Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
1.
Lancet Oncology ; JOUR(10):E450-E458, 23.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-2102222

ABSTRACT

Years of research exploring mRNA vaccines for cancer treatment in preclinical and clinical trials have set the stage for the rapid development of mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therapeutic cancer vaccines based on mRNA are well tolerated, and the inherent advantage in ease of production, which rivals the best available conventional vaccine manufacture methods, renders mRNA vaccines a promising option for cancer immunotherapy. Technological advances have optimised mRNA-based vaccine stability, structure, and delivery methods, and multiple clinical trials investigating mRNA vaccine therapy are now enrolling patients with various cancer diagnoses. Although therapeutic mRNA-based cancer vaccines have not yet been approved for standard treatment, encouraging results from early clinical trials with mRNA vaccines as monotherapy and in combination with checkpoint inhibitors have been obtained. This Review summarises the latest clinical advances in mRNA-based vaccines for cancer treatment and reflects on future perspectives and challenges for this new and promising treatment approach.

2.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 40(16), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2009543

ABSTRACT

Background: Durable clinical benefit has been achieved with nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI), including an overall survival (OS) of 49% and a melanoma-specific survival (MSS) of 56%, with median MSS not reached (NR) at 6.5-y minimum follow-up. Here we report sustained efficacy outcomes at 7.5 y. Methods: Patients (pts) with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 and stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage to receive NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg for 4 doses Q3W, followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W (n = 314);NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo (n = 316);or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo (n = 315) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS with NIVO + IPI or NIVO alone versus IPI. Results: With a minimum follow-up of 7.5 y, median OS remained stable at 72.1 mo (NIVO + IPI), 36.9 mo (NIVO), and 19.9 mo (IPI);median MSS was NR, 49.4 mo, and 21.9 mo, respectively (Table). While the objective response rate remained stable at 58% (NIVO + IPI), 45% (NIVO), and 19% (IPI), median duration of response had now been reached for NIVO at 90.8 mo and remains NR and 19.2 mo for NIVO + IPI and IPI, respectively. Subsequent systemic therapy was received by 36%, 49%, and 66% of NIVO + IPI-, NIVO-, and IPI-treated patients, respectively, and median time to that therapy was NR (95% CI, 45.9-NR), 24.7 mo (16.0-38.7), and 8.0 mo (6.5-8.7). Of patients alive at 7.5 y, 106/138 (77%, NIVO + IPI), 80/115 (70%, NIVO), and 27/60 (45%, IPI) were off treatment and had never received subsequent systemic therapy. No change to the safety summary was observed with additional follow-up;updated health-related quality of life data will be reported. Of the 10 new deaths since the 6.5-y follow-up (ie, 5 NIVO + IPI;3 NIVO;2 IPI), none were treatment-related;4 were due to melanoma progression;1 was due to an unknown cause;and 5 were due to other causes, but not associated with a COVID diagnosis. Conclusions: The 7.5-y follow-up continues to demonstrate the durability of responses with NIVO + IPI and an ongoing survival plateau. A substantial difference in median OS and MSS between patients treated with NIVO + IPI or NIVO was observed in descriptive analyses.

3.
ESMO Open ; 7(1): 100374, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587808

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Medical Oncology , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Pandemics , Societies, Medical
4.
ESMO Open ; 6(4): 100199, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466337

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Adult , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Medical Oncology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Annals of Oncology ; 32:S1337, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1446386

ABSTRACT

Background: Patients with cancer have an increased risk of complications from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Vaccination is recommended, but the impact of chemotherapy and immunotherapy on immunogenicity and safety is still unclear. Methods: This prospective multicenter non-inferiority trial comprises four cohorts: individuals without cancer (A) and patients with solid tumors who were treated with immunotherapy (B), chemotherapy (C) or chemo-immunotherapy (D). Participants received two mRNA-1273 vaccinations 28 days apart. The primary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1-specific IgG serum antibody response, defined as >10 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml 28 days after the second vaccination. We also assessed the virus neutralizing capacity of these antibodies, SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific interferon-gamma T cell response, and adverse events. Results: Of the 791 participants enrolled, 743 were evaluable for the primary endpoint in cohort A (n=240), B (n=131), C (n=229) and D (n=143). A SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody response was found in 100%, 99.3%, 97.4%, and 100% of the participants in cohorts A, B, C, and D, respectively. To discriminate between suboptimal and adequate responders, we defined a cut-off level at 300 BAU/ml, based on neutralizing capacity. The antibody response was considered adequate after the first vaccination in 66.0%, 37.1%, 32.5%, and 33.3% of the participants in cohorts A, B, C, and D, respectively. This raised 28 days after the second vaccination to respectively 99.6%, 93.1%, 83.8%, and 88.8% in cohorts A, B, C, and D. Spike-specific T cell responses were detected in 46.7% of suboptimal and non-responders. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: mRNA-1273 vaccination is safe in the patient populations studied. For each cohort, the proportion of patients with a SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody response after two vaccinations is non-inferior compared to individuals without cancer. However, a significant minority lacks an adequate response. Most patients have an antibody concentration increase after the second vaccination. Therefore, an additional booster may turn inadequate into adequate responders. Clinical trial identification: NCT04715438. Legal entity responsible for the study: University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Funding: ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

6.
Annals of Oncology ; 32:S1130-S1131, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1432855

ABSTRACT

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.

7.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 39(15 SUPPL), 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1339284

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic COVID had a severe impact on medical care in The Netherlands. So far, few studies have investigated the influence of COVID-19 on advanced melanoma care nationwide. This study aims to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the systemic treatment of unresectable stage III and IV advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands. Methods: Data were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), a population-based nationwide registry of all stage III and IV melanoma patients amenable for systemic treatment. We compared two patient groups dependent on the date of the first diagnosis of metastasis: during the first COVID-19 wave (March 15th 2020 until May 22nd 2020), and a control group during the same period one year earlier. Furthermore, we divided patients into three geographical regions within the Netherlands (north, middle and south). These regions were based on the maximum number of hospital admissions for COVID-19 patients during the first wave, using data from the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE). COVID-19 incidence was highest in the southern part of The Netherlands. We investigated baseline characteristics, type of systemic therapy, time from diagnosis of the irresectable stage III or IV melanoma until the start of systemic therapy, postponement of anti-PD-1 courses in patients actively being treated during the predefined time periods and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: During the first COVID-19 wave, 104 patients were diagnosed with advanced melanoma versus 166 patients during the control period in 2019. No significant differences were found in patient and tumor characteristics, type of systemic therapies or in the time from diagnosis until the start of systemic therapy, between the different periods. However, during the first wave, the time between diagnosis until the start of treatment was significantly longer in the southern regions as compared to the northern and middle regions (33 vs 9 and 15 days, p-value < 0.05). Anti-PD-1 antibody treatment courses were postponed in 79 patients (15.5%) during the first wave versus four patients (1.1%) in the control period. Significantly more patients had a postponed course in the south during the first wave compared to the middle and northern regions (30.2% vs 2.7% vs 16.7%, p-value < 0.001). With limited follow-up, thus far no significant differences in PFS and OS were found. Conclusions: Advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the south, where COVID- 19 incidence was highest in the first wave, the start of systemic treatment for advanced melanoma was more often delayed, and treatment courses were more frequently postponed. Longer follow-up is needed to establish whether this has had an impact on patient outcome.

8.
ESMO Open ; 6(3): 100131, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242977

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Oncology , Middle Aged , Oncologists , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
9.
Immunooncol Technol ; 6: 1, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-617812
10.
ESMO Open ; 6(2): 100058, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1062346

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Oncologists/psychology , Resilience, Psychological , Adult , Female , Health Surveys , Hospitals , Humans , Job Satisfaction , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment , Remote Consultation
11.
Immunooncol Technol ; 8: 1, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-966921
12.
Annals of Oncology ; 31:S1207-S1208, 2020.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-804520

ABSTRACT

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having significant impact on oncological care (Joode et al, Eur J Cancer 2020;136:132-139) and patients with cancer might have an increased risk for severe outcome of COVID-19. In order to identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome of COVID-19, a nationwide registry was developed for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: This ongoing multicentre nationwide observational cohort study was designed as a quality of care registry and is executed by the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium (DOCC), a collaboration of oncology physicians in the Netherlands. A questionnaire was developed to collect pseudonymised patient data on patients’ characteristics, cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and outcome of COVID-19. All patients with COVID-19 and a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment in the past 5 years were eligible for inclusion. Results: To date, > 600 cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 have been registered by 45 Dutch hospitals. Data of 442 registered patients with at least 4 weeks follow-up were cleaned and 351 patients could be included for the first analyses. The main cancer diagnoses were non-small cell lung cancer (13.4%), breast cancer (13.4%), and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (8.8%). Overall, 114 (32.3%) out of 351 patients with cancer died from COVID-19. In multivariate analyses, age ≥ 65 years (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.035), prior or other malignancy (p = 0.045), and active diagnosis of haematological malignancy (p = 0.046) or lung cancer (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for a fatal outcome of COVID-19. In a subgroup analysis of patients with active malignancy, the risk for a fatal outcome was mainly determined by tumour type (haematological malignancy or lung cancer) and age (≥ 65 years). Conclusions: The findings in this registry indicate that patients with a haematological malignancy or lung cancer have an increased risk of a worse outcome of COVID-19. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these vulnerable patients should avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2, whereas treatment adjustments and prioritizing vaccination, when available, should also be considered. Legal entity responsible for the study: Erasmus Medical Center. Funding: Dutch Cancer Society. Disclosure: D.W. Dumoulin: Honoraria (self), Speakers fee: MSD;Honoraria (self), Speakers fee : Roche;Honoraria (self), Speakers fee: Astazeneca;Honoraria (self), Speakers fee: BMS;Honoraria (self), Speakers fee: Novartis;Honoraria (self), Speakers fee: Pfizer. H.M. Westgeest: Honoraria (self): Astellas;Honoraria (self): Roche;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ipsen. L.E.L. Hendriks: Advisory/Consultancy, Mentorship program with key opinion leaders: funded by AstraZeneca: AstraZeneca;Honoraria (self), Educational webinars: Quadia;Research grant/Funding (institution): AstraZeneca;Advisory/Consultancy, Paid to institution: Eli Lilly;Advisory/Consultancy, Paid to institution: Roche Genentech;Advisory/Consultancy, Paid to institution: Pfizer;Advisory/Consultancy, Advisory board and speakers fee all paid to institution: MSD;Advisory/Consultancy, Paid to institution: Takeda;Leadership role, Local PI of pharma initiated research: AstraZeneca;Leadership role, Local PI of pharma initiated research: Novartis;Leadership role, Local PI of pharma initiated research: BMS;Leadership role, Local PI of pharma initiated research: MSD / Merck;Leadership role, Local PI of pharma initiated research: GSK;Leadership role, Local PI of pharma initiated research: Takeda;Leadership role, Local PI of pharma initiated research: Blueprint Medicines;Leadership role, Local PI of pharma initiated research: Roche Genentech;Advisory/Consultancy, Paid to institution: Amgen;Advisory/Consultancy, Paid to institution: Boehringer Ingelheim;Advisory/Consultancy, Paid to institution: BMS;Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Advisory board paid to institution: Roche Genentech;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: BMS;Research grant/Funding (institution): Roche Genentech;R search grant/Funding (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim. A-M.C. Dingemans: Honoraria (self): Roche;Honoraria (self): Eli Lilly;Honoraria (self): Boehringer Ingelheim;Honoraria (self): Pfizer;Honoraria (self): BMS;Honoraria (self): Novartis;Honoraria (self): Takeda;Honoraria (self): PharmaMar;Advisory/Consultancy, non financial support: AbbVie;Research grant/Funding (institution): BMS;Research grant/Funding (institution): Amgen. A.A.M. Van der Veldt: Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: BMS;Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: MSD;Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: Pfizer;Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: Sanofi;Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: Eisai;Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: Ipsen;Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: Roche;Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis;Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: Merck;Honoraria (institution), Advisory/Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

13.
Annals of Oncology ; 31:S1200-S1201, 2020.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-804107

ABSTRACT

Background: The impact of the COVID-19 (CV-19) pandemic on wellbeing has the potential for serious negative consequences on work, home life and patient care. The ESMO Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate wellbeing in oncology over time since CV-19. Methods: 2 online surveys were conducted (survey I April/May;survey II July/August 2020). Statistical analyses were used to examine group differences, associations and to explore predictors of key outcomes: 1) wellbeing/distress (Wellbeing Index (WBI-9)), 2) burnout (1 item);and 3) CV-19 job performance (2 item CJP;standard of care and job delivery compared to pre-CV 19). Results: Survey I had 1520 participants from 101 countries. Responses indicate that CV-19 is impacting the oncology workforce resulting in a number of changes to work and personal lives. 25% were at risk of distress (poor wellbeing, WBI ≥4);38% reported feeling burnout and 66% were not able to perform their job compared to pre-CV-19. Higher CJP was significantly associated with better wellbeing and not feeling burnout (p<0.01). Differences were seen in wellbeing and CJP between countries (p<0.001) and related to CV-19 country mortality rate (p<0.05). The main predictors of wellbeing, burnout and CJP were resilience and changes to work hours. Others frequently identified were coping strategies, ethnicity, concern about training/career, worried about current wellbeing, and working conditions. In Survey II, results from 942 participants are undergoing analysis. Overall, comparisons between surveys show overall wellbeing and burnout rates have worsened overtime but CJP has improved. Among 272 participants who completed both surveys, WBI scores ≥4 (indicating higher risk of distress) and burnout rates were higher in survey II compared to survey I (22% vs 31% p=0.01;35% vs 49% p=0.001 respectively) suggesting wellbeing and burnout may be worsening overtime. CJP improved (38% vs 54% p<0.001). Conclusions: In the largest global survey series, COVID-19 is impacting on the wellbeing and job performance of oncology professionals. Risk of distress and burnout has increased over time. Urgent measures to address wellbeing and improve resilience are essential. Legal entity responsible for the study: ESMO. Funding: ESMO. Disclosure: S. Banerjee: Research grant/Funding (institution): AstraZeneca;Research grant/Funding (self): GSK;Honoraria (self): Amgen;Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca;Honoraria (self): MSD;Honoraria (self): GSK;Honoraria (self): Clovis;Honoraria (self): Genmab;Honoraria (self): Merck Serono;Honoraria (self): Mersana;Honoraria (self): Pfizer;Honoraria (self): Seattle Genetics;Honoraria (self): Tesaro. C. Oing: Research grant/Funding (institution): PharmaMar;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ipsen;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: PharmaMar;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Medac. K. Punie: Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca;Honoraria (self): Eli Lilly;Honoraria (self): Novartis;Honoraria (self): Pfizer;Honoraria (self): Pierre Fabre;Honoraria (self): Hoffmann La Roche;Honoraria (self): Vifor Pharma;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Eli Lilly;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Mundi Pharma;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Novartis;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Pfizer;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Hoffmann La Roche;Honoraria (self): Teva;Research grant/Funding (institution): Sanofi;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AstraZeneca;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pfizer;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: PharmaMar;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Hoffmann La Roche. M. Lambertini: Advisory/Consultancy: Roche;Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis;Honoraria (institution): Theramex;Honoraria (institution): Takeda;Honoraria (institution): Roche;Honoraria (institution): Lilly;Honoraria (institution): Pfizer;Honoraria (institution): Novartis. C. Benedikt Westphalen: Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Bayer;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Celge e;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ipsen;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: MedScape;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Rafael Pharmaceuticals;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: RedHIll;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Servier;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Shire;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Taiho;Research grant/Funding (institution): Roche. P. Garrido Lopez: Advisory/Consultancy: AbbVie;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: AstraZeneca;Advisory/Consultancy: BluePrint Medicine;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Boerhinger Ingelheim;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: BMS;Advisory/Consultancy: Gilead;Advisory/Consultancy: Guardant Health;Advisory/Consultancy: Janssen;Advisory/Consultancy: Lilly;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: MSD;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Novartis;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Pfizer;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Roche;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Takeda;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Rovi;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Sysmex. T.M.S. Amaral: Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: BMS;Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis;Honoraria (self): PIerre Fabre;Honoraria (institution): Neracare;Honoraria (institution): Sanofi. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory/Consultancy: AIMM THerapeutics;Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen;Advisory/Consultancy: AZ;Advisory/Consultancy: Bayer;Advisory/Consultancy: BioNtech;Advisory/Consultancy: BMS;Advisory/Consultancy: GSK;Advisory/Consultancy: Gateta;Advisory/Consultancy: Immunocore;Advisory/Consultancy: Ipsen;Advisory/Consultancy: Merck Serono;Advisory/Consultancy: MSD;Advisory/Consultancy: Molecular Partners;Advisory/Consultancy: Roche;Advisory/Consultancy: Sanofi;Advisory/Consultancy: Seattle Genetics;Advisory/Consultancy: Third Rock Venture;Advisory/Consultancy: Vaximm;Research grant/Funding (institution): Neogene;Research grant/Funding (institution): Amgen;Research grant/Funding (institution): BMS;Research grant/Funding (institution): BIoNthech;Research grant/Funding (institution): MSD;Research grant/Funding (institution): Novartis;Advisory/Consultancy: Genentech. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

14.
Ann Oncol ; 31(10): 1320-1335, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-804478

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Medical Oncology/standards , Neoplasms/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Societies, Medical/standards , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Disease Management , Europe/epidemiology , Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor/pharmacology , Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor/therapeutic use , Humans , Medical Oncology/methods , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/immunology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , T-Lymphocytes, Cytotoxic/drug effects , T-Lymphocytes, Cytotoxic/immunology , Telemedicine/methods , Telemedicine/standards
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL