Conclusions: COVID-19 outbreak is associated with a significant mortality in patients with cancer. However, for patients who did not die from COVID-19, we provide the first report supporting that ongoing treatment was maintained or could be resumed in the majority of cases in a timely manner. Legal entity responsible for the study: Gustave Roussy. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Sustained cancer clinical trial activity during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic deeply threatens the rigorous conduct of clinical trials, notably by delaying site initiation visits, patient enrolment, treatment administration, trial-associated procedures, and data monitoring. Unlike most other medical specialties, clinical trials are an integral part of patient care in oncology. Limiting access to clinical trials therefore results in a loss of chance for patients. Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, we collected clinical trial-specific items (including patient-related or trial management-related items) during the first pandemic wave (March– June 2020) and lockdown (March 17th-May 11th) at Gustave Roussy, and compared them to those of the same period in 2019. Results: In March 2020, 84 phase I (P1) and 210 phase II/III (P2/3) trials were open. During the first pandemic wave, 21 (25%) P1 and 20 (9%) P2/3 trials were temporarily halted, following a unilateral sponsor decision in virtually all cases;all but one were industry-sponsored. Despite this, all important metrics of the P1/2 trial activity remained similar to those of 2019, including the number of patients referred for inclusion (599 vs 620), inclusion consultations (215 vs 247), patients starting treatment (130 vs 130), Internal Review Board (IRB) submissions (14 vs 16), and site initiation visits (11 vs 15), all in 2020 vs 2019, respectively. The impact of the first lock-down was more marked on P2/3, with 152 patient inclusions (vs 346 in 2019), 125 randomizations (vs 278), 43 IRB submissions (vs 50) and 34 site initiation visits (vs 40). However, in parallel, 475 patients were included in three “COVID and cancer” trials. Among the 443 P1 and 2851 P2/3 patients, 198 and 628 COVID-19 PCR were performed internally, and five and 15 (2.5%) were positive, respectively. One patient with a community-based COVID-19 died after transfer in intensive care. Conclusions: Cancer clinical trials can, and must be maintained despite challenges brought by COVID-19. Sharing experiences and retrospectively evaluating the impact on patients’ safety and cancer-related outcomes will be critical to durably improve the clinical trials conduct and to anticipate at best challenges brought by future similar crises. Legal entity responsible for the study: Gustave Roussy. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Phase Ib study of BI 836880 (VEGF/Ang2 nanobody) plus ezabenlimab (BI 754091;anti-PD-1 antibody) in patients (pts) with solid tumors

Background: In preclinical studies, the combination of anti-VEGF/Ang2 and anti-PD-1 therapy has been shown to promote an immunopermissive state, which is supportive of T-cell-mediated tumor cell destruction. BI 836880 is a humanized bispecific nanobody that targets VEGF and Ang2, and ezabenlimab (BI 754091) is an anti-PD-1 antibody. Phase I studies investigating each as monotherapies have reported safety and preliminary antitumor activity. This ongoing Phase Ib study is evaluating the combination of BI 836880 and ezabenlimab in pts with advanced solid tumors. In Part 1 (dose escalation), the combination was feasible in pts with advanced NSCLC, with a recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) of BI 836880 720 mg + ezabenlimab 240 mg IV q3w. Here, we report updated results from Part 2 (expansion phase), which is assessing the antitumor activity and safety of the RP2D. Methods: Seven cohorts are currently recruiting pts in Part 2: metastatic (m) NSCLC after checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) monotherapy (Cohort A);mNSCLC after chemotherapy (CT) + CPI (Cohort B);mSCLC after CT ± CPI (Cohort C);1 and 2nd recurrences of glioblastoma (GBM;Cohort D);immunotherapy-resistant mmelanoma (Cohort E);hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after prior sorafenib or lenvatinib ± CPI (Cohort F);and previously untreated/unresectable HCC (Cohort G). Primary endpoint is objective response rate (complete response + partial response [PR]). Results: As of January 2021, 196 pts have received BI 836880 plus ezabenlimab (14 in Part 1, 182 in Part 2 [Cohort A, 26;B, 30;C, 19;D, 31;E, 32;F, 28;G, 16]). 134 (68%) pts were male, median age was 63 years and 102 (52%) had prior CPI use. Any grade and ≥G3 adverse events (AEs;any cause) were reported by 160 (82%) and 62 (32%) pts, most commonly (all%/ ≥G3%) hypertension (20/8), asthenia (20/3), diarrhea, decreased appetite, and nausea (all 11/1). 95 (48%) pts had a drug-related AE, most commonly hypertension and asthenia (both 11%). 6 pts had a G4 AE (non-related: hyperkalemia + cardiac arrest, laryngospasm, gastrointestinal perforation;drug-related: anaphylactic reaction, acute pancreatitis, transaminases increased);8 pts had a G5 AE (non-related: general physical health deterioration, epilepsy, hemoptysis, cardiorespiratory arrest, hepatic failure, intracranial hemorrhage, COVID-19 pneumonia;drugrelated tracheal hemorrhage). 30 (15%) pts had immune-related AEs (3% ≥G3), including hypothyroidism (3%). 11 (6%) pts had an AE leading to discontinuation. Overall, 145 pts were evaluable for response: 9 pts achieved confirmed PR (2 pts in Part 1 and 7 in Part 2 [NSCLC, n = 3;SCLC, n = 1;GBM, n = 1;melanoma, n = 1;and 2 -line HCC, n = 1]), 87 pts had stable disease and 49 pts had progressive disease. 111 pts remain on treatment. Conclusions: BI 836880 plus ezabenlimab had a manageable safety profile. The combination showed preliminary antitumor activity in a range of tumor types.

Thoracic cancers international COVID-19 collaboration (TERAVOLT): Small-cell lung cancer andother rare thoracic malignancies

Background: At the last update of the TERAVOLT registry, patients with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19showed a high mortality rate (35.5% overall and 31% due to COVID-19) compared to the general population and toother solid tumors. Major determinants of mortality were age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PerformanceStatus (ECOG-PS), and previous administration of chemotherapy. No cancer-specific data are available with respectto small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and other rare thoracic malignancies. Methods: TERAVOLT is an international, multicenter observational registry launched to collect data on patients withthoracic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. Risk factors for hospitalization and mortality wereidentified by Wilcoxon rank sum tests (continuous variables) or χ2 tests (categorical variables). Here we present thesubgroup analyses of SCLC and other rare thoracic malignancies, including malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), thymic carcinoma/thymoma, and carcinoid/neuroendocrine lung tumors. Results: As of June 4th, 2020, a total of 581 patients with COVID-19 and thoracic cancers have been entered;among them, 66 (11%) were SCLC, 22 (4%) were MPM, 18 (3%) were thymic carcinoma/thymoma, 12 (2%) werecarcinoid/neuroendocrine lung tumors, and 442 (76%) NSCLC;21 were an unknown type. Among SCLC patients,54% were > 65 years old, 56% were males, 98% were current/former smokers, 31% had an ECOG-PS ≥ 2, 67%had stage IV disease, 82% were on current oncologic treatment at the COVID-19 diagnosis, and 58% werereceiving chemotherapy alone or in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Among other non-NSCLCpatients, 56% were > 65 years old, 56% were males, 69% were current/former smokers, 24% had an ECOG-PS ≥ 2,50% had stage IV disease, 52% were on current oncologic treatment at the COVID-19 diagnosis, and 37% werereceiving chemotherapy alone or in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Overall, 79.7% of the patientsrequired hospitalization, 15.4% were admitted to an ICU, and 39.8% died (36.2% due to COVID-19). Among SCLCpatients, 74.2% required hospitalization, 14.3% were admitted to an ICU, and 42.2% died (37.5% due to COVID-19).Among SCLC patients, age > 65 years old (p=0.81), gender (p=0.71), smoking status (p=1.0), ECOG-PS ≥2(p=0.17), disease stage of IV (p=0.37), and having received chemotherapy alone or with checkpoint inhibitors(p=0.84) were not associated with mortality. Conclusions: This analysis confirmed that patients with thoracic malignancies have a high mortality and risk forhospitalization due to COVID-19 overall. SCLC patients showed the highest mortality rate among thoracic cancerpatients.

Outcome of older cancer patientsinfected with Covid19 at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in Paris's region significantly affected Gustave Roussy Cancer Center.Previous analyses showed that mortality rate increases with age in the general population. Here, we report theGustave Roussy experience on older patients (OP) with cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Methods: Cancer pts with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted at Gustave Roussy starting March 12th.Screening indications have been adapted over the time. All the COVID19 pts positively tested and managed atGustave Roussy between March 14th (1st positive case) and April 15th have been included in a REDCap database.Pts and underlying oncologic and COVID19 diseases characteristics have been collected. Cancer and COVID-19managements and outcomes have been assessed. The primary endpoint of this analysis was the clinicaldeterioration, defined as the need for O2 supplementation of 6l/min, or death of any cause. Results: Among the first 137 cancer pts diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, 36 patients were aged 70 years (26%). Mostof them were female (61%) with a median age of 75.5 years old. Most frequent underlying cancers were solidtumors (92%) including GI (19%), lung (17%), GYN (14%), and head and neck (14%). Most OP (36%) were ECOGperformance status 2 versus 24% in younger patients (YP). The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was made byRT-PCR or thoracic CT scan alone in 97% and 3% of the cases, respectively, in OP and in 92% and 8% in YP. MostOP experienced symptoms prior to testing (92%) compared to YP (80%). Symptoms differed according to age withmore cough with sputum production in OP (14% versus 5%), dyspnea (39% versus 31%), diarrhea (17% versus9%), shivers (8% versus 0%), sore throat (8% versus 4%), and no anosmia or agueusia. The majority of OP werehospitalized (81%) compared to 72% of YP and treated with HCQ/AZI (15;52%) with inclusion in the ONCOVID trial(EudraCT: 2020-01250-21) compared to 25 (35%) YP. They did not receive any IL-6 inhibitor. Only one OP wasadmitted in the ICU (3%). Clinical deterioration occurred in 10 OP (29%). There was no impact of age on clinicalworsening (HR=1.157;95%CI 0.55-2.42;p=0.7). However, age was associated with worse overall survival (OS)(HR=2.45 95%CI 1.02-5.92 ;p=0.0463). Results will be updated at the meeting. Conclusions: OP with cancer had a different disease presentation, same rate of clinical worsening, but worse OSin SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT): Impact of type of cancer therapy and COVID therapy on survival

Background: Early reports on cancer patients infected with COVID-19 have suggested a high mortality rate compared to the general population. Patients with thoracic malignancies are considered high risk given their age, preexisting comorbidities, smoking, and pre-existing lung damage in addition to therapies administered to treat their illness. Method: We launched a global consortium to collect data on patients with thoracic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19 infection to understand the impact on this patient population. Goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on treating patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus. Results: As of April 23, 2020, a total of 295 patients across 59 centers and 9 countries have been entered;median age 68, 31% female, 79% current/former smokers, HTN and COPD most common comorbidities;73% NSCLC, 14% SCLC, 4% meso and thymic, 49% patients with stage IV disease, majority on chemo or chemo-IO and 24% receiving RT. The use of IO or chemo-IO does not appear to impact risk of hospitalization, while treatment with TKI appears to be associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization. 73% patients required hospitalization, most common therapy given to treat COVID was antibiotics 67%, antivirals 33%, and steroids 30%. Conclusion: With an ongoing global pandemic of COVID-19 our data suggest that patients with thoracic malignancies are at high risk for hospitalization. Updated results to be presented will include impact on specific chemo-IO regimens and number of lines of therapy, which may impact hospitalization and risk of death as well as which therapies administered may impact survival in patients treated for COVID-19.

Outcome of older cancer patients infected with COVID-19 at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak significantly affected Gustave Roussy cancer center. Here, we report the Gustave Roussy experience on older patients (OP) with cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Methods: Cancer pts with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted at Gustave Roussy starting March, 12th. Screening indications have been adapted over time. All the COVID-19 pts positively tested and managed at Gustave Roussy between March 14th and April 15th have been included in a redcap database. Pts and underlying oncological and COVID-19 diseases characteristics have been collected. Cancer and COVID-19 managements, and outcomes have been assessed. The primary endpoint of this analysis was the clinical deterioration, defined as the need for O2 supplementation of 6l/min or more, or death of any cause. Results: Among the first 137 cancer pts diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, 36 patients were aged 70 years old or over (26%). Most of them were female (61%) with a median age of 75.5 years old. Most frequent underlying cancers were solid tumors (92%) including GI (19%), lung (17%), GYN (14%) and head and neck (14%). Most OP (36%) were ECOG Performans status 2 versus 24% in younger patients (YP). The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was made by RT-PCR or thoracic CT scan alone in 97% and 3% of the cases, respectively in OP and in 92% and 8% in YP. Most OP experienced symptoms prior to testing (92%) compared to YP (80%). Symptoms differed according to age with more cough with sputum production in OP (14% versus 5%), dyspnea (39% versus 31%), diarrhea (17% versus 9%), shivers (8% versus 0%), sore throat (8% versus 4%) and no anosmia nor agueusia. The majority of OP was hospitalized (81%) compared to 72% of YP and treated with HCQ/AZI (15;52%) compared to 25 (35%) YP with inclusion in the ONCOVID trial (EudraCT: 2020-01250-21). They did not receive any IL-6 inhibitor. Only one OP was admitted in the ICU (3%). Clinical deterioration occurred in 10 OP (29%). There was no impact of age on clinical worsening (HR=1.157;95%CI 0.55-2.42;p=0.7). However age was associated with worse overall survival (OS) (HR=2.45 95%CI 1.02-5.92;p=0.0463). Results will be updated at the meeting. Conclusions: OP with cancer had a different disease presentation, same rate of clinical worsening but worse OS in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.