Objective: This post-hoc analysis of the AtTEnd trial explored differences in the prognostic characteristics and in the efficacy of atezolizumab between Asians and non-Asians. Methods: The role of Asian race was evaluated on progression-free survival (PFS) using Cox-models and on time to appearance of new lesions using Fine and Gray models. Results: From October 2018 to February 2022, 549 patients were randomized, of whom, 20.4% were Asian. Asians showed a better prognostic profile in terms of age, body mass index, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease status and previous treatments. The prognostic impact of Asian race on PFS was confirmed in the placebo arm (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.24–0.70). In proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) tumors, the HRs for PFS comparing atezolizumab versus placebo were 0.82 (95% CI=0.63–1.05) in non-Asians, and 1.42 (95% CI=0.80–2.50) in Asians. In the pMMR population randomized to atezolizumab, the subdistribution HRs comparing Asians to non-Asians were 0.68 (95% CI=0.43–1.09) for progression with new lesions and 1.21 (95% CI=0.73–2.03) for progression without new lesions. Asians showed a higher occurrence of severe adverse events in atezolizumab compared to placebo arm (Asians: 82.1% vs. 64.3%, p=0.036; non-Asian: 63.3% vs. 63.6%, p=0.949). Conclusion Race seems to affect the safety of the addition of atezolizumab and, in pMMR tumors, also its efficacy. In the atezolizumab arm, Asian patients seem to have a lower cumulative incidence of new lesions when primary tumor regrowth was considered a competing risk, and a higher cumulative incidence of primary tumor regrowth when new lesions appearance was the competing risk.

Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, efforts in defining risk factors and associations between the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), clinical, and molecular features have initiated. After three years of pandemic, it became evident that men have higher risk of adverse outcomes. Such evidence provided the impetus for defining the biological fundaments of such a gender disparity. Our objective was to analyze the most recent literature with the aim of defining the relationship between COVID-19 and fertility, in particular, we assessed the interplay between SARSCoV-2 and testosterone in a systematic review of literature from December 2019 (first evidence of a novel coronavirus in the Hubei province) until March 2022. As a fundamental basis for understanding, articles pertaining preclinical aspects explaining the gender disparity (n=9) were included. The main review categories analyzed the risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 according to testosterone levels (n=5), the impact of serum testosterone on outcomes of COVID-19 (n=23), and the impact SARSCoV-2 on testosterone levels after infection (n=19). Preclinical studies mainly evaluated the relation between angiotensinconverting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and its androgen-mediated regulation, articles exploring the risk of COVID-19 according to testosterone levels were few. Although most publications evaluating the effect of COVID-19 on fertility found low testosterone levels after the infection, follow-up was short, with some also suggesting no alterations during recovery. More conclusive findings were observed in men with low testosterone levels, that were generally at higher risk of experiencing worse outcomes (i.e., admission to intensive care units, longer hospitalization, and death). Interestingly, an inverse relationship was observed in women, where higher levels of testosterone were associated to worse outcomes. Our finding may provide meaningful insights to better patient counselling and individualization of care pathways in men with testosterone levels suggesting hypogonadism.