Patients with pre-existing comorbidities and immunosuppression are at greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe manifestations of COVID-19. This also includes cancer patients, who are shown to have a poor prognosis after infection. Here, we describe the case of a 72-year old male patient with B-cell depletion after maintenance treatment with rituximab for non-Hodgkin-lymphoma who had a prolonged COVID-19 course and initial false negative test results. Our case highlights the diagnostic pitfalls in diagnosing COVID-19 in B-cell depleted patients and discuss the role of B-cell depletion in the course and treatment of COVID-19. Furthermore, we investigated peripheral blood monocytes and SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in our patient. In conclusion, our case report can help physicians to avoid diagnostic pitfalls for COVID-19 in hemato-oncological patients under chemoimmunotherapy and tries to explain the role of B-cell depletion and SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in this context.

No abstract

After impressive developments in recent years with the rise of new targeted agents, chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) only plays a minor role in the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Inhibitors of the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK), such as ibrutinib or more recently acalabrutinib, are highly effective, even in poor-risk or chemo-refractory patients. Venetoclax, an inhibitor of the anti-apoptotic BCL2 protein and, to a lesser extent, phosphoinositide-3 kinase (PI3K) delta inhibitors, add to the armamentarium of targeted agents for the treatment of CLL. Furthermore, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are used very successfully either alone or in combination with BTK, BCL2 or PI3K inhibitors. Despite these advances, there is still an ongoing pursuit for new therapeutic approaches in the treatment of CLL. An even bigger challenge poses the determination of the optimal combination and sequence of those drugs. Here, we give an overview of current treatment options in CLL, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach in the light of different clinical settings.

No abstract

IntroductionMultiple agents are approved in the adjuvant setting of completely resected high-risk (stages IIC–IV) malignant melanoma. Subgroups may benefit differently depending on the agent used. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of available options in the post interferon era across following subgroups: patient age, stage, ulceration status, lymph node involvement, BRAF status.MethodsThe PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched without restriction in year of publication in June and September 2020. Data were extracted according to the PRISMA Guidelines from two authors independently and were pooled according to the random-effects model. The predefined primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Post-data extraction it was noted that one trial (BRIM8) reported disease-free survival which was defined in the exact same way as RFS.ResultsFive prospective randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The drug regimens included ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, vemurafenib, and dabrafenib/trametinib. Adjuvant treatment was associated with a higher RFS than placebo (HR 0.57; 95% CI= 0.45–0.71). Nivolumab/ipilimumab in stage IV malignant melanoma was associated with the highest RFS benefit (HR 0.23; 97.5% CI= 0.12–0.45), followed by dabrafenib/trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma (HR 0.49; 95% CI= 0.40–0.59). The presence of a BRAF mutation was associated with higher RFS rates (HR 0.30; 95% CI= 0.11–0.78) compared to the wildtype group (HR 0.60; 95% CI= 0.44–0.81). Patient age did not influence outcomes (≥65: HR 0.50; 95% CI= 0.36–0.70, <65: HR 0.58; 95% CI= 0.46–0.75). Immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy was associated with lower RFS in non-ulcerated melanoma. Patients with stage IIIA benefited equally from adjuvant treatment as those with stage IIIB/C. Nivolumab/ipilimumab and ipilimumab monotherapy were associated with higher toxicity.ConclusionAdjuvant therapy should not be withheld on account of advanced age or stage IIIA alone. The presence of a BRAF mutation is prognostically favorable in terms of RFS. BRAF/MEK inhibitors should be preferred in the adjuvant treatment of BRAF-mutant non-ulcerated melanoma.