Daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factors [(G-CSFs); e.g. filgrastim, lenograstim] are frequently used to reduce the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients. A pegylated formulation of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, which is administered once per cycle, was introduced in Spain in 2003. LEARN was a multi-centre, retrospective, observational study in Spain comparing patterns of use of daily G-CSF and pegfilgrastim, and CIN-related outcomes in adults with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Outcome measures were the percentage of patients receiving G-CSF for primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis/treatment, duration of treatment with G-CSF and incidence of CIN-related complications. Medical records from consecutive patients with documented pegfilgrastim (n = 75) or daily G-CSF (n = 111) use during 2003 were included. The proportion of patients receiving primary or secondary prophylaxis was comparable between the pegfilgrastim (39 and 48% respectively) and daily G-CSF (40 and 48% respectively) groups. However, there was a trend towards less frequent use to treat a neutropenic event such as FN or neutropenia in the pegfilgrastim group (17 versus 30% with daily G-CSF). Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related complications were less frequent in patients receiving pegfilgrastim (e.g. FN 11 versus 24% with daily G-CSF). This is the first study to show the potential benefits of pegfilgrastim over daily G-CSF in Spanish clinical practice.

Background: Covid-19 pandemic by the new coronavirus SARS-Cov-2 has produced devastating effects on the health care system, affecting also cancer patient care. Data about COVID-19 infection in cancer patients are scarce, and they point out a higher risk of complications due to the viral infection in this population. Moreover, cancer treatments could increase viral complications, specially those treatments based on the use of immunotherapy with checkpoints antibodies. There are no clinical data about the safety of immune check point antibodies in cancer patients when they become infected by SARS-CoV-2. As checkpoint inhibitors, mainly anti PD-1 and anti CTLA-4 antibodies, are an effective treatment for most melanoma patients, avoiding their use during the pandemic could lead to a decrease in the chances of curing melanoma. Methods: In Spain we have started a national registry of melanoma patients infected by SARS-Cov-2 since April 1st, 2020. A retrospective analysis of patients included in the Spanish registery has been performed weekly since the activation of the study. Interim analysis shows unexpected findings about cancer treatment safety in SARS-Cov-2 infected melanoma patients, so a rapid communication to the scientific community is mandatory Results: Fifty patients have been included as of May 17th, 2020. Median age is 69 years (range 6 to 94 years), 27 (54%) patients are males and 36 (70%) patients have stage IV melanoma. Twenty-two (44%) patients were on active anticancer treatment with anti PD-1 antibodies, 16 (32%) patients were on treatment with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors and 12 (24%) patients were not on active cancer treatment. COVID-19 episode has been resolved in 43 cases, including 30 (70%) patients cured, four (9%) patients that have died due to melanoma progression, and nine (21%) patients that have died from COVID-19. Mortality rates from COVID-19 according to melanoma treatment type were 16%, 15% and 36% for patients on immunotherapy, targeted drugs, and for those that were not undergoing active cancer treatment, respectively. Conclusion: These preliminary findings show that the risk of death in those patients undergoing treatment with anti PD-1 antibodies does not exceed the global risk of death in this population. These results could be relevant in order to select melanoma therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives Although new therapies against metastatic cancer have been developed in recent decades, chemotherapy is still an important treatment option. Prolonged treatment and side‐effects are often discouraging for patients, and in many cases, therapy is only palliative, not curative. This study explores patient preference for oral or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast or lung cancer. Methods It is a descriptive, open label, multicentre, nation‐wide study, in which a 16‐item questionnaire consisting of single‐choice questions scored on a 5‐point Likert scale was administered to patients in a single visit, and another 11‐item questionnaire was self‐administered by the patient’s oncologist. Results A total of 131 breast and lung cancer specialists at 64 hospitals enrolled 412 patients (lung cancer = 161; breast cancer = 251). To be eligible, patients must have already received IV therapy and at least 2 cycles of oral chemotherapy. Most (77%) patients expressed preference for oral therapy. Most considered their daily life was less disrupted with tablets (70.4%), had no trouble swallowing them (86.9%), and were not concerned about forgetting to take them (56.8%). Half (56.3%) were worried about problems related to drug infusion with IV therapy, 61.7% were concerned about nurses failing to find a suitable vein, and 63.1% were dissatisfied with hospital waiting times. A uniform response was obtained from both samples of patients. Conclusion Convenience, ease of administration, fewer side effects and better quality of life tilt the balance towards oral drug administration.

Our results for Spanish patients in the vemurafenib safety study indicate similar efficacy and a comparable safety profile in Spanish patients with no new safety signals compared with the overall population. Clinical benefit was demonstrated in poor-prognosis patients and in those with favourable baseline characteristics, suggesting that poor-prognosis patients may also benefit from vemurafenib treatment.

Combination treatment with BRAF (BRAFi) plus MEK inhibitors (MEKi) has demonstrated survival benefit in patients with advanced melanoma harboring activating BRAF mutations. Previous preclinical studies suggested that an intermittent dosing of these drugs could delay the emergence of resistance. Contrary to expectations, the first published phase 2 randomized study comparing continuous versus intermittent schedule of dabrafenib (BRAFi) plus trametinib (MEKi) demonstrated a detrimental effect of the “on−off” schedule. Here we report confirmatory data from the Phase II randomized open-label clinical trial comparing the antitumoral activity of the standard schedule versus an intermittent combination of vemurafenib (BRAFi) plus cobimetinib (MEKi) in advanced BRAF mutant melanoma patients (NCT02583516). The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of progression free survival (PFS) improvement. Our results show that the antitumor activity of the experimental intermittent schedule of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib is not superior to the standard continuous schedule. Detection of BRAF mutation in cell free tumor DNA has prognostic value for survival and its dynamics has an excellent correlation with clinical response, but not with progression. NGS analysis demonstrated de novo mutations in resistant cases.