Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), prompted a global health crisis, with no available specific treatments. Convalescent plasma (CP) with neutralizing antibodies could be a promising therapeutic approach to reduce mortality.Objectives: To evaluate the therapeutic potential of CP for COVID-19 and to assess its safety and efficacy in reducing the patients' mortality.Methods: We retrieved clinical trial references from multiple Databases (e.g., PubMed, B-On, SCOPUS), for complete studies until November 26th 2020. We included Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled non-randomized trials (CNRT), that assessed the efficacy of CP to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Trials were included regardless of concomitant medications in the intervention's arms. Eleven trials met our eligibility criteria. This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We defined a methodological protocol to extract and evaluate all pertinent baseline demographics and interventions' characteristics from trials. The primary outcomes were the safety profile of CP, measured by the type, frequency and severity of adverse events, and CP effectiveness in reducing mortality, measured by the number of deaths registered for this therapy.Results: We assessed 11 trials (5 RCT and 6 CNRT) with 3,098 participants, of whom 923 patients were treated with CP. Only 32 (3.5%) of the treated patients suffered adverse events (from which 9.4% serious transfusion-related adverse events). The overall mortality rates were significantly decreased by CP administration {risk ratio (RR) 0.71, p = 0.005, 95% confidence interval (Cl) [0.57–0.90]}, with low heterogeneity. In the sub-analysis by period of transfusion, CP transfusion within a week of hospitalization contributed to diminished mortality rate (RR = 0.71, p = 0.03, 95%Cl [0.53–0.96]). CP therapy also led to significantly reduced viral loads at 72 h after transfusion (RR = 0.61, p = 0.04, 95%Cl [0.38–0.98]), despite high heterogeneity due to disease severity.Conclusion: This meta-analysis established CP as a safe and potentially effective therapy for COVID-19, decreasing the mortality rates and promoting a swift viral clearance. Further studies are necessary to provide stronger evidence.

Background Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been used in oncology contexts as a promising tool with numerous benefits for various health-related and psychosocial outcomes. Despite the increasing popularity of MBIs, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined their effects upon biological parameters. Specifically, no previous study has examined the effects of MBIs on extracellular vesicles (EVs), which are potentially important markers of health, disease, and stress. Moreover, the lack of RCTs is even more limited within the context of technology-mediated MBIs and long-term effects. Methods The current study protocol presents a two-arm, parallel, randomized controlled study investigating the effects of internet-supported mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Primary outcomes are psychological distress and EV cargo of distressed participants with previous breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer diagnoses. Secondary outcomes are self-reported psychosocial and health-related measures, and additional biological markers. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 4 weeks after baseline (mid-point of the intervention), 8 weeks after baseline (immediately post-intervention), 24 weeks after baseline (after booster sessions), and 52 weeks after baseline. Our goal is to recruit at least 111 participants who have been diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer (cancer stage I to III), are between 18 and 65 years old, and have had primary cancer treatments completed between 3 months and 5 years ago. Half of the participants will be randomized to the TAU group, and the other half will participate in an 8-week online MBCT intervention with weekly group sessions via videoconference. The intervention also includes asynchronous homework, an online retreat after the fifth week, and 4 monthly booster sessions after completion of the 8-week programme. Discussion This study will allow characterizing the effects of internet-based MBCT on psychosocial and biological indicators in the context of cancer. The effects on circulating EVs will also be investigated, as a possible neurobiological pathway underlying mind-body intervention effects. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT04727593 (date of registration: 27 January 2021; date of record verification: 6 October 2021).

e13554 Background: The value of real-world evidence derived from the care of patients managed outside the context of clinical trials is well recognised. However, the ability to link data from multiple centres, especially those from different countries, is complicated by complex legal and information governance differences. The Oncology Evidence Network is a collaboration of large hospital centres, with strong clinical informatics capabilities in six countries in Europe and Asia working with the support of an industrial partner to provide high quality, real world data reflecting routine clinical care. We have developed an efficient workflow based on a study-specific common data model (CDM) clinically validated at each site and analysed with a single analysis script, which embeds a set of data quality rules. Local implementation allows each centre to generate analytical outputs aligned across the different sites without the need for any patient level data to leave the participating site. This approach has been designed and tested in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (EOC) patients. Methods: A CDM was agreed using expert advisors from each centre. Clinical alignment was achieved through iterative assessment of clinical vignettes, to ensure common definitions of clinical assessment, prognosis, and treatment algorithms in EOC patients. A data guide detailing variable level derivations and validation rules, general data coding principles, and conversions/codes from international coding systems was developed. The analysis scripts were implemented as a bespoke package (OpenOvary) in R. The package includes functions to validate the data against the CDM, and generate a standard output including tables, numerical summaries and Kaplan-Meier analysis of progression and overall survival. Results: 2,925 patient records from 6 centres across 6 countries were included in the study with 27 key data items curated by each centre. Treatment data is available detailing relevant surgical procedures and their outcomes, and regimens of SACT throughout patients’ care from diagnosis to death. Data completeness was generally high for key data items, with missing data ranging from 0-16% for FIGO stage at diagnosis and 0-14% for tumour morphology. The CDM and R script will be made publicly available for other centres to adopt and facilitate analysis of their local data. Conclusions: This collaboration has brought together a substantial body of data describing the care and outcomes for EOC patients. A CDM and flexible shared analysis approach enabled unified analysis and reporting whilst avoiding the transfer of patient level data and its pooling into a common database. The process of clinical and data alignment has generated a replicable model for rapid extension to other study centres to join the EOC study, or application to other disease areas.

Introduction: The growing number of women diagnosed with breast cancer together with high survival has resulted in an increasing population of survivors at risk of subsequent primary cancers. This study aimed to estimate the long-term risk and survival of third primary cancers (TPCs) among females with a first primary breast cancer. Methods: Breast first primary cancers (FPCs) from the Portuguese North Region Cancer Registry, diagnosed between 2000 and 2010 (n=15981), were followed for a TPC (31/12/2015), and death from any cause (30/06/2021). The cumulative incidence of and mortality among TPCs were estimated. To compare survival, female patients with a TPC were matched (1:1, by age group, years between FPC and second primary cancer [SPC] diagnosis, and SPC location) to FPC+SPC patients without a TPC. Results: Overall, 67 (0.4% of FPCs and 5.4% of SPCs) TPCs were diagnosed. The most common TPC sites were digestive, breast and female genital organs. Among all FPCs, 15-year cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of a TPC was 0.69% (0.47%-0.90%), and among SPCs 7.21% (4.99%-9.43%). The 15-year cumulative mortality of TPCs and matched patients was 70.0% and 51.5%, respectively. For TPCs, compared to matched SPC only patients, the age-adjusted hazard ratio (95%CI) for death was 2.86 (1.61-5.07). Discussion/Conclusion: The most common TPC sites were digestive, breast and female genital organs, with a 15-year cumulative incidence of 0.69% among FPCs. TPCs had a worse long-term survival compared to patients with an SPC only.