PURPOSE: Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) mortality is higher in patients with cancer than in the general population, yet the cancer-associated risk factors for COVID-19 adverse outcomes are not fully characterized.PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed clinical characteristics and outcomes from patients with cancer and concurrent COVID-19 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center until March 31, 2020 (n = 309), and observed clinical end points until April 13, 2020. We hypothesized that cytotoxic chemotherapy administered within 35 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis is associated with an increased hazard ratio (HR) of severe or critical COVID-19. In secondary analyses, we estimated associations between specific clinical and laboratory variables and the incidence of a severe or critical COVID-19 event.RESULTS: Cytotoxic chemotherapy administration was not significantly associated with a severe or critical COVID-19 event (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.60). Hematologic malignancy was associated with increased COVID-19 severity (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.80). Patients with lung cancer also demonstrated higher rates of severe or critical COVID-19 events (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.30). Lymphopenia at COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with higher rates of severe or critical illness (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.10). Patients with baseline neutropenia 14-90 days before COVID-19 diagnosis had worse outcomes (HR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.70 to 11.00). Findings from these analyses remained consistent in a multivariable model and in multiple sensitivity analyses. The rate of adverse events was lower in a time-matched population of patients with cancer without COVID-19.CONCLUSION: Recent cytotoxic chemotherapy treatment was not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Patients with active hematologic or lung malignancies, peri–COVID-19 lymphopenia, or baseline neutropenia had worse COVID-19 outcomes. Interactions among antineoplastic therapy, cancer type, and COVID-19 are complex and warrant further investigation.

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) require a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care due to their complex biopsychosocial situations and varied developmental maturity. Currently, age and diagnosis determine referral to pediatric or adult oncology, with differing treatment paradigms and service utilization patterns, contributing to suboptimal improvements in outcomes. Understanding the unique perspectives of AYAs is essential to designing patient-centered AYA services. Thus, we conducted six focus groups with AYAs (n = 25) treated by medical or pediatric oncologists to evaluate: (1) the unique experiences of cancer care as an AYA; (2) AYA-specific information needs and communication preferences; and (3) recommendations for service provision, delivery and accommodations for AYAs. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic content analysis and identified six major themes to inform clinically-actionable recommendations and the development of a patient-reported outcome measure: (1) AYAs experience social isolation and loss of independence; (2) AYAs have an uncertain sense of the future and need conversations around survivorship and long-term and late effects; (3) AYAs desire greater control over discussions with their care team; (4) AYAs need additional navigational and social/caregiver supports; (5) AYAs prefer an inclusive AYA space in the hospital; and (6) LGBTQ+ patients experience distinct concerns as AYA cancer patients. These will form the basis for specific and tailored clinical recommendations to improve AYA cancer care delivery.

Purpose: Epacadostat, an indole 2,3 dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) inhibitor, proposed to shift the tumor microenvironment toward an immune-stimulated state, showed early promise in melanoma but has not been studied in sarcoma. This study combined epacadostat with pembrolizumab, which has modest activity in select sarcoma subtypes. Patients and Methods: This phase II study enrolled patients with advanced sarcoma into five cohorts including (i) undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS)/myxofibrosarcoma, (ii) liposarcoma (LPS), (iii) leiomyosarcoma (LMS), (iv) vascular sarcoma, including angiosarcoma and epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE), and (v) other subtypes. Patients received epacadostat 100 mg twice daily plus pembrolizumab at 200 mg/dose every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was best objective response rate (ORR), defined as complete response (CR) and partial response (PR), at 24 weeks by RECIST v.1.1. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled [60% male; median age 54 years (range, 24–78)]. The best ORR at 24 weeks was 3.3% [PR, n = 1 (leiomyosarcoma); two-sided 95% CI, 0.1%–17.2%]. The median PFS was 7.6 weeks (two-sided 95% CI, 6.9–26.7). Treatment was well tolerated. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 23% (n = 7) of patients. In paired pre- and post-treatment tumor samples, no association was found between treatment and PD-L1 or IDO1 tumor expression or IDO-pathway–related gene expression by RNA sequencing. No significant changes in serum tryptophan or kynurenine levels were observed after baseline. Conclusions: Combination epacadostat and pembrolizumab was well tolerated and showed limited antitumor activity in sarcoma. Correlative analyses suggested that inadequate IDO1 inhibition was achieved.

Purpose: Survival of patients with metastatic sarcoma remains poor, and there is a pressing need for new therapies. Most sarcoma subtypes are not responsive to immune checkpoint inhibition alone. Lenvatinib, a multireceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting tumor vasculature, has an immunomodulatory activity that contributes to its antitumor effects. Therefore, we hypothesized that a combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab would lead to improved clinical outcomes in patients with sarcoma. Patients and Methods: This was an open-label, single-arm study of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab in the following cohorts: (A) leiomyosarcoma, (B) undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), (C) vascular sarcomas (angiosarcoma and epithelioid hemangioendothelioma), (D) synovial sarcoma or malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), and (E) bone sarcomas (osteosarcoma and chondrosarcoma). The primary endpoint was the best overall response (BOR) rate documented by RECIST v1.1 by 27 weeks in each cohort, with a threshold of ≥2 responses among 10 patients. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, and safety. Results: Forty-six patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint, which was met in the UPS and MPNST/synovial cohorts (BOR rates by 27 weeks of 25% and 30%, respectively). There were seven partial responses overall with additional responses noted in angiosarcoma and osteosarcoma. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade and grade 3 or higher occurred in 50/51 (98%) and 29/51 (57%) of patients, respectively. Conclusions: We observed durable responses in MPNST, synovial sarcoma, and osteosarcoma. Patients with UPS and angiosarcoma also responded. Further exploration of this approach is warranted to confirm activity and determine optimal dosing schedules.

The association between immune-related AEs (irAE) and outcome in patients with sarcoma is not known. We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of patients with advanced sarcoma treated with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB)-based therapy. Association of irAEs with survival was assessed using a Cox regression model that incorporated irAE occurrence as a time-dependent covariate. Tumor samples with available RNA sequencing data were stratified by presence of an irAE to identify patterns of differential gene expression. A total of 131 patients were included. Forty-two (32%) had at least one irAE of any grade and 16 (12%) had at least one grade ≥ 3 irAE. The most common irAEs were hypothyroidism (8.3%), arthralgias (5.3%), pneumonitis (4.6%), allergic reaction (3.8%), and elevated transaminases (3.8%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of study entry were 11.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 10.7–15.0) and 74.6 weeks (CI, 44.9–89.7), respectively. On Cox analysis adjusting for clinical covariates that were significant in the univariate setting, the HR for an irAE (HR, 0.662; CI, 0.421–1.041) approached, but did not reach statistical significance for PFS (P = 0.074). Patients had a significantly lower HR for OS (HR, 0.443; CI, 0.246–0.798; P = 0.007) compared with those without or before an irAE. Gene expression profiling on baseline tumor samples found that patients who had an irAE had higher numbers of tumor-infiltrating dendritic cells, CD8+ T cells, and regulatory T cells as well as upregulation of immune and inflammatory pathways.Significance: irAE after ICB therapy was associated with an improved OS; it also approached statistical significance for improved PFS. Patients who had an irAE were more likely to have an inflamed tumor microenvironment at baseline.

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; age 15-39 years) with cancer are under-represented in cancer clinical trials because of patient, provider, and institutional barriers. Health care technology is increasingly available to and highly used among AYAs and has the potential to improve cancer care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic forced institutions to rapidly adopt novel approaches for enrollment and monitoring of patients on cancer clinical trials, many of which have the potential for improving AYA trial participation overall. This consensus statement from the Children's Oncology Group AYA Oncology Discipline Committee reviews opportunities to use technology to optimize AYA trial enrollment and study conduct, as well as considerations for widespread implementation of these practices. The use of remote patient eligibility screening, electronic informed consent, virtual tumor boards, remote study visits, and remote patient monitoring are recommended to increase AYA access to trials and decrease the burden of participation. Widespread adoption of these strategies will require new policies focusing on reimbursement for telehealth, license portability, facile communication between electronic health record systems and advanced safeguards to maintain patient privacy and security. Studies are needed to determine optimal approaches to further incorporate technology at every stage of the clinical trial process, from enrollment through study completion.