Impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection on the outcome of primary central nervous system lymphoma treatment: A study of the International PCNSL Collaborative Group.

To optimise management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection identifying high-risk patients and maintaining treatment dose intensity is an important issue in patients with aggressive lymphomas. In the present study, we report on the presentation, management, and outcome of an international series of 91 patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma and SARS-CoV-2 infection. SARS-CoV-2 was diagnosed before/during first-line treatment in 64 patients, during follow-up in 21, and during salvage therapy in six. Among the 64 patients infected before/during first-line chemotherapy, 38 (59%) developed pneumonia and 26 (41%) did not clear the virus. Prolonged exposure to steroids before viral infection and/or treatment with high-dose cytarabine favoured pneumonia development and virus persistence and were associated with poorer survival; 81% of patients who did not clear virus died early from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccination was associated with lower pneumonia incidence and in-hospital mortality. Chemotherapy was initiated/resumed in 43 (67%) patients, more commonly among patients who did not develop pneumonia, cleared the virus, or did not receive steroids during infection. Chemotherapy resumption in patients with viral persistence should be indicated cautiously as it was associated with a poorer survival (6-month, 70% and 87%, p = 0.07). None of the 21 patients infected during follow-up died from COVID-19, requiring similar measures as infected subjects in the general population.

Consensus disease definitions for neurologic immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.