Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer: A joint analysis of OnCovid and ESMO-CoCARE registries

Background: As management and prevention strategies against Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) evolve, it is still uncertain whether prior exposure to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) affects COVID-19 severity in patients (pts) with cancer. Method(s): In a joint analysis of ICI recipients from OnCovid (NCT04393974) and ESMO CoCARE registries, we assessed severity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated and unvaccinated pts with cancer and explored whether prior immune-related adverse events (irAEs) influenced outcome from COVID-19. Result(s): The study population consisted of 240 pts diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan 2020 and Feb 2022 exposed to ICI within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with a 30-day case fatality rate (CFR30) of 23.6% (95%CI: 17.8-30.7%). 42 (17.5%) were fully vaccinated prior to COVID-19 and experienced decreased CFR30 (4.8% vs 28.1%, p=0.001), hospitalization rate (27.5% vs 63.2%, p<0.001), requirement of oxygen therapy (15.8% vs 41.5%, p=0.003), COVID-19 complication rate (11.9% vs 34.6%, p=0.004), and COVID-19-specific therapy (26.3% vs 57.9%, p=0.001) compared with unvaccinated pts. IPTW-fitted multivariable analysis, following a clustered-robust correction for the data source (OnCovid vs ESMO CoCARE), confirmed that vaccinated pts experienced a decreased risk of death at 30 days (aOR 0.08, 95%CI: 0.01-0.69). 38 pts (15.8%) experienced at least 1 irAE of any grade at any time prior to COVID-19, at a median time of 3.2 months (0.13-48.7) from COVID-19 diagnosis. IrAEs occurred independently of baseline characteristics except for primary tumour (p=0.037) and were associated with a significantly decreased CFR30 (10.8% vs 26.0%, p=0.0462) additionally confirmed by the IPTW-fitted multivariable analysis (aOR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.33-0.67). Pts who experienced irAEs also presented a higher median absolute lymphocyte count at COVID-19 (1.4 vs 0.8 109 cells/L, p=0.009). Conclusion(s): Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in ICI recipients. History of irAEs might identify pts with pre-existing protection from COVID-19, warranting further investigation of adaptive immune determinants of protection from SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial identification: NCT04393974 OnCovid. Legal entity responsible for the study: Imperial College London & ESMO. Funding(s): Imperial Biomedical Research Centre ESMO. Disclosure: A. Cortellini: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: MSD, OncoC4;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Eisai, AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Expert Testimony: Iqvia. D.J. Pinato: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: ViiV Healthcare, Bayer, BMS, Roche, Eisai, Falk Foundation;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Mina Therapuetics, Eisai, Roche, DaVolterra, AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Copyright © 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology

Sars-Cov-2 Omicron (B11529) Variant Infection Leads to High Morbidity and Mortality in Unvaccinated Patients with Cancer

Background: The Omicron (B.1.1.529) SARS-CoV-2 variant is highly transmissible and escapes vaccinal immunity. Evidence is lacking as to the impact of Omicron in oncological patients. Method(s): Capitalizing on OnCovid study data (NCT04393974), we analysed COVID-19 morbidity and case fatality rate at 28 days (CFR28) of unvaccinated patients across 3 phases defined following the evolution of the pandemic in Europe, according to date of COVID-19 diagnosis: "Pre-vaccination" phase (27/02/2020-30/11/2020), "Alpha- Delta variant" phase (01/12/2020-14/12/2021), "Omicron variant" phase (15/12/2021-31/01/2022). Finding(s): By the data lock of 04/02/2022, 3820 patients from 37 institutions across 6 countries were entered. Out of 3473 eligible patients, 2033 (58.6%), 1075 (30.9%) and 365 (10.5%) were diagnosed during the Pre-vaccination, Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases. In total 659 (61.3%) and 42 (11.5%) were unvaccinated in the Alpha-Delta and Omicron. Unvaccinated patients across the Omicron, Alpha-Delta and Pre-vaccination phases experienced similar CFR28 (27.5%, 28%, 29%, respectively). Following propensity score matching, 42 unvaccinated Omicron patients were matched with 122 and 121 patients from the Pre-vaccination and Alpha-Delta phases respectively, based on country of origin, sex, age, comorbidity burden, primary tumour, cancer stage and status, and the receipt of systemic anticancer therapy at COVID-19. Unvaccinated Omicron patients experienced improved COVID-19 outcomes in comparison to patients diagnosed during the Prevaccination phase. Morbidity and mortality were comparable to those of unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the Alpha-Delta phase. Interpretation(s): Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the Omicron phase, patients with cancer remain highly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 in absence of vaccinal protection. This study provides unequivocal evidence in support of universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Clinical effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and booster doses in patients with cancer: An analysis from the European OnCovid registry

Background: Immunogenicity and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been widely investigated in patients (pts) with cancer. However, their effectiveness against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the additional protective effect of a booster dose in this population are yet to be defined. Methods: Using OnCovid study data (NCT04393974), a European registry enrolling consecutive pts with cancer and COVID-19, we evaluated morbidity and 14 days case fatality rates (CFR14) from COVID-19 in pts who were unvaccinated, vaccinated (either partially/full vaccinated but not boosted) and those who had received a third dose. Analyses were restricted to pts diagnosed between 17/11/2021 (first breakthrough infection in a boosted pt) and the 31/01/2022. Pts with unknown vaccination status were excluded. Results: By the data lock of 22/02/2022, out of 3820 consecutive pts from 36 institutions, 415 pts from 3 countries (UK, Spain, Italy) were eligible for analysis. Among them, 51 (12.3%) were unvaccinated, 178 (42.9%) were vaccinated and 186 (44.8%) were boosted. Among vaccinated pts, 26 (14.6%) were partially vaccinated (1 dose). Pts with haematological malignancies had more likely received a booster dose prior to infection (25.4% vs 13.6% and 11.8%, p = 0.02). We found no other associations between vaccination status and pts' characteristics including sex, age, comorbidities, smoking history, tumour stage, tumour status and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy. Compared to unvaccinated pts, boosted and vaccinated pts achieved improved CFR14 (6.8% and 7.0% vs 22.4%, p = 0.01), COVID-19-related hospitalization rates (26.1% and 20.6% vs 41.2%, p = 0.01) and COVID-19-related complications rates (14.5% and 15.7% vs 31.4%). Using multivariable Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) models adjusted for sex, comorbidities, tumour status and country of origin we confirmed that boosted (OR 0.21, 95%CI: 0.05-0.89) and vaccinated pts (OR 0.19, 95%CI: 0.04-0.81) achieved improved CFR14 compared to unvaccinated pts, whilst a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 complications (OR 0.26, 95%CI: 0.07-0.93) was reported for vaccinated pts only. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines protect from COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in pts with cancer. Accounting for the enrichment of haematologic pts in the boosted group, the observation of comparable mortality outcomes between boosted and vaccinated pts is reassuring and suggests boosting to be associated with reduced mortality in more vulnerable subjects, despite evidence of adverse features in this group.

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 impact of COVID-19 outbreak on breast cancer pathological stage at surgery: A retrospective monocentric study

Background: In March 2020, due to the spread of Sars- Cov2 infection and the subsequent declaration of global pandemic by the World Health Organization, several services provided by the Italian Healthcare System were interrupted or heavily limited until May 2020, including breast cancer screening and surgery. We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the impact of these 3-monthlimitation on breast cancer stage at surgery in the Breast Unit of San Martino Hospital in Genoa. Material and methods: In this retrospective study we compared the pathological stage of breast cancer patients who underwent surgery in our Breast Unit (San Martino Hospital, Genova) in 2020 with those treated in 2019, focusing on the period between March and May. Results: We observed a remarkable reduction in breast cancer surgical interventions in 2020 compared to 2019 (671 vs 491, -26.8%). As expected, the most relevant reduction was observed during the lockdown period, accounting for 39% (70 out of 180) of the total reduction. Out of 671 surgical interventions performed in 2019, 96 were ductal carcinoma in situ (14.3%). Out of the 491 in 2020, 44 were ductal carcinoma in situ (9%), which represents a 5.3% reduction compared to 2019 (p-value 0.0061). Notably, there was no relevant increase in pT and nodal involvement between breast cancer patients treated in 2020 compared to 2019, irrrespective of biological subtype. Similar data were observed focusing on the period between March and May 2019 and 2020. Conclusions: This single-centre analysis showed a decrease in the number of breast cancer surgeries in 2020 compared to 2019, particularly in the period between March and and May, with a significant reduction of in situ ductal carcinoma diagnoses in 2020 compared to 2019. We did not observe a statistically significant increase in breast cancer pathological stage in 2020 compared to 2019. These results were confirmed across different breast cancer subtypes and after restricting the analysis on the March-May period. Our data show that the 3-month-limitation on breast cancer screening and surgery did not turn into increased dimensions or nodal involvement of breast cancer patients treated in 2020 compared to 2019.

Prevalence and impact of COVID-19 sequelae on treatment pathways and survival of cancer patients who recovered from SARS-Cov-2 infection

Background: The long-term impact of COVID-19 in cancer patients (pts) is undefined. Methods: Among 2795 consecutive pts with COVID-19 and cancer registered to OnCovid between 01/2020 and 02/2021, we examined clinical outcomes of pts reassessed post COVID-19 recovery. Results: Among 1557 COVID-19 survivors, 234 (15%) reported sequelae including respiratory symptoms (49.6%), fatigue (41%) and cognitive/psychological dysfunction (4.3%). Persisting COVID-19 sequelae were more likely found in males (p=0.0407) aged ≥65 years (p=0.0489) with ≥2 comorbidities (p=0.0006) and positive smoking history (p=0.0004). Sequelae were associated with history of prior hospitalisation (p<0.0001), complicated disease (p<0.0001) and COVID-19 therapy (p=0.0002). With a median post-COVID-19 follow up of 128 days (95%CI 113-148), multivariable analysis of survival revealed COVID-19 sequelae to be associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.76, 95%CI 1.16-2.66) after adjusting for sex, age, comorbidities, tumour characteristics, anticancer therapy and COVID-19 severity. Out of 473 patients who were on systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at COVID-19 diagnosis;62 (13.1%) permanently discontinued therapy and 75 (15.8%) received SACT adjustments, respectively. Discontinuations were due to worsening performance status (45.1%), disease progression (16.1%) and residual organ disfunction (6.3%). SACT adjustments were pursued to avoid hospital attendance (40%), prevent immunosuppression (57.3%) or adverse events (20.3%). Multivariable analyses showed permanent discontinuation to be associated with an increased risk of death (HR 4.2, 95%CI: 1.62-10.7), whereas SACT adjustments did not adversely affect survival. Conclusions: Sequelae post-COVID-19 affect up to 15% of patients with cancer and adversely influence survival and oncological outcomes after recovery. SACT adjustments can be safely pursued to preserve oncological outcomes in patients who remain eligible to treatment.

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.

Time-dependent improvement in the clinical outcomes from COVID-19 in cancer patients: An updated analysis of the OnCovid registry

Background: Early reports from registry studies demonstrated high vulnerability of cancer patients from COVID-19, with case-fatality rates (CFR) >30% at the onset of the pandemic. With advances in disease management and increased testing capacity, the lethality of COVID-19 in cancer patients may have improved over time. Methods: The OnCovid registry lists European cancer patients consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 35 centres from Jan 2020 to Feb 2021. We analysed clinical characteristics and outcomes stratified in 5 trimesters (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep, Oct-Dec 2020 and Jan-Feb 2021) and studied predictors of mortality across 2 semesters (Jan-Jun 2020 and Jul 2020-Feb 2021). Results: At data cut-off, the 2634 eligible patients demonstrated significant time-dependant improvement in 14-days CFR with trimestral estimates of 29.8%, 20.3%, 12.5%, 17.2% and 14.5% (p<0.0001). Compared to the 2nd semester, patients diagnosed in the Jan-Jun 2020 time period were ≥65 (60.3% vs 56.1%, p=0.031) had ≥2 comorbidities (48.8% vs 42.4%, p=0.001) and non-advanced tumours (46.4% vs 56.1%, p<0.001). COVID-19 was more likely to be complicated in Jan-Jun 2020 (45.4% vs 33.9%, p<0.001), requiring hospitalization (59.8% vs 42.1%, p<0.001) and anti-COVID-19 therapy (61.7% vs 49.7%, p<0.001). The 14-days CFR for the 1st and 2nd semester was 25.6% vs 16.2% (p<0.0001), respectively. After adjusting for gender, age, comorbidities, tumour features, COVID-19 and anti-cancer therapy and COVID-19 complications, patients diagnosed in the 1st semester had an increased risk of death at 14 days (HR 1.68 [95%CI: 1.35-2.09]), but not at 3 months (HR 1.10 [95%CI: 0.94-1.29]) compared to those from the 2nd semester. Conclusions: We report a time-dependent improvement in the mortality from COVID-19 in European cancer patients. This may be explained by expanding testing capacity, improved healthcare resources and dynamic changes in community transmission over time. These findings are informative for clinical practice and policy making in the context of an unresolved pandemic. Clinical trial identification: NCT04393974. Legal entity responsible for the study: Imperial College London. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: D.J. Pinato: Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: ViiV Healthcare;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Bayer;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: EISAI;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

The future of the oncology workforce since COVID-19: Results of the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey series

Background: The ESMO Resilience Task Force has investigated wellbeing since COVID-19 in relation to work, lifestyle and support factors in oncology professionals globally. We reported on the significant impact of the initial surge of the pandemic on wellbeing and job performance (Banerjee et al. 2021). As the pandemic continues, it is imperative to understand experiences and concerns to better inform support measures for the oncology workforce. Methods: Three anonymous online surveys were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (S1, Apr/May 2020;S2, Jul/Aug 2020;S3, Feb/Mar 2021). Longitudinal analysis of responses at these timepoints were conducted. Here, we present responses to questions on job demands and resources, and perceived job performance since COVID-19 (JP-CV). Results: We analysed 3894 individual responses (S1, n=1520;S2, n=942;S3, n=1432): 53% (n=1961/3731) female, 45% (n=1679/3731) =/<40 years, 31% (n=1132/3692) non-white ethnicity, >100 countries. There has been significant increases from S1 to S3 (p<0.001) in feeling overwhelmed with workload (29% vs 45%);COVID-19-related clinical (14% vs 58%) and research (16% vs 64%) work;out-of-hours work (16% vs 41%), shift work (12% vs 26%) and overall working hours (17% vs 47%);and inadequate time for personal/family life (35% vs 45%). 59% (n=1156/1946) were unable to take allocated annual leave. While JP-CV has improved (34% vs 49%, p<0.001), there remained concerns about the negative impact of the pandemic on career development/training (43%), job security (37%) and international fellowship opportunities (76%). Overall, less than half had felt supported by their work management, professional societies or government, and/or had access to wellbeing support services. 25% (n=266/1086) were considering changing their future career with 38% (n=100/266) contemplating leaving the profession. Conclusions: Since COVID-19, oncology professionals have reported increased job demands, concerns over career development/training and job security, and inadequate time for personal life. There is a real threat of potential attrition in the current workforce. National and international stakeholders must act together to ensure robust recovery plans as we emerge from the COVID-19 crisis. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: ESMO. Disclosure: K.H.J. Lim: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, Speaker honorarium: Janssen;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Trainees committee representative for the North West deanery: Royal College of Physicians (UK);Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Trainees representative at the RCP Patient Safety Committee: Royal College of Physicians (UK);Non-Financial Interests, Officer, ACP representative at the RCP Student and Foundation Doctor Network (SFDN): Royal College of Physicians (UK);Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Trainees committee member: Association of Cancer Physicians (ACP) UK;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Young Oncologists Committee (YOC): ESMO;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Resilience Task Force (RTF): ESMO;Other, Currently funded by Wellcome-Imperial 4i Clinical Research Fellowship: Wellcome Trust. K. Punie: Other, Institutional, Other, institution received speaker fees or honoraria for consultancy/advisory roles: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Hoffmann La Roche, Mundi Pharma, PharmaMar, Teva, Vifor Pharma;Other, Institutional, Research Grant: Sanofi;Other, Personal, Other, Travel support: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar and Roche. C. Oing: Other, Personal, Other, research funding and honoraria: Roche;Other, Personal, Other, travel grant and honoraria: Medac Pharma and Ipsen Pharma;Other, Personal, Other, travel grant: PharmaMar. E. Elez: Other, Personal, Other, personal fees: Hoffman La - Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Amgen, Merck Serono, ArrayBiopharma, Sanof. T.M.S. Amaral: Other, Personal, Other, personal fees: Pierre Fabre and CeCaVa;Other, Personal, Other, personal fees and travel grants: BMS;Other, Perso al, Other, grants, personal fees and travel grants: Novartis;Other, Personal, Other, grants: Neracare, Sanofi and SkylineDx. P. Garrido Lopez: Other, Personal, Other, personal fees: Roche, MSD, BMS, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Blueprint Medicines, Takeda, Gilead, and ROVI. M. Lambertini: Other, Personal, Other, Consultant: Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly and Novartis;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Theramex, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Lilly. C.B. Westphalen: Other, Personal, Other, honoraria, travel support and advisory board: Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Roche, Servier, Shire/Baxalta, RedHil, and Taiho;Other, Personal, Other, speaker honoraria: Ipsen;Other, Personal, Advisory Board: GSK, Sirtex, and Rafael. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Other, Personal, Advisory Role, personal fees for advisory role: Neogene Tx;Other, Institutional, Other, grants and fees paid to institution: BMS, MSD, Novartis, BioNTech, Amgen;Other, Institutional, Other, fees paid to institution: Achilles Tx, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Third Rock Ventures, Vaximm. C. Hardy: Other, Personal, Other, Director of a private company Hardy People Ltd.: Hardy People Ltd. S. Banerjee: Other, Institutional, Research Grant: AstraZeneca, Tesaro and GSK;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, GSK, Clovis, Genmab, Merck Serono, Mersana, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Impact of COVID-19 on social media as perceived by the oncology community: results from a survey in collaboration with the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the OncoAlert Network.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of modern-day oncology, including how stakeholders communicate through social media. We surveyed oncology stakeholders in order to assess their attitudes pertaining to social media and how it has been affected during the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 40-item survey was distributed to stakeholders from 8 July to 22 July 2020 and was promoted through the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the OncoAlert Network. RESULTS: One thousand and seventy-six physicians and stakeholders took part in the survey. In total, 57.3% of respondents were medical oncologists, 50.6% aged <40 years, 50.8% of female gender and mostly practicing in Europe (51.5%). More than 90% of respondents considered social media a useful tool for distributing scientific information and for education. Most used social media to stay up to date on cancer care in general (62.5%) and cancer care during COVID-19 (61%) given the constant flow of information. Respondents also used social media to interact with other oncologists (78.8%) and with patients (34.4%). Overall, 61.1% of respondents were satisfied with the role that social media was playing during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, 41.1% of respondents reported trouble in discriminating between credible and less credible information and 30% stated social networks were a source of stress. For this reason, one-third of respondents reduced its use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding meeting attendance, a total of 59.1% of responding physicians preferred in-person meetings to virtual ones, and 51.8% agreed that virtual meetings and social distancing could hamper effective collaboration. CONCLUSION: Social media has a useful role in supporting cancer care and professional engagement in oncology. Although one-third of respondents reported reduced use of social media due to stress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority found social media useful to keep up to date and were satisfied with the role social media was playing during the pandemic.

Results of a national survey exploring the perception and attitudes of italian physicians towards the management of checkpoint inhibitors in oncology during covid-19 outbreak

Background: During the COVID-19 outbreak oncological care has been reorganized to face the emergency. Cancer patients have been reported to be at higher risk of severe events related to SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, there are concerns of a possible interference between immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and the pathogenesis of the infection. Material and Methods: A 22-item questionnaire was shared with Italian physicians managing ICIs, between May 6 and 16, 2020. This survey aimed at exploring the perception about SARS-CoV-2 related risks in cancer patients receiving ICIs, and whether the management of these patients has been modified during COVID-19 outbreak. Results: Respondents were 104, with a median age of 35.5 years, mainly females (58.7%), mainly working in Northern Italy (71.2%). 47.1% of respondents were afraid that a synergism could exist between ICIs mechanism of action and SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, leading to worse outcomes. 97.1% of respondents would not deny an ICI only for the possible occurrence of COVID-19. Measures for reducing hospital visits have been adopted by choosing the ICIs schedule with fewer administrations, adopting the highest labeled dose of each drug (55.8%) and/or choosing, among different ICIs for the same indication, the one with the longer interval between cycles (30.8%). 53.8% of respondents suggested the need to test for SARS-CoV-2 every cancer patient candidate to ICIs. Regarding the differential diagnosis between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and COVID-19 manifestations, 71.2% of respondents declared to manage a patient with onset of dyspnea and cough like a COVID-19 patient until otherwise proven (ie, waiting for the result of SARS-CoV-2 test before doing other diagnostic or therapeutic procedures), while the same management has been applied only by the 28.8% of respondents when dealing with a patient with onset of diarrhea;however, 96.2% did not reduce the use of steroids to manage irAEs during the pandemic. No major impact of COVID-19 on physicians' attitudes towards the use of ICIs to manage specific clinical situations in different cancer types (ie, lung, breast, melanoma, urothelial) was observed. Conclusions: These results highlight the uncertainty of physicians dealing with ICIs in cancer patients during COVID-19 outbreak, supporting the need of dedicated studies on this regard.

Assessing the impact of covid-19 outbreak on the attitudes and practice of italian oncologists towards breast cancer care and related research activities

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is changing the approach of medical oncologists to cancer management. However, the real impact on cancer care and its potential negative consequences are currently unknown. Methods: A 29-multiple choice question anonymous online survey was shared with members of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology and the Gruppo Italiano Mammella on April 3, 2020. The objectives of the survey were to investigate the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists before and during COVID-19 outbreak on three relevant areas in breast cancer care: 1) (neo)adjuvant setting;2) metastatic setting;3) research activities. Results: The survey was completed by 165 oncologists, of whom 121 (73.3.%) worked in Breast Units. In the (neo) adjuvant setting, compared to before the emergency, a lower rate of oncologists adopted during COVID-19 outbreak weekly paclitaxel (68.5% vs. 93.9%, P<.001) and dose-dense schedule for anthracycline-based chemotherapy (43% vs. 58.8%, P<.001). In the metastatic setting, compared to before the emergency, a lower number of oncologists adopted during COVID-19 outbreak first-line weekly paclitaxel for HER2-positive disease (41.8% vs. 53.9%, P=.002) or CDK4/6 inhibitors for luminal tumors with less aggressive characteristics (55.8% vs. 80.0%, P<.001). A significant change was also observed in terms of delaying the timing for monitoring CDK4/6 inhibitors therapy, assessing treatment response with imaging and flushing central venous devices. Clinical research and scientific activities were reduced in 80.3% and 80.1% of respondents previously involved in these activities, respectively. Conclusions: Most of the changes in the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists were reasonable responses to the current health emergency without expected major negative impact on patients' outcomes, although some potentially alarming signals of undertreatment were observed. These data invite developing cautious recommendations to help oncologists ensuring continuous effective and safe cancer care.

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.

Perception and attitudes of Italian physicians towards the management of checkpoint inhibitors in oncology during COVID-19 outbreak: Results from a national survey

Background: During the COVID-19 outbreak oncological care has been reorganized to face the emergency. Cancer patients have been reported to be at higher risk of severe events related to SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, there are concerns of a possible interference between immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and the pathogenesis of the infection. Methods: A 22-item questionnaire was shared with Italian physicians managing ICIs, between May 6 and 16, 2020. This survey aimed at exploring the perception about SARS-CoV-2 related risks in cancer patients receiving ICIs, and whether the management of these patients has been modified during COVID-19 outbreak. Results: Respondents were 104, with a median age of 35.5 years, mainly females (58.7%), mainly working in Northern Italy (71%). 47.1% of respondents were afraid that a synergism could exist between ICIs mechanism of action and SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, leading to worse outcomes. 97.1% of respondents would not deny an ICI only for the possible occurrence of COVID-19. Measures for reducing hospital visits have been adopted by choosing the ICIs schedule with fewer administrations, adopting the highest labeled dose of each drug (55.8%) and/or choosing, among different ICIs for the same indication, the one with the longer interval between cycles (30.8%). 53.8% of respondents suggested the need to test for SARS-CoV-2 every cancer patient candidate to ICIs. Regarding differential diagnosis between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and COVID-19 manifestations, 71.2% of respondents declared to manage a patient with onset of dyspnea and cough like a COVID-19 patient until otherwise proven (ie, waiting for the result of SARS-CoV-2 test before doing other diagnostic or therapeutic procedures);however, 96.2% did not reduce the use of steroids to manage irAEs during the pandemic. No major impact of COVID-19 on physicians’ attitudes towards the use of ICIs to manage specific clinical situations in different cancer types (ie, lung, breast, melanoma, urothelial) was observed. Conclusions: These results highlight the uncertainty of physicians dealing with ICIs in cancer patients during COVID-19 outbreak, supporting the need of dedicated studies on this regard. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: M. Tagliamento: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Takeda. F. Poggio: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Takeda, Ely Lilly;Honoraria (self): Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ely Lilly, Novartis. L. Del Mastro: Honoraria (self): Roche, Pfeizer, Ipsen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Genomic Health, Seattle Genetics;Non-remunerated activity/ies: Celgene. M. Di Maio: Advisory/Consultancy: Eisai, Takeda, Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, AstraZeneca. M. Lambertini: Advisory/Consultancy: Roche and Ely Lilly;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Roche, Takeda and Theramex. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists towards breast cancer care and related research activities

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is changing the approach of medical oncologists to cancer management. However, the real impact on cancer care and its potential negative consequences are currently unknown. Methods: A 29-multiple choice question anonymous online survey was shared with members of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology and the Italian Breast Cancer Study Group on April 3, 2020. The objectives of the survey were to investigate the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists before and during COVID-19 outbreak on three relevant areas in breast cancer care: 1) (neo)adjuvant setting;2) metastatic setting;3) research activities. Results: The survey was completed by 165 oncologists, of whom 121 (73.3.%) worked in Breast Units. In the (neo)adjuvant setting, compared to before the emergency, a lower rate of oncologists adopted during COVID-19 outbreak weekly paclitaxel (68.5% vs. 93.9%, P<.001) and dose-dense schedule for anthracycline-based chemotherapy (43% vs. 58.8%, P<.001). In the metastatic setting, compared to before the emergency, a lower number of oncologists adopted during COVID-19 outbreak first-line weekly paclitaxel for HER2-positive disease (41.8% vs. 53.9%, P=.002) or CDK4/6 inhibitors for luminal tumors with less aggressive characteristics (55.8% vs. 80.0%, P<.001). A significant change was also observed in terms of delaying the timing for monitoring CDK4/6 inhibitors therapy, assessing treatment response with imaging and flushing central venous devices. Clinical research and scientific activities were reduced in 80.3% and 80.1% of respondents previously involved in these activities, respectively. Conclusions: Most of the changes in the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists were reasonable responses to the current health emergency without expected major negative impact on patients’ outcomes, although some potentially alarming signals of undertreatment were observed. These data invite developing cautious recommendations to help oncologists ensuring continuous effective and safe cancer care. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: F. Poggio: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Takeda;Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ely Lilly;Honoraria (self): Merck Sharp & Dohme;Novartis. M. Tagliamento: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche;Bristol-Myers Squibb;AstraZeneca;Takeda;Honoraria (self): Novartis. M. Di Maio: Research grant/Funding (institution): Tesaro GSK;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: AstraZeneca;Janssen;Astellas;Eisai;Pfizer;Merck Sharp & Dohme;Takeda. L. Del Mastro: Advisory/Consultancy: Roche;Novartis;Eisai;Pfizer;AstraZeneca;Ipsen;Eli Lilly;MSD;Seattle Genetics;Genomic Health. M. Lambertini: Advisory/Consultancy: Roche;Honoraria (self): Theramex, Eli Lilly. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

International multicentric evaluation of breast cancer patients’ satisfaction and experience with oncology telemedicine visits (TV) during the COVID-19 outbreak

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed the Health Care System organization in many European countries. Many Oncology departments have rapidly implemented telehealth in their clinical practice. For breast cancer (BC) patients (pts), up to 80% of all in-person visits have been transformed in TV. Methods: 18 centers from France and Italy invited all BC pts who have had at least one TV (Visio conference or telephone) during the COVID-19 pandemic to answer an online, anonym questionnaire (Q) ontheir experience with TV. Q included 42 questions: demographic data, BC medical situation, TSQ scale (telehealth specific Q), physician’s module of EORTC OUTPATSAT35 (11 SAT35), and HADS anxiety scale. The primary objective was to evaluate satisfaction with TV. Secondary objectives: anxiety, factors associated with satisfaction and description of satisfaction in pts’ subgroups. Results: Between 6/4/2020 and 15/05/2020, 1244 pts (out of 3762 invited) filled in the Q and were included in the analysis. Main characteristics and results are shown in the Table. Mean 11 SAT35: 85.21 and 77.41 for pts who had visio versus telephone TVs respectively. 11 SAT35 was highly correlated to HADS score (p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses will be presented. [Formula presented] Conclusions: TV during the COVID-pandemic appeared feasible and well accepted by BC pts regardless of their medical situation and mode of TV. Anxiety was high during this period, and correlated with satisfaction. These findings help identifying BC pts who may be proposed TV beyond the pandemic crisis. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: C. Levy: Honoraria (self): Pfizer;Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche;Honoraria (self): MSD;Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Lilly;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Daiichi. C. Uzan: Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: Roche. D. Genet: Advisory/Consultancy: AstraZeneca;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche;Amgen;Pfizer;Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis. A. Patsouris: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: ESAI;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pfizer;Honoraria (institution): Lily;Research grant/Funding (institution): ESAI. V.C. Dieras: Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, and travel expenses and speaker: Roche;Novartis;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, and travel expenses and speaker: Pfizer;Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, and travel expenses and speaker: Lilly;AstraZeneca;Daiichi Sankyo;Advisory/Consultancy: Abbvie;MSD;Eisai. Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Seattle Genetics. J-Y. Pierga:Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self), Research grant/Funding (institution): Roche;Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Ipsen;Novartis;AstraZeneca;Amgen. S. Ladoire: Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Lilly;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, and Travel/Accommodation expense: Pfizer;BMS;Ipsen;Janssen Oncology;Sanofi;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Roche;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution): Novartis;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AstraZeneca;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Astellas Pharma. W. Jacot: Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AstraZeneca;Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Eisai;Lilly France;Pfizer;Roche;Honoraria (self): MSD;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis;Sanofi Aventis;GSK;Fabre;Chugai Pharma. S. Delaloge: Honoraria (institution), Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AstraZeneca;Roche;Pfizer;Honoraria (institution), Research grant/Funding (institution): Sanofi;BMS;Honoraria (institution): Pierre Fabre;Puma;Lilly;Servier;Research grant/Funding (institution): Orion;MSD;Daichy. M. Lambertini: Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Roche;Spe ker Bureau/Expert testimony: Takeda;Lilly;Theramex. B. Pistilli: Advisory/Consultancy: PUMA biotechnologies;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Fabre;Novartis;Myriad genetics;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: MSD oncology;Astra Zeneca;Novartis;Pfizer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.