METHODS: HRD status was determined using the ACTHRD assay, an enrichment-based targeted next-generation sequencing assay. PD-L1 expression was assessed by SP263 immunohistochemistry assay. PD-L1 expression positivity was defined by the PD-L1 expression on ≥ 1% of immune cells. Kaplan-Meier method was utilised to analyse progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS: This exploratory biomarker analysis included 225 patients and tested HRD status [N = 190; positive, N = 125 (65.8%)], PD-L1 expression [N = 196; positive, N = 56 (28.6%)], and BRCA1/2 mutation status (N = 219). The HRD-positive patients displayed greater median PFS than the HRD-negative patients [17.9 months (95% CI: 14.5-22.1) versus 9.2 months (95% CI: 7.5-13.8)]. PD-L1 was predominantly expressed on immune cells. Positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with shortened median PFS in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations [14.5 months (95% CI: 7.4-18.2) versus 22.2 months (95% CI: 18.3-NA)]. Conversely, positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with prolonged median PFS in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2 [20.9 months (95% CI: 13.9-NA) versus 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.7-13.8)].

CONCLUSIONS: HRD remained an effective biomarker for enhanced olaparib efficacy in the Asian patients with PSROC. Positive PD-L1 expression was associated with decreased olaparib efficacy in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations but associated with improved olaparib efficacy in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2.

METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed at two chemotherapy providers. Patients were questioned about use of three categories of CAM, mind-body practices (MBPs), natural products (NPs) and traditional medicine (TM). PFH was also examined separately from CAM to better characterise the patterns of CAM and PFH used during chemotherapy.

RESULTS: A total of 546 eligible patients participated in the study; 70.7% (n = 386) reported using some form of CAM, and 29.3% (n = 160) were non-CAM users. When PFH was excluded as a CAM, fewer patients reported the use of CAM (66.1%; n = 361). The total number of patients who used MBPs decreased from 342 to 183. The most common CAM use category was NPs (82.8%), followed by MBPs (50.7%), and TM (35.7%). CAM users were more likely to have a tertiary education (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15-3.89 vs. primary/lower), have household incomes > RM 3,000 (≈944 USD) per month (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.40-3.84 vs. ≤RM 3,000 (≈944 USD)), and have advanced cancer (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18-2.59 vs. early stage cancer), compared with non-CAM users. The CAM users were less likely to have their chemotherapy on schedule (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.58 vs. chemotherapy postponed) than non-CAM users. Most MBPs were perceived to be more helpful by their users, compared with the users of NPs and TM.

AIM AND METHODS: We made a flash survey on COVID-19 incidence and severity among children on anticancer treatment. Respondents were asked by email to fill in a short Web-based survey.

RESULTS: We received reports from 25 countries, where approximately 10,000 patients at risk are followed up. At the time of the survey, more than 200 of these children were tested, nine of whom were positive for COVID-19. Eight of the nine cases had asymptomatic to mild disease, and one was just diagnosed with COVID-19. We also discuss preventive measures that are in place or should be taken and treatment options in immunocompromised children with COVID-19.