Background: Heterogeneous evidence exists on the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) on the clinical outcomes of patients with cancer.Methods: A systematic review was performed using the Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases and the World Health Organization Novel Coronavirus website to identify studies that reported mortality and characteristics of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID‐19. The primary study outcome was mortality, defined as all‐cause mortality or in‐hospital mortality within 30 days of initial COVID‐19 diagnosis. The pooled proportion of mortality was estimated using a random‐effects model, and study‐level moderators of heterogeneity were assessed through subgroup analysis and metaregression.Results: Among 2922 patients from 13 primarily inpatient studies of individuals with COVID‐19 and cancer, the pooled 30‐day mortality rate was 30% (95% CI, 25%‐35%). The overall pooled 30‐day mortality rate among 624 patients from 5 studies that included a mixture of inpatient and outpatient populations was 15% (95% CI, 9%‐22%). Among the hospitalized studies, the heterogeneity (I² statistic) of the meta‐analysis remained high (I², 82%). Cancer subtype (hematologic vs solid), older age, male sex, and recent active cancer therapy each partially explained the heterogeneity of mortality reporting. In multivariable metaregression, male sex, along with an interaction between the median patient age and recent active cancer therapy, explained most of the between‐study heterogeneity (R², 96%).Conclusions: Pooled mortality estimates for hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID‐19 remain high at 30%, with significant heterogeneity across studies. Dedicated community‐based studies are needed in the future to help assess overall COVID‐19 mortality among the broader population of patients with cancer.

SMAD4 is an essential mediator in the transforming growth factor-β pathway. Sporadic mutations of SMAD4 are present in 2.1–20.0% of colorectal cancers (CRCs) but data are limited. In this study, we aimed to evaluate clinicopathologic characteristics, prognosis, and clinical outcome associated with this mutation in CRC cases. Data for patients with metastatic or unresectable CRC who underwent genotyping for SMAD4 mutation and received treatment at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2000 to 2014 were reviewed. Their tumors were sequenced using a hotspot panel predicted to cover 80% of the reported SMAD4 mutations, and further targeted resequencing that included full-length SMAD4 was performed on mutated tumors using a HiSeq sequencing system. Using The Cancer Genome Atlas data on CRC, the characteristics of SMAD4 and transforming growth factor-β pathway mutations were evaluated according to different consensus molecular subtypes of CRC. Among 734 patients with CRC, 90 (12%) had SMAD4 mutations according to hotspot testing. SMAD4 mutation was associated with colon cancer more so than with rectal cancer (odds ratio 2.85; p<0.001), female sex (odds ratio 1.71; p = 0.02), and shorter overall survival than in wild-type SMAD4 cases (median, 29 months versus 56 months; hazard ratio 2.08; p<0.001 [log-rank test]). SMAD4 mutation was not associated with age, stage at presentation, colonic location, distant metastasis, or tumor grade. A subset of patients with metastatic CRC (n = 44) wild-type for KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF who received anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy with mutated SMAD4 (n = 13) had shorter progression-free survival duration than did patients wild-type for SMAD4 (n = 31) (median, 111 days versus 180 days; p = 0.003 [log-rank test]). Full-length sequencing confirmed that missense mutations at R361 and P356 in the MH2 domain were the most common SMAD4 alterations. In The Cancer Genome Atlas data, SMAD4 mutation frequently occurred with KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations and was more common in patients with the consensus molecular subtype 3 of CRC than in those with the other 3 subtypes. This is one of the largest retrospective studies to date characterizing SMAD4 mutations in CRC patients and demonstrates the prognostic role and lack of response of CRC to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. Further studies are required to validate these findings and the role of SMAD4 mutation in CRC.

CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) tumors, comprising 20% of colorectal cancers, are associated with female sex, age, right-sided location, and BRAF mutations. However, other factors potentially associated with CIMP have not been robustly examined. This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive assessment of the clinical, pathologic, and molecular characteristics that define CIMP tumors. We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature from January 1999 through April 2018 and identified 122 articles, on which comprehensive data abstraction was performed on the clinical, pathologic, molecular, and mutational characteristics of CIMP subgroups, classified based on the extent of DNA methylation of tumor suppressor genes assessed using a variety of laboratory methods. Associations of CIMP with outcome parameters were estimated using pooled odds ratio or standardized mean differences using random-effects model. We confirmed prior associations including female sex, older age, right-sided tumor location, poor differentiation, and microsatellite instability. In addition to the recognized association with BRAF mutations, CIMP was also associated with PIK3CA mutations and lack of mutations in KRAS and TP53. Evidence of an activated immune response was seen with high rates of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (but not peritumoral lymphocytes), Crohn-like infiltrates, and infiltration with Fusobacterium nucleatum bacteria. Additionally, CIMP tumors were associated with advance T-stage and presence of perineural and lymphovascular invasion. The meta-analysis highlights key features distinguishing CIMP in colorectal cancer, including molecular characteristics of an active immune response. Improved understanding of this unique molecular subtype of colorectal cancer may provide insights into prevention and treatment.

COVID-19 has been shown to present with varied clinical course, necessitating a need for more specific diagnostic tools that could identify severe cases and predict outcomes during COVID-19 infection. Recent evidence has shown an expanded potential role for calprotectin, both as a diagnostic tool and also as a tool in stratifying COVID-19 patients in terms of severity. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the levels of calprotectin in severe and non-severe COVID-19 and also identify the implication of raised calprotectin levels. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of science and MedRxiv were searched. Meta-analysis was done to compare the serum/fecal levels of calprotectin between severe and non-severe COVID-19 infections. A total of ten studies included in the review (eight had quantitative data while two were qualitative). A pooled analysis of the eight studies from 613 patients who were RT-PCR positive for COVID-19 (average age = 55 years; 52% males) showed an overall estimate as 1.34 (95%CI: 0.77, 1.91). In conclusion, calprotectin levels have been demonstrated to be significantly elevated in COVID-19 patients who develop the severe form of the disease, and it also has prognostic importance.

It is not possible to accurately count adenomas in many patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Nevertheless, polyp counts are critical in evaluating each patient's response to interventions. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration no longer recognizes the decrease in polyp burden as a sufficient chemoprevention trial treatment endpoint requiring a measure of "clinical benefit." To develop endpoints for future industry-sponsored chemopreventive trials, the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumors (InSIGHT) developed an FAP staging and intervention classification scheme for lower-GI tract polyposis. Twenty-four colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy videos were reviewed by 26 clinicians familiar with diagnosis and treatment of FAP. The reviewers independently assigned a stage to a case by using the proposed system and chose a stage-specific intervention for each case. Our endpoint was the degree of concordance among reviewers staging and intervention assessments. The staging and intervention ratings of the 26 reviewers were highly concordant (ρ = 0.710; 95% credible interval, 0.651-0.759). Sixty-two percent of reviewers agreed on the FAP stage, and 90% of scores were within ±1 stage of the mode. Sixty percent of reviewers agreed on the intervention, and 86% chose an intervention within ±1 level of the mode. The proposed FAP colon polyposis staging system and stage-specific intervention are based on a high degree of agreement on the part of experts in the review of individual cases of polyposis. Therefore, reliable and clinically relevant means for measuring trial outcomes can be developed. Outlier cases showing wide scatter in stage assignment call for individualized attention and may be inappropriate for enrollment in clinical trials for this reason.