Background Cancer patients are thought to have an increased risk of developing severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and of dying from the disease. In this work, predictive factors for COVID-19 severity and mortality in cancer patients were investigated. Patients and Methods In this large nationwide retro-prospective cohort study, we collected data on patients with solid tumours and COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1 and June 11, 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and COVID-19 severity, defined as admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or mechanical ventilation and/or death, was one of the secondary endpoints. Results From April 4 to June 11, 2020, 1289 patients were analysed. The most frequent cancers were digestive and thoracic. Altogether, 424 (33%) patients had a severe form of COVID-19 and 370 (29%) patients died. In multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with death were male sex (odds ratio 1.73, 95%CI: 1.18-2.52), ECOG PS ≥ 2 (OR 3.23, 95%CI: 2.27-4.61), updated Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.16) and admission to ICU (OR 3.62, 95%CI 2.14-6.11). The same factors, age along with corticosteroids before COVID-19 diagnosis, and thoracic primary tumour site were independently associated with COVID-19 severity. None of the anticancer treatments administered within the previous 3 months had any effect on mortality or COVID-19 severity, except cytotoxic chemotherapy in the subgroup of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR, which was associated with a slight increase of the risk of death (OR 1.53; 95%CI: 1.00-2.34; p = 0.05). A total of 431 (39%) patients had their systemic anticancer treatment interrupted or stopped following diagnosis of COVID-19. Conclusions Mortality and COVID-19 severity in cancer patients are high and are associated with general characteristics of patients. We found no deleterious effects of recent anticancer treatments, except for cytotoxic chemotherapy in the RT-PCR-confirmed subgroup of patients. In almost 40% of patients, the systemic anticancer therapy was interrupted or stopped after COVID-19 diagnosis.

No abstract

Introduction Small rectal neuroendocrine tumours are good candidates for endoscopic resection provided that complete pathological resection (R0) is obtained and their risk of metastatic progression is low. We conducted a large multicentre nationwide study to evaluate the outcomes of the management of non-metastatic rectal neuroendocrine tumours ≤2 cm diagnosed endoscopically. Patients and methods The medical records, the endoscopic and pathological findings of patients with non-metastatic rectal neuroendocrine tumours ≤2 cm managed from January 2000–June 2018 in 16 French hospitals, were retrospectively analysed. The primary objective was to describe the proportion of R0 endoscopic resections. Results A total of 329 patients with 345 rectal neuroendocrine tumours were included, 330 (96%) tumours were managed by local treatments: 287 by endoscopy only and 43 by endoscopy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery. The final endoscopic R0 rate was 134/345 (39%), which improved from the first endoscopy (54/225, 24%), to the second (60/100, 60%) and the third endoscopy (20/26, 77%). R0 was associated with endoscopic technique (90% for advanced techniques, 40% for mucosectomy and 17% for polypectomy), but not with tumour or patient characteristics. Twenty patients had metastatic disease, which was associated with tumour size ≥10 mm (odds ratio: 9.1, 95% confidence interval (3.5–23.5)), tumour grade G2–G3 (odds ratio: 4.2, (1.5–11.7)), the presence of muscular (odds ratio: ∞, (11.9–∞)) and lymphovascular invasion (odds ratio: 57.2, (5.6–578.9)). Conclusions The resection of small rectal neuroendocrine tumours often requires multiple procedures. Training of endoscopists is necessary in order to better recognise these tumours and to perform the appropriate resection technique.

None.

Gastric neuro-endocrine tumours (GNETs) Eighty four tumours were type 1 (46.4%); 5 types 2 (2.8%); 52 types 3 (28.7%) and 40 types 4 (22.1%). Types 1 and 2 were first endoscopically managed in respectively 93% and 60% of cases, whereas surgery was first done respectively in 45% and 42% of types 3 and 4. Systemic treatment, chemotherapy and/or somatostatin analogue (SSA), was first administered exclusively for types 3 and 4. Near 3% of types 1 and 40% of types 2 received at a time SSA treatment. Five-year survival rates were 98.3%, 100%, 63.2% and 31.8% for types 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Conclusion: The great majority of GNETs registered in this national cohort are treated in accordance with the current guidelines. The survival rates we reported must be interpreted with caution, because this cohort registered preferentially selected patients eligible for treatment. The registration of all the GNETs, in particular type 1 considered as benign and type 4 not eligible for specific anti-cancer treatment must be encouraged.3