COVID-19 reinfection, although a controversial issue, is an important clinical problem in cancer patients and beyond. The present study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with worse outcomes in cancer patients with Covid-19 in both first infection and reinfection and to describe the involvement of vaccines in reinfection outcome. The present study enrolled 85 patients with solid tumors who had Covid-19 infection and had not been previously vaccinated. Classical risk factors associated with worse outcomes in cancer patients with second SARS-Cov infection were considered. The patients were followed up retrospectively, measuring mortality at the first and second infection and the vaccination rate after the first infection. The factors associated with the highest risk of mortality at the first infection were, in order of importance: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, unfavorable performance status, radiologically quantifiable presence of oncological disease, and administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the period immediately before infection. The risk factors associated with higher mortality from reinfection were ECOG 3-4 performance status and administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the period immediately before infection. In the studied patients, mortality from reinfection was not affected by prior vaccination. Thus, bearing in mind all of these risk factors for poor outcomes in cancer patients with solid tumors presenting with Covid-19 can help the treating oncologists make personalized decisions about patient care during the pandemic.

Literature suggests that high body mass index can be correlated with better response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. On the other hand, sarcopenia seems to be a negative predictive marker. The present analysis is a retrospective, multicenter trial that included patients with metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab between 2018 and 2020. Patients were stratified by creatinine levels both at treatment initiation and at first follow-up (at three months) and by BMI for the same intervals, as recorded in the patients’ charts. Creatinine was considered a surrogate marker for sarcopenia. IBM SPSS version 20 was used for statistical analysis. A total of 57 (n = 57) patients were included in the trial. Overall response rate (ORR) for the entire population was 38.59% (p = 0.02). Patients with BMI lower than 25 had an ORR of 28.5% (p = 0.003), whereas patients with BMI higher than 25 had an ORR of 42.3% (p = 0.002). Patients who gained weight during treatment had a lower probability of having progressive disease (OR = 0.4 [95% CI; 0.4–1.2]), as did patients with creatinine higher than 0.9 (OR = 0.39 [95% CI: 0.13–1.14]). No superiority was found in progression-free survival (PFS) when patients were dichotomized for BMI = 25 or BMI = 18.5. Mean PFS in the BMI under 18.5 group was 10.2 months [95% CI: 5.8–23.1], versus 11.2 for BMI over 18.5 [95% CI: 5.3–25.3], p < 0.03. Mean PFS for the BMI under 25 was 11.2 months [95% CI: 7.2–20.1], vs. 13.3 months [95% CI: 6.4–22] for the BMI over 25, p < 0.001. There were also differences in PFS in the patients with baseline creatinine over 0.9 when compared with under 0.9 values. Mean PFS in the first group was 19.78 months [95% CI: 16.23–22.9] vs. 16.1 [95% CI: 12.2–20.3], p < 0.001. Patients treated with nivolumab who have weight gain during treatment have a better PFS than the ones who do not. Creatinine levels of over 0.9 at treatment initiation also have positive predictive value.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the most effective treatments nowadays. Nivolumab was the second ICI used for treating solid tumors with amazing results. Patients treated with Nivolumab may react differently to this treatment. Some people tolerate this treatment very well without experiencing any adverse reactions, whilst some may have mild symptoms and a part of them can present severe reactions. In our research, we sought to identify the answers to four questions: 1. what type of cancer has more severe hypersensitivity reactions to Nivolumab, 2. what is the time frame for developing these severe reactions to Nivolumab, 3. whether it is best to continue or stop the treatment after a severe hypersensitivity reaction to Nivolumab and 4. what severe hypersensitivity reactions are the most frequent reported along Nivolumab treatment. This review also highlights another problem with regard to the usage of concomitant and prior medications or other methods of treatment (e.g., radiation therapy), which can also lead to severe reactions. Treatment with Nivolumab is very well tolerated, but patients should also be warned of the possibility of severe hypersensitivity reactions for which they should urgently see a doctor for a personalized evaluation. There are some options for individuals with severe hypersensitivity reactions, for eg. switching the medication or applying a desensitization protocol.

Lung cancer, as the leading cause of death in oncology is one of the most challenging diseases nowadays. Even after the implementation of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy as a standard of therapy for metastatic disease, the chemotherapy backbone remains essential in the treatment of these patients. This study aimed to evaluate how administration particularities in chemotherapy and toxicity management can influence the outcome. We conducted a retrospective single-institution study, at Elias University Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, Romania, between 2014 and 2018, in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer that received combination chemotherapy. The inclusion criteria for this trial were—histological proof of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), stage IV disease, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status of a maximum of two, treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy for at least four courses (patients with fewer courses were excluded). All patients received combination chemotherapy. The main focus was on the effect of dose reduction and treatment delay on overall survival and progression-free survival. A total of 129 patients were enrolled. The response rate in the studied population was 69% and 62.8% had no toxicity greater than grade 2. Chemotherapy regimens used had the following distribution—paclitaxel + carboplatin 41.9%, paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab 12.4%, pemetrexed + carboplatin 12.4%, gemcitabine + carboplatin 26.4% and other regimens 7%. Mean PFS (Progression Free Survival) was 9.1 months and the mean OS (Overall Survival) was 14 months. OS was not significantly different in the treatment delay group versus the no delay one, p < 0.25 but dose- reduction significantly impacted OS, p < 0.03. Administration particularities, like febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, treatment of chemotherapy-related anemia, respecting the details of chemostability and preparation rules and emesis prophylaxis, were considered reasons for the good outcome. Details regarding cytotoxic chemotherapy administration remain of paramount importance for a good outcome and the benefit for survival they convey is crucial. Sometimes the benefit the patient derives from these details is comparable to the one newer therapies convey.