SAFETY ANALYSIS OF JAKINIBS IN REAL CLINICAL PRACTICE IN A COHORT OF 116 PATIENTS

BackgroundJanus kinase inhibitors (JAKinibs) have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA), although their safety profile continues to be analysed due to the possible increase in adverse events (AEs) in relation to anti-TNFs (mild and severe infections, haematological alterations, thromboembolism, increase in neoplasms).ObjectivesTo evaluate in real clinical practice the AEs of JAKinibs in a cohort of patients with RA and SpA. In addition, adherence and reasons for discontinuation (1st or 2nd failure, AE) are analysed.MethodsObservational study of 116 patients diagnosed with RA or SpA who received treatment with JAKinibis (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib) after failure of treatment with different classical synthetic (FAMEsc) or biological (FAMEb) disease-modifying drugs. The following data were analysed: demographic characteristics of the patients, years of disease progression, 1st or 2nd failures and AE.ResultsMean age was 52 years, with Baricitinib being older (60 years -SD 13.6), higher prevalence of females in all groups, and a disease progression time of about 10 years. Mean number of FAMEsc was 1.6 and mean number of FAMEb was 2,3 to Tofacitinib(Tofa), 2,76 to Baricitinib(Bari) and 4,4 to Upadacitinib(Upa). 71 (63%) patients had active corticosteroid therapy. The median treatment time with Tofa was 8.8 months, Bari 9.5 and Upa 2.4 months.Most frequent AEs with Tofa were urinary tract infections(UTI) (11.9%, 7 cases) and headaches (8.47%, 5 cases). There were 3 cases of herpes zoster (5.1%), one of which was recurrent, and 2 cases respectively of tachycardia and gastrointestinal intolerance (3.4%). With Baricitnib, 2(5%) cases of UTI and 2(5%) of influenza A were reported. Most frequent AEs related to Upadacitinb are gastrointestinal intolerance, labialis and facial herpes, anterior uveitis and recurrent UTI, with 1 case for each adverse event. There were 4 success with Baricitinib treatment: 2 due to severe COVID, 1 influenza A and 1 due to stroke. 17 patients had 1st failure to Tofa(28.81%), 8 to Bari20.0%) and 3 to Upa(18.75%);7(11.86%) and 2(5%) patients had 2nd failure to Tofa and Bari respectively, no with Upa.Mean CRP to Tofa-SD 18.9-was 17.19, 20-SD 22.7- to Bari and 24.2-SD 27.40- to Upa. Mean ESR-SD 15.3- was 25.4, -SD 26.4 and 44.3 -SD 32-, respectively. At 6 months, 36(62%) were continuing on Tofa, 22(56%) on Bari and 4(27%) on Upa. At 12 months, 27(46.6%) were still on Tofa and 12 on Bari(30.8%) and no patients were on upa.Table 1.TofaBariUpaMean age496047Male19%18%20%Female81%82%80%Time course of disease(years)81111Permanence 6 months62%56%27%Permanence 12 months46,6%31%0%Patients with corticotherapy62%64%60%Previous biological drugs2,3 SD 22,8 SD 2,34,4 SD 2,9Patients who discontinued the drug62%59%33%Mean CRP at the end of treatment172024Mean end-of-treatment ESR252644Repeated AEsUTI(7) Headache(5) Shingles(3) Nephritic colic(2) Gastrointestinal intolerance(2) Tachycardia(2)UTI(4) Headache(2)Serious AEsShingles (3)Varicella encephalopathy(1) Stroke(1) Shingles (1)1st failure28,8%20%18,7%2nd failure11,9%5%0%SuccessSARS-Cov2(2) Influenza(1) Stroke(1)Figure 1. Months stay pharmacoConclusionMost frequent adverse events with JAKinibs are mild infections, except gastrointestinal complaints with upadacitinib. Serious adverse events, including 3 deaths from viral infections, were observed, mostly in patients over 65 years. Most frequent cause of discontinuation was treatment failure. We believe that further observational studies are needed to stratify and profile the risk of infection with JAKinibs.References[1]Atzeni F, Popa CD, et al. Safety of JAK inhibitors: focus on cardiovascular and thromboembolic events. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2022 Mar;18(3):233-244. Doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2022.2039630 Epub 2022 Feb 17.PMID: 35129033[2]Alves C, Penedones A,et al. The Risk of Infections Associated With JAK Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. J Clin Rheumatol. 2022 Mar 1;28(2):e407-e414 PMID:33902098Ackn wledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

BAD NEWS FOR HYPOCHONDRIACS: Covid-19 Associated Aggravation of Somatic Symptom Disorder with Psychotic Depression

Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic has brought with it farreaching consequences that affect the mental health of a significant population. Those suffering from somatic symptom disorder (SSD) present a significant focus on physical symptoms, with excessive thoughts and behaviours, to an extent that results in major distress and dysfunction. Aggravation of SSD could be associated with various stressors, including the current pandemic, and culminate in an increased severity of the base presentation. Objective(s): The authors present the case of an elderly man with previous diagnosis of SSD which began to aggravate and evolve into a depressive psychotic state, precipitated by the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. Method(s): The authors conducted a non-systematized literature review with focus on those articles most pertinent to the topic in question as well as presenting a clinical case as compliment. Result(s): With the pandemic overwhelming the globe, the literature has demonstrated a significant correlation with aggravation of mental health and psychiatric cases. The patient in question was previously followed in consultation for SSD. With the pandemic acting as precipitating stressor, the patient demonstrated a significant aggravation in his base presentation with the development of psychotic depression. He was subsequently hospitalized with implementation of psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological methods, with remission of the psychotic state, with poor response of the SSD. Conclusion(s): External stressors are an important influence on psychiatric disorders. Whenever potential life stressors, especially those that exert influence on a global scale, the psychiatrist should be attentive to the possibility of significant aggravation of a stabilized clinical picture and offer support.

Sensitivity of the Panbio COVID-19 rapid antigen detection test in primary care

Introduction and objectives: primary care paediatricians need reliable rapid diagnostic techniques (RDTs) to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) through early and effective screening while awaiting a vaccine. The objective of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity (Sen) of the Abbott laboratory SARS-CoV-2 Panbio antigen test, newly introduced in primary care, in both adults and children (symptomatic and asymptomatic contacts) in comparison to the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Sample and methods: the study included 591 patients (222 aged less than 14 years) from 7 primary care centres;of who 249 were symptomatic and 342 asymptomatic contacts. We calculated the Sen and specificity (Spe) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the independence of the two results with the McNemar test. Results: the Sen of the test within 5 days from onset was 81% in adults (95% CI, 66.16-96.34) and 80% in children (95% CI: 34.94-100). In contacts, we assessed the Sen within 5 days, in adults (68%;95% CI: 51.13-86.37), in 5 to 9 days (85%) and in children (66%;95% CI: 30.31-100). The most frequent source of exposure were household contacts (52% of the cases). The Spe was 100% in every case. Conclusions: the Panbio SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test can be useful for diagnosis in adults and children within 5 days of onset, and from days 5 to 9 in contacts of confirmed COVID 19 cases. Further studies are required for adequate interpretation of the latter result. © 2022, Spanish Association of Primary Care Pediatrics. All rights reserved.

EFFECTIVENESS of ABATACEPT in PATIENTS with INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE ASSOCIATED with RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background: Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) is the most common lung involvement in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and leads to increased morbidity and mortality. Some retrospective observational studies suggest that abatacept (ABT) could be effective and safety, although there are no clinical trials and prospectively collected data are scarce. Objectives: To evaluate prospective the effectiveness and safety of ABT in patients with ILD associated RA (ILD-RA). Methods: Design and Protocol: We performed a multicenter, prospective, observational study of patients with interstitial lung disease secondary to rheumatoid arthritis (ILD-RA) receiving ABT between 2015 and 2021. The patients were assessed using high-resolution computed tomography and lung function tests at the beginning of treatment (V0), at 12 months (V12), and at the end of follow-up in 2021 (fV). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee (Code 1719-N-15). Main variable: effectiveness of ABT according to evolution of ILD at the end of follow-up: (1) improvement (ie improvement of FVC ≥10% or DLCO ≥15% and no radiological progression), (2) no progression (stabilization or improvement in FVC ≤ 10% or DLCO <15% and no radiological progression), (3) progression (worsening of FVC >10% or DLCO >15% and radiological progression) or (4) death. Other variables: clinical and analytical characteristics, treatments and safety (infections, hospitalization and mortality). Statistical analysis: Cox regression analysis to identify factors associated with worsening of ILD-RA treated with ABT. Results: Thirty-eight ILD-RA patients started ABT treatment during prospective follow-up. A total of 22/38 (57.9%) were men and the mean (SD) age was 66.1 (9.1) years. The mean (SD) evolution of ILD was 43.9 (30.0) months and the median (IQR) time with ABT was 17.0 (12.1-34.8) months. The baseline clini-cal-epidemiological characteristics and pulmonary progression of the patients are shown in Table 1. At the end of follow-up (fV) 28/38 (73.6%) had improvement/stabilization and 7/38 (18.4%) progressed and 3/38 (7.8%) of them died (COVID-19 pneumonia, respiratory infection and ILD progression, respectively). There were no signifcant differences in FVC (75.3 [8.7] vs 77.7 [14.6];p=0.775) or in FEV1 (83.9 [10.7] vs 84.7 [13.2];p=0.416) nor in the DLCO (61.0 [17.4] vs 60.7 [15.2];p=0.789) at the end of follow-up. There was a greater numberwith improvement/stabilization among the patients who were in combination with Methotrexate compared to those who were in monotherapy (83.3% vs 39.1%;p=0.046). The baseline variables that were independently associated with progression-mortality of ILD-RA in fV were: baseline FVC (OR [95% CI], 0.895 [0.805-0.996];p=0.042) and duration of ILD-RA (OR [95% CI], 1.204 [1.148-2.112;p=0.046]). Two patients discontinued ABT during follow-up due to insufficient joint and pulmonary response. Conclusion: More than half of the patients with ILD-RA treated with ABT manage to stabilize or improve their lung disease after a median follow-up of 17 months. Patients who worsen or die have lower baseline FVC values and ILD-RA with a longer evolution time.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by elastic bands from FFP2 mask

Background: A 29-year-old woman, with personal history of atopy, presented with face and neck dermatitis lasting 6 months. During the past year, she worked as a nurse in a COVID-19-dedicated ward. The dermatitis had developed since she started using FFP2 masks. She referred using three FFP2 masks, with similar symptoms: 3 M© 9320+, Halyard© Fluidshield N95 and PM 2.5©. She also mentioned history of contact-hypersensitivity reactions to metals, green clothes and leather shoes for several years. Physical examination exhibited erythematous plaques distributed along the contact area of the elastic bands of the FFP2 masks. Patch tests revealed delayed hypersensitivity to the elastic bands 3 M© 9320+ and PM 2.5© (++), mercapto mix (++), 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT) (++), 2-(4-morpholinylmercapto)benzothiazol (MOR) (++), N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide (++), textile dye mix Mx-30 (++), disperse yellow 3 (++), disperse blue 106 (+), potassium dichromate (+), cobalt dichloride (+) and nickel sulfate hexahydrate (+). A latex skin prick test was negative. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by elastic bands of FFP2 masks (3 M© 9320+ and PM 2.5 ©) was diagnosed. She was prescribed methylprednisolone aceponate 0.1% cream bid during five days and masks were changed to a type with cotton cloth bands, with resolution of the complaints. ACD to FFP2 masks components in health care workers can be severe, given the prolonged and continuous contact with the source of allergens. The rubber additives thiurams and dithiocarbamates are the main allergen groups involved in ACD to rubber bands in FFP2 masks. This seems to be the first report caused by mercaptobenzothiazole.

The impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals-one year on: lessons learned from the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey series.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the well-being and job performance of oncology professionals globally. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate and monitor well-being since COVID-19 in relation to work, lifestyle and support factors in oncology professionals 1 year on since the start of the pandemic. METHODS: An online, anonymous survey was conducted in February/March 2021 (Survey III). Key outcome variables included risk of poor well-being or distress (expanded Well-Being Index), feeling burnout (single item from expanded Well-Being Index), and job performance since COVID-19. Longitudinal analysis of responses to the series of three surveys since COVID-19 was carried out, and responses to job demands and resources questions were interrogated. SPSS V.26.0/V.27.0 and GraphPad Prism V9.0 were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Responses from 1269 participants from 104 countries were analysed in Survey III: 55% (n = 699/1269) female, 54% (n = 686/1269) >40 years, and 69% (n = 852/1230) of white ethnicity. There continues to be an increased risk of poor well-being or distress (n = 464/1169, 40%) and feeling burnout (n = 660/1169, 57%) compared with Survey I (25% and 38% respectively, P < 0.0001), despite improved job performance. Compared with the initial period of the pandemic, more participants report feeling overwhelmed with workload (45% versus 29%, P < 0.0001). There remain concerns about the negative impact of the pandemic on career development/training (43%), job security (37%). and international fellowship opportunities (76%). Alarmingly, 25% (n = 266/1086) are considering changing their future career with 38% (n = 100/266) contemplating leaving the profession. CONCLUSION: Oncology professionals continue to face increased job demands. There is now significant concern regarding potential attrition in the oncology workforce. National and international stakeholders must act immediately and work closely with oncology professionals to draw up future-proof recovery plans.

The concerns of oncology professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey II.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant changes to professional and personal lives of oncology professionals globally. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration aimed to provide contemporaneous reports on the impact of COVID-19 on the lived experiences and well-being in oncology. METHODS: This online anonymous survey (July-August 2020) is the second of a series of global surveys launched during the course of the pandemic. Longitudinal key outcome measures including well-being/distress (expanded Well-being Index-9 items), burnout (1 item from expanded Well-being Index), and job performance since COVID-19 were tracked. RESULTS: A total of 942 participants from 99 countries were included for final analysis: 58% (n = 544) from Europe, 52% (n = 485) female, 43% (n = 409) ≤40 years old, and 36% (n = 343) of non-white ethnicity. In July/August 2020, 60% (n = 525) continued to report a change in professional duties compared with the pre-COVID-19 era. The proportion of participants at risk of poor well-being (33%, n = 310) and who reported feeling burnout (49%, n = 460) had increased significantly compared with April/May 2020 (25% and 38%, respectively; P < 0.001), despite improved job performance since COVID-19 (34% versus 51%; P < 0.001). Of those who had been tested for COVID-19, 8% (n = 39/484) tested positive; 18% (n = 7/39) felt they had not been given adequate time to recover before return to work. Since the pandemic, 39% (n = 353/908) had expressed concerns that COVID-19 would have a negative impact on their career development or training and 40% (n = 366/917) felt that their job security had been compromised. More than two-thirds (n = 608/879) revealed that COVID-19 has changed their outlook on their work-personal life balance. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the well-being of oncology professionals globally, with significantly more in distress and feeling burnout compared with the first wave. Collective efforts from both national and international communities addressing support and coping strategies will be crucial as we recover from the COVID-19 crisis. In particular, an action plan should also be devised to tackle concerns raised regarding the negative impact of COVID-19 on career development, training, and job security.

Has COVID-19 had a greater impact on female than male oncologists? Results of the ESMO Women for Oncology (W4O) Survey.

BACKGROUND: European Society for Medical Oncology Women for Oncology (ESMO W4O) research has previously shown under-representation of female oncologists in leadership roles. As early reports suggested disproportionate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women, the ESMO W4O Committee initiated a study on the impact of the pandemic on the lives of female and male oncologists. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to ESMO members and put on the ESMO website between 8 June 2020 and 2 July 2020. Questions focused on the working (hospital tasks, laboratory tasks, science) and home (household management, childcare, parent care, personal care) lives of oncologists during and after COVID-19-related lockdowns. RESULTS: Of 649 respondents, 541 completed the questionnaire. Of these, 58% reported that COVID-19 had affected their professional career, 83% of whom said this was in a negative way (85% of women versus 76% of men). Approximately 86% reported that COVID-19 had changed their personal life and 82% their family life. Women were again significantly more affected than men: personal life (89% versus 78%; P = 0.001); family life (84% versus 77%; P = 0.037). During lockdowns, women reported increased time spent on hospital and laboratory tasks compared with men (53% versus 46% and 33% versus 26%, respectively) and a significantly higher proportion of women than men spent less time on science (39% versus 25%) and personal care (58% versus 39%). After confinement, this trend remained for science (42% versus 23%) and personal care (55% versus 36%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected the professional and home lives of oncologists, especially women. Reduced research time for female oncologists may have long-lasting career consequences, especially for those at key stages in their career. The gender gap for promotion to leadership positions may widen further as a result of the pandemic.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care of cancer patients in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on public healthcare systems are limited, particularly in cancer management. As no such studies have been carried out in Spain, our objective is to describe and quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients in Spanish hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study collected information from hospital departments treating oncology patients. An electronic questionnaire comparing outcomes and management of oncohematological patients for the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods was used. RESULTS: Information from 78 departments (36 tertiary hospitals) was analyzed. Forty-four departments implemented adapted protocols during March 2020. Most of these (n = 38/44; 86.4%) carried out COVID-19 triage, while 26 of 44 (59.1%) carried out onsite polymerase chain reaction tests for clinically suspected cases. A shift from in-person to telephone visits was observed in 43 of 44 (97.7%) departments. Comparing the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods, the number of new patients decreased by 20.8% (from 160.2 to 126.4). Decreases were also seen in the mean number of total (2858.2 versus 1686.1) and cancer (465.5 versus 367.2) biopsies, as well as the mean number of bone marrow biopsies (30.5 versus 18.6). Concerning the number of patients visiting specific cancer care departments, a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen for mean number of chemotherapy treatments (712.7 versus 643.8) and radiation therapy (2169.9 versus 2139.9). Finally, a reduction from 2019 to 2020 of 12.9% (from 8.6 to 7.4) in the mean number of patients included in clinical trials was noted. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first comprehensive data concerning the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in Spain. The pandemic caused a 20.8% decrease in newly diagnosed patients, which may impact future outcomes. Measures must be taken to ensure cancer management receives priority in times of healthcare emergencies.

Clinical features of 47 patients infected with COVID-19 admitted to a regional reference center

Background: During the first pandemic wave, Covid-19 reached Latin America cities. Aim: To report clinical features and outcomes of a group of patients with Covid-19 admitted to a Chilean regional reference Center. Material and Methods: Cases were identified by a compatible clinical picture and a positive PCR or serological test. Clinical features of patients were retrieved from medical records.

Santa Isabel Program for psycho-motor function in normal and pathological aging during current times of COVID-19 confinement in a long-term care

Since its appearance, the COVID-19 pandemic has generated a state of alarm worldwide. Extraordinary confinement measures, only seen in times of war, have been implemented to halt the fast viral transmission, the consequent stress and overload of health systems and, mostly, the dead of the most vulnerable people. Physical and social isolation has changed the lifestyle we are used to, affecting our mood and mental health at a general level. However, the group of greatest risk and vulnerability are the elder age group, due to their higher incidence of frailty, their immunosenescence and comorbidities. Also, in this elder group of the population, the consequences of social isolation may be worse to handle, especially in those who live alone and do not have a family or a strong community bond. In the case of long-term institutionalized patients, these clinical scenarios are struggling to maintain their rehabilitation and care programs while desperately adapting to the dramatic situations due to the severe impact of COVID-19 in these care settings. To address this complex scenario, we developed and implemented the Santa Isabel Program, a series of recommendations for long-term care with the aim of guiding and promoting routines, activities and habits to help maintenance of psycho-motor function of older people during the state of alarm and thereafter. The Santa Isabel Program was defined as a general therapeutic resource with the selection of different modalities of physical activity (daily walk, adapted gymnastics and dance) and functional cognitive activity (meditation, relaxation, memory and attention). Chronogram, time and intensity levels were of adjustable dosage to respond to the needs and requirements of the elder people according to the severity and type of physical or cognitive impairment. In addition, specific indications were developed for cases of people with cognitive pathology (dementia). These guidelines were prepared for the professional team and support staff, in order to provide tools that allow them to resolve complex situations such as BPSD, the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Finally, audiovisual support sessions and video calls were incorporated to allow interaction with residents and the health team, safeguarding the COVID-19 infection prevention measures.

The impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals: results of the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on well-being has the potential for serious negative consequences on work, home life, and patient care. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate well-being in oncology over time since COVID-19. METHODS: Two online anonymous surveys were conducted (survey I: April/May 2020; survey II: July/August 2020). Statistical analyses were performed to examine group differences, associations, and predictors of key outcomes: (i) well-being/distress [expanded Well-being Index (eWBI; 9 items)]; (ii) burnout (1 item from eWBI); (iii) job performance since COVID-19 (JP-CV; 2 items). RESULTS: Responses from survey I (1520 participants from 101 countries) indicate that COVID-19 is impacting oncology professionals; in particular, 25% of participants indicated being at risk of distress (poor well-being, eWBI ≥ 4), 38% reported feeling burnout, and 66% reported not being able to perform their job compared with the pre-COVID-19 period. Higher JP-CV was associated with better well-being and not feeling burnout (P < 0.01). Differences were seen in well-being and JP-CV between countries (P < 0.001) and were related to country COVID-19 crude mortality rate (P < 0.05). Consistent predictors of well-being, burnout, and JP-CV were psychological resilience and changes to work hours. In survey II, among 272 participants who completed both surveys, while JP-CV improved (38% versus 54%, P < 0.001), eWBI scores ≥4 and burnout rates were significantly higher compared with survey I (22% versus 31%, P = 0.01; and 35% versus 49%, P = 0.001, respectively), suggesting well-being and burnout have worsened over a 3-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: In the first and largest global survey series, COVID-19 is impacting well-being and job performance of oncology professionals. JP-CV has improved but risk of distress and burnout has increased over time. Urgent measures to address well-being and improve resilience are essential.

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.

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.

Managing cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ESMO multidisciplinary expert consensus.

We established an international consortium to review and discuss relevant clinical evidence in order to develop expert consensus statements related to cancer management during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The steering committee prepared 10 working packages addressing significant clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a virtual consensus meeting of 62 global experts and one patient advocate, led by the European Society for Medical Oncology, statements were discussed, amended and voted upon. When consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements until a consensus was reached. Overall, the expert panel agreed on 28 consensus statements that can be used to overcome many of the clinical and technical areas of uncertainty ranging from diagnosis to therapeutic planning and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.