Managing and treating COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies: a narrative review and expert insights.

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) are at a significantly higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and experiencing severe outcomes compared to individuals without HMs. This heightened risk is influenced by various factors, including the underlying malignancy, immunosuppressive treatments, and patient-related factors. Notably, immunosuppressive regimens commonly used for HM treatment can lead to the depletion of B cells and T cells, which is associated with increased COVID-19-related complications and mortality in these patients. As the pandemic transitions into an endemic state, it remains crucial to acknowledge and address the ongoing risk for individuals with HMs. In this review, we aim to summarize the current evidence to enhance our understanding of the impact of HMs on COVID-19 risks and outcomes, identify particularly vulnerable individuals, and emphasize the need for specialized clinical attention and management. Furthermore, the impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccination observed in these patients underscores the importance of implementing additional mitigation strategies. This may include targeted prophylaxis and treatment with antivirals and monoclonal antibodies as indicated. To provide practical guidance and considerations, we present two illustrative cases to highlight the real-life challenges faced by physicians caring for patients with HMs, emphasizing the need for individualized management based on disease severity, type, and the unique circumstances of each patient.

Capecitabine Monotherapy as Palliative Treatment for Patients with Recurrent/Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Cancer.

Background: Numerous chemotherapeutic agents have antitumor activity in recurrent/metastatic (R/M) nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Evidence of capecitabine's effectiveness as monotherapy is limited. Capecitabine tolerability in solid malignancies has ethnic and geographical variability. We investigated capecitabine's tolerability and identified potential prognostic factors for clinical outcomes in R/M NPC. Methods: A consecutive retrospective cohort of patients who received capecitabine as the first recurrence, second- or third-line monotherapy for metastatic NPC (2011-2019) was reviewed concerning patient characteristics, pathological features, treatment outcomes, and toxicity. Results: Fifty-one patients were eligible (median age at diagnosis: 42 [35.5-52.5] years). Most patients (78.4%) tolerated a standard oral dose of 1,250 mg/m2 capecitabine (2 weeks on/1 week off) in a 3-week cycle. The objective response rate was 49%, and the disease control rate was 66.7%, with a median response duration of 6.2 months. Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was associated with a higher objective response rate (odds ratio, 5.1 [95% confidence interval: 1.18-21.98]; P = 0.02). The median follow-up duration was 17.8 (interquartile range: 7.8-30.4) months. The median (95% confidence interval) progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.6 (4.3-8.8) and 32.7 (25.9-39.5) months, respectively. HFS (P = 0.02), better performance status (P = 0.02), and absence of brain metastasis (P = 0.04) were associated with prolonged progression-free survival. Conclusion: Capecitabine monotherapy is effective and well-tolerated as a palliative treatment for R/M NPC. Despite the lower incidence of HFS in our patients, it remained a favorable prognostic factor for objective response and progression-free survival.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with Breast Cancer Based on Clinical and Evolving Oncotype DX Criteria.

INTRODUCTION: Oncotype DX assay recurrence score (ODX-RS) cut-off values have recently changed after the publication of the TAILOR-X trial results. We aim to explore decisions for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) based on physicians' clinical assessment and the evolving ODX-RS. METHODOLOGY: Patients who underwent ODX testing after curative surgical resection of estrogen receptor positive (ER+), Her2 non-overexpressed (Her2-) and lymph node-negative (LN-) breast cancer (BC) were eligible. Management of these patients was guided by the results of the old ODX-RS-1 (<18, 18-30, and ≥31) risk grouping. For the purpose of this study, treatment decisions were also assumed according to TAILOR-X results (ODX-RS-2). Decisions of 3 medical oncologists on ACT were solicited by blinding them to the RS to investigate concordance with ODXA RS-1 and 2 recommendations. RESULTS: Sixty-six consecutive patients were included. Median age was 50.5 (range: 21-73) years. There was 1 male patient, and 37/65 females (56.9%) were premenopausal. Among the 3 oncologists, recommendations for ACT based on clinical assessment were discrepant in 29 (43.9%) patients. Based on majority consensus (≥2 oncologists), ACT would have been recommended to 22/41 (53.7%) and 22/46 (47.82%) patients with low-risk tumors according to ODX-RS-1 and ODX-RS-2, respectively. Compared to ODX-RS-1, ODX-RS-2 identifies 12% (46 vs. 41) more low-risk patients and 66% (20 vs. 12 patients) more high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Overtreatment and discrepancies in the management of patients with ER+/Her2-/LN- early BC can be minimized by the implementation of ODX genomic assay. Some differences in ACT recommendations exist between ODX-RS-1 and ODX-RS-2.