No abstract

Background Four months after the first known case of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), on the 11th March 2020, the WHO declared the outbreak a pandemic and acknowledged the potential to overwhelm national healthcare systems. The high prevalence and associated healthcare, social and economic challenges of COVID-19 suggest this pandemic is likely to have a major impact on cancer management, and has been shown to potentially have worse outcomes in this cohort of vulnerable patients (1). This study aims to compare the outcomes of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 positive disease in patients with or without a history of cancer. Method: We retrospectively collected clinical, pathological and radiological characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 RT-PCR positive cancer patients treated consecutively in four different North London hospitals (cohort A). Outcomes recorded included morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay. All clinically relevant outcomes were then compared to consecutively admitted COVID-19 positive patients, without a history of cancer (cohort B), treated at the primary centre during the same time period (12th March- 7th April 2020). Results: A total of 52 electronic patient records during the study time period were reviewed. Cohort A (median age 76 years, 56% males) and cohort B (median age 58 years, 62% male) comprised of 26 patients each. With the exclusion of cancer, both had a median of 2 comorbidities. Within cohort A, the most frequent underlying cancer was colorectal (5/26) and prostate cancer (5/26), and 77% of patients in Cohort A had received previous anti-cancer therapy. The most common presenting symptoms were cough and pyrexia in both cohorts. Frequent laboratory findings included lymphopenia, anaemia and elevated CRP in both cohorts, whilst hypokalaemia, hypoalbuminaemia and hypoproteinaemia was predominantly seen amongst patients with cancer. Median duration of admission was 7 days in both cohorts. The mortality rate was the same in both cohorts (23%), with median age of mortality of 80 years. Of cancer patients who died, all were advanced stage, had been treated with palliative intent and had received anti-cancer therapy within 13 days of admission. Conclusion: Old age, late stage of cancer diagnosis and multiple co-morbidities adversely influence the outcome of patients with COVID-19 positive patients. Whilst extra caution is warranted in the administration of anti-cancer therapies pertaining to the risk of immune-suppression, this data does not demonstrate a higher risk to cancer patients compared to their non-cancer counterparts.

No abstract

427 Background: Pts with advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer received pembro monotherapy (200 mg Q3W) 3L+ in cohort 1 of KEYNOTE-059 (NCT02335411), 2L in KEYNOTE-061 (NCT02370498), or 1L in KEYNOTE-062 (NCT02494583). We present efficacy data for patients with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥10 tumors in these trials. Methods: In study 059, 46 pts in cohort 1 with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 received pembro. In study 061, 108 pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 received pembro (n=53) or chemotherapy (chemo; n=55). In study 062, 182 pts with CPS ≥10 received pembro (n=92) or placebo + chemo (n=90). Efficacy end points included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR). Results: Median follow-up in study 059 was 5.6 mo. Median OS with pembro was 7.9 mo (95% CI, 5.8-11.1), and 12-mo OS was 32.6%. PFS at 6 mo was 17.4%, ORR was 17.4%, and median DOR was 20.9 mo (2.8+ to 34.9+). In study 061, after a median follow-up of 8.8 mo, pembro prolonged OS vs chemo (median 10.4 vs 8.0 mo; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.02); 12-mo OS was 45.3% for pembro and 23.6% for chemo. Median PFS was 2.7 mo for pembro and 3.4 mo for chemo (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.33). ORR was 24.5% vs 9.1%, and median DOR was NR (4.1-26.0+) and 6.9 mo (2.6-6.9) for pembro vs chemo. In study 062, median follow-up was 17.4 mo for pembro and 10.8 mo for chemo. Pembro prolonged OS vs chemo (median 17.4 vs 10.8 mo; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97); 12-mo OS was 56.5% vs 46.7%. Median PFS was 2.9 mo vs 6.1 mo (HR, 1.09, 95% CI, 0.79-1.49). ORR was 25.0% vs 37.8%, and median DOR was 19.3 mo (1.4+ to 33.6+) vs 6.8 mo (1.5+ to 30.4+) for pembro vs chemo, respectively. Conclusions: Collectively, these data indicate that 1L, 2L, and 3L+ pembro monotherapy showed clinically meaningful efficacy in CPS ≥10, with a more durable response than chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02335411, NCT02370498, and NCT02494583. [Table: see text]

Over the past decade, immunotherapy delivered novel treatments for many cancer types. However, lung cancer still leads cancer mortality, and non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients with mutant EGFR cannot benefit from checkpoint inhibitors due to toxicity, relying only on palliative chemotherapy and the third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib. This new drug extends lifespan by 9-months vs. second-generation TKIs, but unfortunately, cancers relapse due to resistance mechanisms and the lack of antitumor immune responses. Here we explored the combination of osimertinib with anti-HER3 monoclonal antibodies and observed that the immune system contributed to eliminate tumor cells in mice and co-culture experiments using bone marrow-derived macrophages and human PBMCs. Osimertinib led to apoptosis of tumors but simultaneously, it triggered inositol-requiring-enzyme (IRE1α)-dependent HER3 upregulation, increased macrophage infiltration, and activated cGAS in cancer cells to produce cGAMP (detected by a lentivirally transduced STING activity biosensor), transactivating STING in macrophages. We sought to target osimertinib-induced HER3 upregulation with monoclonal antibodies, which engaged Fc receptor-dependent tumor elimination by macrophages, and STING agonists enhanced macrophage-mediated tumor elimination further. Thus, by engaging a tumor non-autonomous mechanism involving cGAS-STING and innate immunity, the combination of osimertinib and anti-HER3 antibodies could improve the limited therapeutic and stratification options for advanced stage lung cancer patients with mutant EGFR.