User login
Poor survival with COVID in patients who have had HSCT
Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.
The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.
These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.
The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
Study details
For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.
Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.
Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.
About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.
Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).
Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.
“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”
The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.
However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.
“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.
“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.
The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.
The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.
These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.
The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
Study details
For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.
Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.
Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.
About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.
Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).
Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.
“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”
The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.
However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.
“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.
“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.
The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.
The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.
These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.
The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
Study details
For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.
Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.
Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.
About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.
Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).
Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.
“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”
The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.
However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.
“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.
“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.
The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study: Gynecologic cancer therapy does not increase COVID-19 risks
Women with gynecologic cancers can safely continue anticancer therapy, despite the threat of COVID-19, according to researchers.
The team found no significant association between recent anticancer therapy and COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality among patients with gynecologic cancers and COVID-19.
Some gynecologic cancer patients have expressed concerns that chemotherapy would weaken their immune system and increase their risk of more severe illness if they developed COVID-19, according to Olivia Lara, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at New York University.
Furthermore, some prior studies had shown an increased risk of health complications from COVID-19 among cancer patients. However, patients with gynecologic cancer were underrepresented in those studies.
With all this in mind, Dr. Lara and colleagues conducted a study of 193 patients with gynecologic cancers and COVID-19 who were treated at eight hospital systems in the New York City area from March 2020 through May 2020.
Dr. Lara presented the results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10663).
Study results
Of the 193 patients analyzed, 106 (54.9%) required hospitalization for COVID-19, including 13 (12.3%) who required mechanical ventilation and 39 (36.8%) who required ICU admission. There were 34 patients (17.6%) who died of COVID-19-related complications, including all who required mechanical ventilation.
Multivariable analyses showed that recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, which was used in 13 of the 34 patients who died (38.2%), and recent immunotherapy, which was used in 4 of the 34 patients (11.8%), were not predictive of COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality.
Only current or former smoking was associated with COVID-19-related death (odds ratio, 2.75).
An earlier analysis of data from 121 patients in this cohort showed an association between immunotherapy and COVID-19-related death, but this was no longer statistically significant in the updated analysis.
Factors significantly associated with hospitalization in the updated cohort were age 65 years or older (OR, 2.12), Black race (OR, 2.53), performance status of 2 or greater (OR, 3.67), and the presence of three or more comorbidities (OR, 2.00), the most common of which were hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
More research needed
The current findings show that recent chemotherapy or immunotherapy for gynecologic cancer do not raise the risk of death due to COVID-19, Dr. Lara said, adding that “[w]e can reassure women with gynecologic cancer that they can continue anticancer therapy.”
The finding of a nearly threefold increased risk of hospitalization among Black patients in this study underscores the need for “better understanding of the risks of COVID-19 in vulnerable populations,” Dr. Lara noted.
“Going forward, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care delivery and cancer screening must be evaluated,” she said. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analyses and studies planned to investigate the impact COVID-19 has had on gynecologic cancer care through the SGO registry.”
The current findings are strengthened by the collaborative multicenter study design and use of multivariable analyses, said invited discussant and study coauthor Bhavana Pothuri, MD, of New York University.
However, it is unclear whether the results are generalizable to other parts of the country or world, and whether the outcomes have changed since the initial surge of COVID-19 cases.
Dr. Lara said the fatality rate in this cohort is similar to that of age-matched women with COVID-19 who did not have cancer, and she acknowledged that fatality rates may be lower now than they were early in the pandemic when the study was conducted.
This study was supported, in part, by a Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Dr. Lara reported having no disclosures. Dr. Pothuri disclosed relationships with Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Toray, Mersana, Elevar, and Eisai. She is also a member of GOG Partners leadership.
Women with gynecologic cancers can safely continue anticancer therapy, despite the threat of COVID-19, according to researchers.
The team found no significant association between recent anticancer therapy and COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality among patients with gynecologic cancers and COVID-19.
Some gynecologic cancer patients have expressed concerns that chemotherapy would weaken their immune system and increase their risk of more severe illness if they developed COVID-19, according to Olivia Lara, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at New York University.
Furthermore, some prior studies had shown an increased risk of health complications from COVID-19 among cancer patients. However, patients with gynecologic cancer were underrepresented in those studies.
With all this in mind, Dr. Lara and colleagues conducted a study of 193 patients with gynecologic cancers and COVID-19 who were treated at eight hospital systems in the New York City area from March 2020 through May 2020.
Dr. Lara presented the results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10663).
Study results
Of the 193 patients analyzed, 106 (54.9%) required hospitalization for COVID-19, including 13 (12.3%) who required mechanical ventilation and 39 (36.8%) who required ICU admission. There were 34 patients (17.6%) who died of COVID-19-related complications, including all who required mechanical ventilation.
Multivariable analyses showed that recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, which was used in 13 of the 34 patients who died (38.2%), and recent immunotherapy, which was used in 4 of the 34 patients (11.8%), were not predictive of COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality.
Only current or former smoking was associated with COVID-19-related death (odds ratio, 2.75).
An earlier analysis of data from 121 patients in this cohort showed an association between immunotherapy and COVID-19-related death, but this was no longer statistically significant in the updated analysis.
Factors significantly associated with hospitalization in the updated cohort were age 65 years or older (OR, 2.12), Black race (OR, 2.53), performance status of 2 or greater (OR, 3.67), and the presence of three or more comorbidities (OR, 2.00), the most common of which were hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
More research needed
The current findings show that recent chemotherapy or immunotherapy for gynecologic cancer do not raise the risk of death due to COVID-19, Dr. Lara said, adding that “[w]e can reassure women with gynecologic cancer that they can continue anticancer therapy.”
The finding of a nearly threefold increased risk of hospitalization among Black patients in this study underscores the need for “better understanding of the risks of COVID-19 in vulnerable populations,” Dr. Lara noted.
“Going forward, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care delivery and cancer screening must be evaluated,” she said. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analyses and studies planned to investigate the impact COVID-19 has had on gynecologic cancer care through the SGO registry.”
The current findings are strengthened by the collaborative multicenter study design and use of multivariable analyses, said invited discussant and study coauthor Bhavana Pothuri, MD, of New York University.
However, it is unclear whether the results are generalizable to other parts of the country or world, and whether the outcomes have changed since the initial surge of COVID-19 cases.
Dr. Lara said the fatality rate in this cohort is similar to that of age-matched women with COVID-19 who did not have cancer, and she acknowledged that fatality rates may be lower now than they were early in the pandemic when the study was conducted.
This study was supported, in part, by a Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Dr. Lara reported having no disclosures. Dr. Pothuri disclosed relationships with Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Toray, Mersana, Elevar, and Eisai. She is also a member of GOG Partners leadership.
Women with gynecologic cancers can safely continue anticancer therapy, despite the threat of COVID-19, according to researchers.
The team found no significant association between recent anticancer therapy and COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality among patients with gynecologic cancers and COVID-19.
Some gynecologic cancer patients have expressed concerns that chemotherapy would weaken their immune system and increase their risk of more severe illness if they developed COVID-19, according to Olivia Lara, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at New York University.
Furthermore, some prior studies had shown an increased risk of health complications from COVID-19 among cancer patients. However, patients with gynecologic cancer were underrepresented in those studies.
With all this in mind, Dr. Lara and colleagues conducted a study of 193 patients with gynecologic cancers and COVID-19 who were treated at eight hospital systems in the New York City area from March 2020 through May 2020.
Dr. Lara presented the results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10663).
Study results
Of the 193 patients analyzed, 106 (54.9%) required hospitalization for COVID-19, including 13 (12.3%) who required mechanical ventilation and 39 (36.8%) who required ICU admission. There were 34 patients (17.6%) who died of COVID-19-related complications, including all who required mechanical ventilation.
Multivariable analyses showed that recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, which was used in 13 of the 34 patients who died (38.2%), and recent immunotherapy, which was used in 4 of the 34 patients (11.8%), were not predictive of COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality.
Only current or former smoking was associated with COVID-19-related death (odds ratio, 2.75).
An earlier analysis of data from 121 patients in this cohort showed an association between immunotherapy and COVID-19-related death, but this was no longer statistically significant in the updated analysis.
Factors significantly associated with hospitalization in the updated cohort were age 65 years or older (OR, 2.12), Black race (OR, 2.53), performance status of 2 or greater (OR, 3.67), and the presence of three or more comorbidities (OR, 2.00), the most common of which were hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
More research needed
The current findings show that recent chemotherapy or immunotherapy for gynecologic cancer do not raise the risk of death due to COVID-19, Dr. Lara said, adding that “[w]e can reassure women with gynecologic cancer that they can continue anticancer therapy.”
The finding of a nearly threefold increased risk of hospitalization among Black patients in this study underscores the need for “better understanding of the risks of COVID-19 in vulnerable populations,” Dr. Lara noted.
“Going forward, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care delivery and cancer screening must be evaluated,” she said. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analyses and studies planned to investigate the impact COVID-19 has had on gynecologic cancer care through the SGO registry.”
The current findings are strengthened by the collaborative multicenter study design and use of multivariable analyses, said invited discussant and study coauthor Bhavana Pothuri, MD, of New York University.
However, it is unclear whether the results are generalizable to other parts of the country or world, and whether the outcomes have changed since the initial surge of COVID-19 cases.
Dr. Lara said the fatality rate in this cohort is similar to that of age-matched women with COVID-19 who did not have cancer, and she acknowledged that fatality rates may be lower now than they were early in the pandemic when the study was conducted.
This study was supported, in part, by a Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Dr. Lara reported having no disclosures. Dr. Pothuri disclosed relationships with Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Toray, Mersana, Elevar, and Eisai. She is also a member of GOG Partners leadership.
FROM SGO 2021
Blood cancer patients, survivors hesitate over COVID-19 vaccine
Nearly one in three patients with blood cancer, and survivors, say they are unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine or unsure about getting it if one were available. The findings come from a nationwide survey by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which collected 6,517 responses.
“These findings are worrisome, to say the least,” Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the society, said in a statement.
“We know cancer patients – and blood cancer patients in particular – are susceptible to the worst effects of the virus [and] all of us in the medical community need to help cancer patients understand the importance of getting vaccinated,” she added.
The survey – the largest ever done in which cancer patients and survivors were asked about their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines – was published online March 8 by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
Survey sample
The survey asked patients with blood cancer, and survivors, about their attitudes regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines.
“The main outcome [was] vaccine attitudes,” noted the authors, headed by Rena Conti, PhD, dean’s research scholar, Boston University.
Respondents were asked: “How likely are you to choose to get the vaccine?” Participants could indicate they were very unlikely, unlikely, neither likely nor unlikely, likely, or very likely to get vaccinated.
“We found that 17% of respondents indicate[d] that they [were] unlikely or very unlikely to take a vaccine,” Dr. Conti and colleagues observed.
Among the 17% – deemed to be “vaccine hesitant” – slightly over half (54%) stated they had concerns about the side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination and believed neither of the two newly approved vaccines had been or would ever be tested properly.
The survey authors noted that there is no reason to believe COVID-19 vaccines are any less safe in patients with blood cancers, but concerns have been expressed that patients with some forms of blood cancer or those undergoing certain treatments may not achieve the same immune response to the vaccine as would noncancer controls.
Importantly, the survey was conducted Dec. 1-21, 2020, and responses differed depending on whether respondents answered the survey before or after the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines had been given emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration starting Dec. 10, 2020.
There was a slight increase in positive responses after the vaccines were granted regulatory approval. (One-third of those who responded to the survey after the approval were 3.7% more likely to indicate they would get vaccinated). “This suggests that hesitancy may be influenced by emerging information dissemination, government action, and vaccine availability, transforming the hypothetical opportunity of vaccination to a real one,” the survey authors speculated.
Survey respondents who were vaccine hesitant were also over 14% more likely to indicate that they didn’t think they would require hospitalization should they contract COVID-19. But clinical data have suggested that approximately half of patients with a hematological malignancy who required hospitalization for COVID-19 die from the infection, the authors noted.
“Vaccine hesitant respondents [were] also significantly less likely to engage in protective health behaviors,” the survey authors pointed out. For example, they were almost 4% less likely to have worn a face mask and 1.6% less likely to have taken other protective measures to guard against COVID-19 infection.
Need for clear messaging
To counter vaccine hesitancy, the authors suggest there is a need for clear, consistent messaging targeting patients with cancer that emphasize the risks of COVID-19 and underscore vaccine benefits.
Dr. Conti pointed out that patients with blood cancer are, in fact, being given preferential access to vaccines in many communities, although this clearly doesn’t mean patients are willing to get vaccinated, as she also noted.
“We need both adequate supply and strong demand to keep this vulnerable population safe,” Dr. Conti emphasized.
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society plans to repeat the survey in the near future to assess patients’ and survivors’ access to vaccines as well as their willingness to get vaccinated.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly one in three patients with blood cancer, and survivors, say they are unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine or unsure about getting it if one were available. The findings come from a nationwide survey by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which collected 6,517 responses.
“These findings are worrisome, to say the least,” Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the society, said in a statement.
“We know cancer patients – and blood cancer patients in particular – are susceptible to the worst effects of the virus [and] all of us in the medical community need to help cancer patients understand the importance of getting vaccinated,” she added.
The survey – the largest ever done in which cancer patients and survivors were asked about their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines – was published online March 8 by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
Survey sample
The survey asked patients with blood cancer, and survivors, about their attitudes regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines.
“The main outcome [was] vaccine attitudes,” noted the authors, headed by Rena Conti, PhD, dean’s research scholar, Boston University.
Respondents were asked: “How likely are you to choose to get the vaccine?” Participants could indicate they were very unlikely, unlikely, neither likely nor unlikely, likely, or very likely to get vaccinated.
“We found that 17% of respondents indicate[d] that they [were] unlikely or very unlikely to take a vaccine,” Dr. Conti and colleagues observed.
Among the 17% – deemed to be “vaccine hesitant” – slightly over half (54%) stated they had concerns about the side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination and believed neither of the two newly approved vaccines had been or would ever be tested properly.
The survey authors noted that there is no reason to believe COVID-19 vaccines are any less safe in patients with blood cancers, but concerns have been expressed that patients with some forms of blood cancer or those undergoing certain treatments may not achieve the same immune response to the vaccine as would noncancer controls.
Importantly, the survey was conducted Dec. 1-21, 2020, and responses differed depending on whether respondents answered the survey before or after the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines had been given emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration starting Dec. 10, 2020.
There was a slight increase in positive responses after the vaccines were granted regulatory approval. (One-third of those who responded to the survey after the approval were 3.7% more likely to indicate they would get vaccinated). “This suggests that hesitancy may be influenced by emerging information dissemination, government action, and vaccine availability, transforming the hypothetical opportunity of vaccination to a real one,” the survey authors speculated.
Survey respondents who were vaccine hesitant were also over 14% more likely to indicate that they didn’t think they would require hospitalization should they contract COVID-19. But clinical data have suggested that approximately half of patients with a hematological malignancy who required hospitalization for COVID-19 die from the infection, the authors noted.
“Vaccine hesitant respondents [were] also significantly less likely to engage in protective health behaviors,” the survey authors pointed out. For example, they were almost 4% less likely to have worn a face mask and 1.6% less likely to have taken other protective measures to guard against COVID-19 infection.
Need for clear messaging
To counter vaccine hesitancy, the authors suggest there is a need for clear, consistent messaging targeting patients with cancer that emphasize the risks of COVID-19 and underscore vaccine benefits.
Dr. Conti pointed out that patients with blood cancer are, in fact, being given preferential access to vaccines in many communities, although this clearly doesn’t mean patients are willing to get vaccinated, as she also noted.
“We need both adequate supply and strong demand to keep this vulnerable population safe,” Dr. Conti emphasized.
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society plans to repeat the survey in the near future to assess patients’ and survivors’ access to vaccines as well as their willingness to get vaccinated.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly one in three patients with blood cancer, and survivors, say they are unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine or unsure about getting it if one were available. The findings come from a nationwide survey by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which collected 6,517 responses.
“These findings are worrisome, to say the least,” Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the society, said in a statement.
“We know cancer patients – and blood cancer patients in particular – are susceptible to the worst effects of the virus [and] all of us in the medical community need to help cancer patients understand the importance of getting vaccinated,” she added.
The survey – the largest ever done in which cancer patients and survivors were asked about their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines – was published online March 8 by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
Survey sample
The survey asked patients with blood cancer, and survivors, about their attitudes regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines.
“The main outcome [was] vaccine attitudes,” noted the authors, headed by Rena Conti, PhD, dean’s research scholar, Boston University.
Respondents were asked: “How likely are you to choose to get the vaccine?” Participants could indicate they were very unlikely, unlikely, neither likely nor unlikely, likely, or very likely to get vaccinated.
“We found that 17% of respondents indicate[d] that they [were] unlikely or very unlikely to take a vaccine,” Dr. Conti and colleagues observed.
Among the 17% – deemed to be “vaccine hesitant” – slightly over half (54%) stated they had concerns about the side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination and believed neither of the two newly approved vaccines had been or would ever be tested properly.
The survey authors noted that there is no reason to believe COVID-19 vaccines are any less safe in patients with blood cancers, but concerns have been expressed that patients with some forms of blood cancer or those undergoing certain treatments may not achieve the same immune response to the vaccine as would noncancer controls.
Importantly, the survey was conducted Dec. 1-21, 2020, and responses differed depending on whether respondents answered the survey before or after the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines had been given emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration starting Dec. 10, 2020.
There was a slight increase in positive responses after the vaccines were granted regulatory approval. (One-third of those who responded to the survey after the approval were 3.7% more likely to indicate they would get vaccinated). “This suggests that hesitancy may be influenced by emerging information dissemination, government action, and vaccine availability, transforming the hypothetical opportunity of vaccination to a real one,” the survey authors speculated.
Survey respondents who were vaccine hesitant were also over 14% more likely to indicate that they didn’t think they would require hospitalization should they contract COVID-19. But clinical data have suggested that approximately half of patients with a hematological malignancy who required hospitalization for COVID-19 die from the infection, the authors noted.
“Vaccine hesitant respondents [were] also significantly less likely to engage in protective health behaviors,” the survey authors pointed out. For example, they were almost 4% less likely to have worn a face mask and 1.6% less likely to have taken other protective measures to guard against COVID-19 infection.
Need for clear messaging
To counter vaccine hesitancy, the authors suggest there is a need for clear, consistent messaging targeting patients with cancer that emphasize the risks of COVID-19 and underscore vaccine benefits.
Dr. Conti pointed out that patients with blood cancer are, in fact, being given preferential access to vaccines in many communities, although this clearly doesn’t mean patients are willing to get vaccinated, as she also noted.
“We need both adequate supply and strong demand to keep this vulnerable population safe,” Dr. Conti emphasized.
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society plans to repeat the survey in the near future to assess patients’ and survivors’ access to vaccines as well as their willingness to get vaccinated.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Don’t delay: Cancer patients need both doses of COVID vaccine
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Armpit swelling after COVID-19 vaccine may mimic breast cancer
Clinicians should therefore consider recent COVID-19 vaccination history in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with unilateral axillary adenopathy, according to a new article.
“We noticed an increasing number of patients with swollen lymph nodes on just one side/one underarm who presented for routine screening mammography or ultrasound, and some women who actually felt these swollen nodes,” said author Katerina Dodelzon, MD, assistant professor of clinical radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“Historically, swollen lymph nodes on just one side are relatively rare and are an uncommon occurrence on screening mammography – seen only 0.02%-0.04% of the time – and is a sign that alerts a radiologist to exclude the presence of breast malignancy on that side,” she added.
In an article published in Clinical Imaging, Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues described four cases involving women who received a COVID-19 vaccine and then sought breast screening. In describing these cases, the authors sought “to inform the medical community to consider this benign and self-resolving diagnosis in the setting of what can be alarming presentation of unilateral axillary adenopathy.”
They hope they will decrease unnecessary biopsies and help reassure patients.
Adenopathy has been reported in association with other vaccines, such as the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, influenza vaccines, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, commented Jessica W. T. Leung, MD, president of the Society of Breast Imaging.
“It’s too early to say if there is something different about the COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Leung, who is also professor of diagnostic radiology and deputy chair of breast imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“The two vaccines that are currently in use – Pfizer and Moderna – are both mRNA vaccines, and it is unknown if those will give a stronger immune response,” she said. “If the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines do become available, it will be interesting to see if they elicit as strong a response, since they are not mRNA vaccines. At this time, we have no data to say one way or the other.”
Dr. Leung also noted that these latest vaccine reactions may be getting more attention because “it is COVID-19 related, and everything related to COVID-19 gets more attention.
“It may also be more noticeable because of the large number of people getting vaccinated within a short period of time in an effort to contain the pandemic, and this is not the case with the other vaccines,” she said.
New recommendations from SBI
The SBI recently issued recommendations to clinicians that women who experience axillary adenopathy and who have recently been vaccinated on the same side on which the adenopathy occurs be followed for a few weeks to see whether the lymph nodes return to normal, rather than undergo biopsy.
“Many practices are now routinely inquiring about history of recent vaccination and on which side it was given,” Dr. Dodelzon said. She emphasized that women should feel empowered to share that history if they are not asked.
“Letting your mammography technologist or breast imager know that you have recently been vaccinated, and on which side, will provide the breast imager more accurate context within which to interpret the results,” she said.
In addition, the SBI recommends that, if feasible, women schedule routine screening mammography either before the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or 4-6 weeks after the second dose to avoid a false-positive finding.
“We want to emphasize that screening mammography is very important, and if possible, to schedule it around the vaccine,” commented Dr. Leung. “But that may not be possible, as most of us don’t have a choice when to get the vaccine.”
If it is not possible to reschedule either the mammogram or the vaccine, Dr. Leung recommends that women inform the facility that they have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine. “Currently, we recommend a follow-up in 4-12 weeks,” she said. “The swelling could subside sooner, perhaps even within 1-2 weeks, but we generally recommend waiting at least 4 weeks to capture the majority of women.”
Differences between the vaccines?
The frequency with which axillary adenopathy occurs as a side effect differs with the two COVID-19 vaccines, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For the Moderna vaccine, axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to the vaccination arm was the second most frequently reported local reaction, with 11.6% of recipients aged 18-64 years reporting it after the first dose, and 16.0% reporting it after the second. The average duration of this adenopathy was 1-2 days.
For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC notes that reports of adenopathy were imbalanced between the vaccine and placebo groups and concluded that adenopathy was plausibly related to the vaccine.
The average duration of adenopathy was approximately 10 days.
Adenopathy was reported within 2-4 days after vaccination for both vaccine groups, the CDC noted.
However, details from the cases reported by Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues paint a somewhat different picture. For example, in case 1, the patient self-detected unilateral axillary adenopathy 9 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In case 3, the time between receiving the Moderna vaccine and detection of adenopathy was 13 days.
In both of these cases, the time was much longer than the average duration of 1-2 days noted by the CDC. The authors suggest that in taking the patient’s vaccination history, radiologists understand that the side effect may occur up to several weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination.
In cases 2 and 4, the axillary adenopathy was incidentally noted during mammography, so it is unclear when the onset of this reaction occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
The authors and Dr. Leung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinicians should therefore consider recent COVID-19 vaccination history in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with unilateral axillary adenopathy, according to a new article.
“We noticed an increasing number of patients with swollen lymph nodes on just one side/one underarm who presented for routine screening mammography or ultrasound, and some women who actually felt these swollen nodes,” said author Katerina Dodelzon, MD, assistant professor of clinical radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“Historically, swollen lymph nodes on just one side are relatively rare and are an uncommon occurrence on screening mammography – seen only 0.02%-0.04% of the time – and is a sign that alerts a radiologist to exclude the presence of breast malignancy on that side,” she added.
In an article published in Clinical Imaging, Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues described four cases involving women who received a COVID-19 vaccine and then sought breast screening. In describing these cases, the authors sought “to inform the medical community to consider this benign and self-resolving diagnosis in the setting of what can be alarming presentation of unilateral axillary adenopathy.”
They hope they will decrease unnecessary biopsies and help reassure patients.
Adenopathy has been reported in association with other vaccines, such as the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, influenza vaccines, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, commented Jessica W. T. Leung, MD, president of the Society of Breast Imaging.
“It’s too early to say if there is something different about the COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Leung, who is also professor of diagnostic radiology and deputy chair of breast imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“The two vaccines that are currently in use – Pfizer and Moderna – are both mRNA vaccines, and it is unknown if those will give a stronger immune response,” she said. “If the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines do become available, it will be interesting to see if they elicit as strong a response, since they are not mRNA vaccines. At this time, we have no data to say one way or the other.”
Dr. Leung also noted that these latest vaccine reactions may be getting more attention because “it is COVID-19 related, and everything related to COVID-19 gets more attention.
“It may also be more noticeable because of the large number of people getting vaccinated within a short period of time in an effort to contain the pandemic, and this is not the case with the other vaccines,” she said.
New recommendations from SBI
The SBI recently issued recommendations to clinicians that women who experience axillary adenopathy and who have recently been vaccinated on the same side on which the adenopathy occurs be followed for a few weeks to see whether the lymph nodes return to normal, rather than undergo biopsy.
“Many practices are now routinely inquiring about history of recent vaccination and on which side it was given,” Dr. Dodelzon said. She emphasized that women should feel empowered to share that history if they are not asked.
“Letting your mammography technologist or breast imager know that you have recently been vaccinated, and on which side, will provide the breast imager more accurate context within which to interpret the results,” she said.
In addition, the SBI recommends that, if feasible, women schedule routine screening mammography either before the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or 4-6 weeks after the second dose to avoid a false-positive finding.
“We want to emphasize that screening mammography is very important, and if possible, to schedule it around the vaccine,” commented Dr. Leung. “But that may not be possible, as most of us don’t have a choice when to get the vaccine.”
If it is not possible to reschedule either the mammogram or the vaccine, Dr. Leung recommends that women inform the facility that they have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine. “Currently, we recommend a follow-up in 4-12 weeks,” she said. “The swelling could subside sooner, perhaps even within 1-2 weeks, but we generally recommend waiting at least 4 weeks to capture the majority of women.”
Differences between the vaccines?
The frequency with which axillary adenopathy occurs as a side effect differs with the two COVID-19 vaccines, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For the Moderna vaccine, axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to the vaccination arm was the second most frequently reported local reaction, with 11.6% of recipients aged 18-64 years reporting it after the first dose, and 16.0% reporting it after the second. The average duration of this adenopathy was 1-2 days.
For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC notes that reports of adenopathy were imbalanced between the vaccine and placebo groups and concluded that adenopathy was plausibly related to the vaccine.
The average duration of adenopathy was approximately 10 days.
Adenopathy was reported within 2-4 days after vaccination for both vaccine groups, the CDC noted.
However, details from the cases reported by Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues paint a somewhat different picture. For example, in case 1, the patient self-detected unilateral axillary adenopathy 9 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In case 3, the time between receiving the Moderna vaccine and detection of adenopathy was 13 days.
In both of these cases, the time was much longer than the average duration of 1-2 days noted by the CDC. The authors suggest that in taking the patient’s vaccination history, radiologists understand that the side effect may occur up to several weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination.
In cases 2 and 4, the axillary adenopathy was incidentally noted during mammography, so it is unclear when the onset of this reaction occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
The authors and Dr. Leung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinicians should therefore consider recent COVID-19 vaccination history in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with unilateral axillary adenopathy, according to a new article.
“We noticed an increasing number of patients with swollen lymph nodes on just one side/one underarm who presented for routine screening mammography or ultrasound, and some women who actually felt these swollen nodes,” said author Katerina Dodelzon, MD, assistant professor of clinical radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“Historically, swollen lymph nodes on just one side are relatively rare and are an uncommon occurrence on screening mammography – seen only 0.02%-0.04% of the time – and is a sign that alerts a radiologist to exclude the presence of breast malignancy on that side,” she added.
In an article published in Clinical Imaging, Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues described four cases involving women who received a COVID-19 vaccine and then sought breast screening. In describing these cases, the authors sought “to inform the medical community to consider this benign and self-resolving diagnosis in the setting of what can be alarming presentation of unilateral axillary adenopathy.”
They hope they will decrease unnecessary biopsies and help reassure patients.
Adenopathy has been reported in association with other vaccines, such as the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, influenza vaccines, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, commented Jessica W. T. Leung, MD, president of the Society of Breast Imaging.
“It’s too early to say if there is something different about the COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Leung, who is also professor of diagnostic radiology and deputy chair of breast imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“The two vaccines that are currently in use – Pfizer and Moderna – are both mRNA vaccines, and it is unknown if those will give a stronger immune response,” she said. “If the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines do become available, it will be interesting to see if they elicit as strong a response, since they are not mRNA vaccines. At this time, we have no data to say one way or the other.”
Dr. Leung also noted that these latest vaccine reactions may be getting more attention because “it is COVID-19 related, and everything related to COVID-19 gets more attention.
“It may also be more noticeable because of the large number of people getting vaccinated within a short period of time in an effort to contain the pandemic, and this is not the case with the other vaccines,” she said.
New recommendations from SBI
The SBI recently issued recommendations to clinicians that women who experience axillary adenopathy and who have recently been vaccinated on the same side on which the adenopathy occurs be followed for a few weeks to see whether the lymph nodes return to normal, rather than undergo biopsy.
“Many practices are now routinely inquiring about history of recent vaccination and on which side it was given,” Dr. Dodelzon said. She emphasized that women should feel empowered to share that history if they are not asked.
“Letting your mammography technologist or breast imager know that you have recently been vaccinated, and on which side, will provide the breast imager more accurate context within which to interpret the results,” she said.
In addition, the SBI recommends that, if feasible, women schedule routine screening mammography either before the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or 4-6 weeks after the second dose to avoid a false-positive finding.
“We want to emphasize that screening mammography is very important, and if possible, to schedule it around the vaccine,” commented Dr. Leung. “But that may not be possible, as most of us don’t have a choice when to get the vaccine.”
If it is not possible to reschedule either the mammogram or the vaccine, Dr. Leung recommends that women inform the facility that they have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine. “Currently, we recommend a follow-up in 4-12 weeks,” she said. “The swelling could subside sooner, perhaps even within 1-2 weeks, but we generally recommend waiting at least 4 weeks to capture the majority of women.”
Differences between the vaccines?
The frequency with which axillary adenopathy occurs as a side effect differs with the two COVID-19 vaccines, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For the Moderna vaccine, axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to the vaccination arm was the second most frequently reported local reaction, with 11.6% of recipients aged 18-64 years reporting it after the first dose, and 16.0% reporting it after the second. The average duration of this adenopathy was 1-2 days.
For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC notes that reports of adenopathy were imbalanced between the vaccine and placebo groups and concluded that adenopathy was plausibly related to the vaccine.
The average duration of adenopathy was approximately 10 days.
Adenopathy was reported within 2-4 days after vaccination for both vaccine groups, the CDC noted.
However, details from the cases reported by Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues paint a somewhat different picture. For example, in case 1, the patient self-detected unilateral axillary adenopathy 9 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In case 3, the time between receiving the Moderna vaccine and detection of adenopathy was 13 days.
In both of these cases, the time was much longer than the average duration of 1-2 days noted by the CDC. The authors suggest that in taking the patient’s vaccination history, radiologists understand that the side effect may occur up to several weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination.
In cases 2 and 4, the axillary adenopathy was incidentally noted during mammography, so it is unclear when the onset of this reaction occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
The authors and Dr. Leung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Routine COVID-19 screening unnecessary for cancer outpatients
There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.
The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.
“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).
Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.
Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.
Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.
The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.
Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).
There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.
The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.
“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.
“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”
Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.
Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.
Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.
COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.
Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.
The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.
There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.
The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.
“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).
Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.
Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.
Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.
The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.
Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).
There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.
The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.
“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.
“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”
Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.
Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.
Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.
COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.
Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.
The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.
There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.
The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.
“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).
Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.
Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.
Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.
The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.
Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).
There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.
The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.
“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.
“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”
Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.
Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.
Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.
COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.
Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.
The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 AND CANCER 2021
How has the pandemic affected rural and urban cancer patients?
Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.
Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).
A new survey has provided some insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted rural and urban cancer patients differently.
The survey showed that urban patients were more likely to report changes to their daily lives, thought themselves more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2, and were more likely to take measures to mitigate the risk of infection. However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients with regard to changes in social interaction.
Bailee Daniels of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented these results at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S04-03).
The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium
Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.
At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes
Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.
Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.
Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.
The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients
There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.
More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).
“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic
Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).
However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).
Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).
In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).
Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).
It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
Future directions
Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.
It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.
As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.
In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.
As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.
Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).
A new survey has provided some insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted rural and urban cancer patients differently.
The survey showed that urban patients were more likely to report changes to their daily lives, thought themselves more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2, and were more likely to take measures to mitigate the risk of infection. However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients with regard to changes in social interaction.
Bailee Daniels of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented these results at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S04-03).
The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium
Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.
At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes
Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.
Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.
Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.
The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients
There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.
More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).
“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic
Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).
However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).
Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).
In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).
Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).
It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
Future directions
Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.
It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.
As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.
In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.
As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.
Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).
A new survey has provided some insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted rural and urban cancer patients differently.
The survey showed that urban patients were more likely to report changes to their daily lives, thought themselves more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2, and were more likely to take measures to mitigate the risk of infection. However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients with regard to changes in social interaction.
Bailee Daniels of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented these results at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S04-03).
The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium
Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.
At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes
Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.
Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.
Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.
The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients
There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.
More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).
“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic
Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).
However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).
Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).
In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).
Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).
It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
Future directions
Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.
It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.
As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.
In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.
As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 AND CANCER 2021
‘We can do better’: COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer
Every day, around 1.5 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are being delivered across the United States, but oncologists and patient advocates say that patients with cancer are missing out.
While official bodies recommend that patients with cancer are given priority, only 16 states currently prioritize them in the vaccine rollout. The other 34 states have thus far not singled out patients with cancer for earlier vaccination.
This flies in the face of recommendations from heavy hitters such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Association for Cancer Research.
All are in agreement: Patients on active cancer treatment should be prioritized for available vaccine because of their greater risk of death or complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“All municipalities, states, cities, and even individual hospitals have so far been left to their own devices to try to figure out what the best way to do this is and that often conflicts with other recommendations or guidelines,” said E. John Wherry, PhD, chair of the department of systems pharmacology and translational therapeutics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Wherry was on a panel at an AACR conference last week that discussed the failings of vaccine delivery to cancer patients.
During the meeting, lung cancer advocate Jill Feldman commented on the situation in Chicago, one of the jurisdictions that has not prioritized patients with cancer: “People don’t know what to do. ‘Do I need to sign up myself somewhere? Is my doctor’s office going to contact me?’ ”
Ms. Feldman said many people have called their cancer centers, “but cancer centers aren’t really providing updates directly to us. And they aren’t because they don’t have the information [either].”
Even in the 16 states that have ushered patients with cancer to the front of the line, the process for flagging these individuals is often unclear or nonexistent.
“Everyone that registers is basically on the same playing field ... because there’s no verification process. That’s very unfortunate,” said patient advocate Grace Cordovano, PhD, describing the vaccine sign-up process in New Jersey.
“It’s an easy fix,” said Dr. Cordovano. “Adding a few more fields [in the form] could really make a difference.”
COVID-19 fatality rates are twice as high in people with cancer than in people without cancer, according to a review published in December 2020 by the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force in the journal Cancer Discovery. Hematologic malignancies conferred an especially high risk.
“Any delay in vaccine access will result in loss of life that could be prevented with earlier access to vaccination,” AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, told this news organization at the time.
There are also sound epidemiologic reasons to prioritize high-risk cancer patients for the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Wherry said in an interview. “What we do in infectious disease is to think about where your transmission and your risks are highest,” he said, citing cancer treatment centers as examples.
People with hematologic malignancies also tend to be long-term viral shedders, he said, putting caregivers and health care staff at increased risk. “There’s a big, big impact [in vaccinating cancer patients] and the numbers are not small.”
The CDC’s Jan. 1 recommendation is that patients with cancer should be assigned to priority group 1c, along with other “persons aged 16-64 with other high-risk medical conditions.”
However, more recent guidance from the NCCN hastened the urgency, advising that “patients with cancer should be assigned to the [CDC] priority group 1b/c.”
Out of 16 states that currently prioritize patients with cancer, 3 states have exceeded official advice, placing patients with cancer in priority group 1a. They opened their first batches of vaccine to everyone “deemed extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 by hospital providers” (Florida), or to “16-64 years old with a chronic health condition” (Mississippi) and to “persons aged 16-64 with high-risk conditions” (Pennsylvania, some jurisdictions).
However, despite these heroic intentions, no jurisdiction appears to have specifically tackled the thorny issue of subgroups of cancer that are more urgent than others, and this worries oncologists.
“Not all cancer patients are the same,” said Marina Garassino, MD, a medical oncologist at the National Tumor Institute of Milan. She shared registry data with the AACR panelists indicating that COVID-19 mortality in thoracic and hematologic malignancies rises to 30%-40%, compared with 13% for cancer overall.
At the AACR meeting, Dr. Ribas summed up his feelings on the issue: “It’s clear to me that patients with cancer should be prioritized. We have to then start defining this population and it should be the patient with an active cancer diagnosis undergoing treatment, in particular patients with lung cancers or hematologic malignancies.”
Since patients with cancer as a whole have problems getting timely vaccination – let alone someone with lung cancer or leukemia – the AACR meeting panelists grappled with solutions.
Dr. Cordovano said it was a “no brainer” to start with cancer centers. “Patients there are already registered, they have an account in the electronic health record system, they have insurance information, the care team knows them.”
Vaccination referrals sent directly from oncology centers would eliminate the need for the patient to provide verification or any additional documentation, she pointed out.
However, in New Jersey, cancer centers “have been completely excluded from the process,” she said.
Florida and New Hampshire have somewhat adopted the mechanism suggested by Dr. Cordovano. These states require health care providers to verify that a patient is “especially vulnerable” (Florida) or “medically vulnerable” (New Hampshire) in order for the patient to receive priority vaccine access. In New Hampshire, patients must have at least one other medical condition in addition to cancer to get on the list.
Jia Luo, MD, a medical oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told the meeting that MSKCC has set up a proactive task force that sends “daily emails” to clinic staff highlighting patients eligible for the vaccine. “My sense is, it’s being prioritized to active cancer treatment,” said Dr. Luo. “All of our physicians are currently discussing [it] at each appointment and ... all of our nurses and staff have been talking to our patients on the phone.”
Dr. Cordovano, while advocating hard for cancer patients today, retained optimism about tomorrow: “This isn’t a long-term thing. This is just until things catch up. We knew we were going to have this problem.” Her hope is that, within 6 months, COVID-19 vaccination will become a standard of care in cancer.
Dr. Wherry agreed: “It’s going to take time to catch up with how far behind we are on certain things. ... What we’re seeing is a healthy debate rather than something that we should be concerned about – as long as that debate leads to rapid action.”
“We have to follow the science,” concluded Cordovano. “We can do better than this.”
Dr. Cordovano, Ms. Feldman, and Dr. Wherry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Luo declared a financial relationship with Targeted Oncology. Dr. Ribas declared financial relationships with 4C Biomed, Advaxis, Agilent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Kite-Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Every day, around 1.5 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are being delivered across the United States, but oncologists and patient advocates say that patients with cancer are missing out.
While official bodies recommend that patients with cancer are given priority, only 16 states currently prioritize them in the vaccine rollout. The other 34 states have thus far not singled out patients with cancer for earlier vaccination.
This flies in the face of recommendations from heavy hitters such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Association for Cancer Research.
All are in agreement: Patients on active cancer treatment should be prioritized for available vaccine because of their greater risk of death or complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“All municipalities, states, cities, and even individual hospitals have so far been left to their own devices to try to figure out what the best way to do this is and that often conflicts with other recommendations or guidelines,” said E. John Wherry, PhD, chair of the department of systems pharmacology and translational therapeutics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Wherry was on a panel at an AACR conference last week that discussed the failings of vaccine delivery to cancer patients.
During the meeting, lung cancer advocate Jill Feldman commented on the situation in Chicago, one of the jurisdictions that has not prioritized patients with cancer: “People don’t know what to do. ‘Do I need to sign up myself somewhere? Is my doctor’s office going to contact me?’ ”
Ms. Feldman said many people have called their cancer centers, “but cancer centers aren’t really providing updates directly to us. And they aren’t because they don’t have the information [either].”
Even in the 16 states that have ushered patients with cancer to the front of the line, the process for flagging these individuals is often unclear or nonexistent.
“Everyone that registers is basically on the same playing field ... because there’s no verification process. That’s very unfortunate,” said patient advocate Grace Cordovano, PhD, describing the vaccine sign-up process in New Jersey.
“It’s an easy fix,” said Dr. Cordovano. “Adding a few more fields [in the form] could really make a difference.”
COVID-19 fatality rates are twice as high in people with cancer than in people without cancer, according to a review published in December 2020 by the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force in the journal Cancer Discovery. Hematologic malignancies conferred an especially high risk.
“Any delay in vaccine access will result in loss of life that could be prevented with earlier access to vaccination,” AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, told this news organization at the time.
There are also sound epidemiologic reasons to prioritize high-risk cancer patients for the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Wherry said in an interview. “What we do in infectious disease is to think about where your transmission and your risks are highest,” he said, citing cancer treatment centers as examples.
People with hematologic malignancies also tend to be long-term viral shedders, he said, putting caregivers and health care staff at increased risk. “There’s a big, big impact [in vaccinating cancer patients] and the numbers are not small.”
The CDC’s Jan. 1 recommendation is that patients with cancer should be assigned to priority group 1c, along with other “persons aged 16-64 with other high-risk medical conditions.”
However, more recent guidance from the NCCN hastened the urgency, advising that “patients with cancer should be assigned to the [CDC] priority group 1b/c.”
Out of 16 states that currently prioritize patients with cancer, 3 states have exceeded official advice, placing patients with cancer in priority group 1a. They opened their first batches of vaccine to everyone “deemed extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 by hospital providers” (Florida), or to “16-64 years old with a chronic health condition” (Mississippi) and to “persons aged 16-64 with high-risk conditions” (Pennsylvania, some jurisdictions).
However, despite these heroic intentions, no jurisdiction appears to have specifically tackled the thorny issue of subgroups of cancer that are more urgent than others, and this worries oncologists.
“Not all cancer patients are the same,” said Marina Garassino, MD, a medical oncologist at the National Tumor Institute of Milan. She shared registry data with the AACR panelists indicating that COVID-19 mortality in thoracic and hematologic malignancies rises to 30%-40%, compared with 13% for cancer overall.
At the AACR meeting, Dr. Ribas summed up his feelings on the issue: “It’s clear to me that patients with cancer should be prioritized. We have to then start defining this population and it should be the patient with an active cancer diagnosis undergoing treatment, in particular patients with lung cancers or hematologic malignancies.”
Since patients with cancer as a whole have problems getting timely vaccination – let alone someone with lung cancer or leukemia – the AACR meeting panelists grappled with solutions.
Dr. Cordovano said it was a “no brainer” to start with cancer centers. “Patients there are already registered, they have an account in the electronic health record system, they have insurance information, the care team knows them.”
Vaccination referrals sent directly from oncology centers would eliminate the need for the patient to provide verification or any additional documentation, she pointed out.
However, in New Jersey, cancer centers “have been completely excluded from the process,” she said.
Florida and New Hampshire have somewhat adopted the mechanism suggested by Dr. Cordovano. These states require health care providers to verify that a patient is “especially vulnerable” (Florida) or “medically vulnerable” (New Hampshire) in order for the patient to receive priority vaccine access. In New Hampshire, patients must have at least one other medical condition in addition to cancer to get on the list.
Jia Luo, MD, a medical oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told the meeting that MSKCC has set up a proactive task force that sends “daily emails” to clinic staff highlighting patients eligible for the vaccine. “My sense is, it’s being prioritized to active cancer treatment,” said Dr. Luo. “All of our physicians are currently discussing [it] at each appointment and ... all of our nurses and staff have been talking to our patients on the phone.”
Dr. Cordovano, while advocating hard for cancer patients today, retained optimism about tomorrow: “This isn’t a long-term thing. This is just until things catch up. We knew we were going to have this problem.” Her hope is that, within 6 months, COVID-19 vaccination will become a standard of care in cancer.
Dr. Wherry agreed: “It’s going to take time to catch up with how far behind we are on certain things. ... What we’re seeing is a healthy debate rather than something that we should be concerned about – as long as that debate leads to rapid action.”
“We have to follow the science,” concluded Cordovano. “We can do better than this.”
Dr. Cordovano, Ms. Feldman, and Dr. Wherry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Luo declared a financial relationship with Targeted Oncology. Dr. Ribas declared financial relationships with 4C Biomed, Advaxis, Agilent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Kite-Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Every day, around 1.5 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are being delivered across the United States, but oncologists and patient advocates say that patients with cancer are missing out.
While official bodies recommend that patients with cancer are given priority, only 16 states currently prioritize them in the vaccine rollout. The other 34 states have thus far not singled out patients with cancer for earlier vaccination.
This flies in the face of recommendations from heavy hitters such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Association for Cancer Research.
All are in agreement: Patients on active cancer treatment should be prioritized for available vaccine because of their greater risk of death or complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“All municipalities, states, cities, and even individual hospitals have so far been left to their own devices to try to figure out what the best way to do this is and that often conflicts with other recommendations or guidelines,” said E. John Wherry, PhD, chair of the department of systems pharmacology and translational therapeutics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Wherry was on a panel at an AACR conference last week that discussed the failings of vaccine delivery to cancer patients.
During the meeting, lung cancer advocate Jill Feldman commented on the situation in Chicago, one of the jurisdictions that has not prioritized patients with cancer: “People don’t know what to do. ‘Do I need to sign up myself somewhere? Is my doctor’s office going to contact me?’ ”
Ms. Feldman said many people have called their cancer centers, “but cancer centers aren’t really providing updates directly to us. And they aren’t because they don’t have the information [either].”
Even in the 16 states that have ushered patients with cancer to the front of the line, the process for flagging these individuals is often unclear or nonexistent.
“Everyone that registers is basically on the same playing field ... because there’s no verification process. That’s very unfortunate,” said patient advocate Grace Cordovano, PhD, describing the vaccine sign-up process in New Jersey.
“It’s an easy fix,” said Dr. Cordovano. “Adding a few more fields [in the form] could really make a difference.”
COVID-19 fatality rates are twice as high in people with cancer than in people without cancer, according to a review published in December 2020 by the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force in the journal Cancer Discovery. Hematologic malignancies conferred an especially high risk.
“Any delay in vaccine access will result in loss of life that could be prevented with earlier access to vaccination,” AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, told this news organization at the time.
There are also sound epidemiologic reasons to prioritize high-risk cancer patients for the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Wherry said in an interview. “What we do in infectious disease is to think about where your transmission and your risks are highest,” he said, citing cancer treatment centers as examples.
People with hematologic malignancies also tend to be long-term viral shedders, he said, putting caregivers and health care staff at increased risk. “There’s a big, big impact [in vaccinating cancer patients] and the numbers are not small.”
The CDC’s Jan. 1 recommendation is that patients with cancer should be assigned to priority group 1c, along with other “persons aged 16-64 with other high-risk medical conditions.”
However, more recent guidance from the NCCN hastened the urgency, advising that “patients with cancer should be assigned to the [CDC] priority group 1b/c.”
Out of 16 states that currently prioritize patients with cancer, 3 states have exceeded official advice, placing patients with cancer in priority group 1a. They opened their first batches of vaccine to everyone “deemed extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 by hospital providers” (Florida), or to “16-64 years old with a chronic health condition” (Mississippi) and to “persons aged 16-64 with high-risk conditions” (Pennsylvania, some jurisdictions).
However, despite these heroic intentions, no jurisdiction appears to have specifically tackled the thorny issue of subgroups of cancer that are more urgent than others, and this worries oncologists.
“Not all cancer patients are the same,” said Marina Garassino, MD, a medical oncologist at the National Tumor Institute of Milan. She shared registry data with the AACR panelists indicating that COVID-19 mortality in thoracic and hematologic malignancies rises to 30%-40%, compared with 13% for cancer overall.
At the AACR meeting, Dr. Ribas summed up his feelings on the issue: “It’s clear to me that patients with cancer should be prioritized. We have to then start defining this population and it should be the patient with an active cancer diagnosis undergoing treatment, in particular patients with lung cancers or hematologic malignancies.”
Since patients with cancer as a whole have problems getting timely vaccination – let alone someone with lung cancer or leukemia – the AACR meeting panelists grappled with solutions.
Dr. Cordovano said it was a “no brainer” to start with cancer centers. “Patients there are already registered, they have an account in the electronic health record system, they have insurance information, the care team knows them.”
Vaccination referrals sent directly from oncology centers would eliminate the need for the patient to provide verification or any additional documentation, she pointed out.
However, in New Jersey, cancer centers “have been completely excluded from the process,” she said.
Florida and New Hampshire have somewhat adopted the mechanism suggested by Dr. Cordovano. These states require health care providers to verify that a patient is “especially vulnerable” (Florida) or “medically vulnerable” (New Hampshire) in order for the patient to receive priority vaccine access. In New Hampshire, patients must have at least one other medical condition in addition to cancer to get on the list.
Jia Luo, MD, a medical oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told the meeting that MSKCC has set up a proactive task force that sends “daily emails” to clinic staff highlighting patients eligible for the vaccine. “My sense is, it’s being prioritized to active cancer treatment,” said Dr. Luo. “All of our physicians are currently discussing [it] at each appointment and ... all of our nurses and staff have been talking to our patients on the phone.”
Dr. Cordovano, while advocating hard for cancer patients today, retained optimism about tomorrow: “This isn’t a long-term thing. This is just until things catch up. We knew we were going to have this problem.” Her hope is that, within 6 months, COVID-19 vaccination will become a standard of care in cancer.
Dr. Wherry agreed: “It’s going to take time to catch up with how far behind we are on certain things. ... What we’re seeing is a healthy debate rather than something that we should be concerned about – as long as that debate leads to rapid action.”
“We have to follow the science,” concluded Cordovano. “We can do better than this.”
Dr. Cordovano, Ms. Feldman, and Dr. Wherry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Luo declared a financial relationship with Targeted Oncology. Dr. Ribas declared financial relationships with 4C Biomed, Advaxis, Agilent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Kite-Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CXR-Net: An AI-based diagnostic tool for COVID-19
The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.
Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).
CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.
Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.
“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
Preliminary results and implications
CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.
Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.
The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.
“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.
One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.
“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”
Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.
“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”
Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.
The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.
Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).
CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.
Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.
“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
Preliminary results and implications
CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.
Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.
The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.
“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.
One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.
“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”
Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.
“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”
Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.
The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.
Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).
CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.
Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.
“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
Preliminary results and implications
CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.
Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.
The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.
“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.
One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.
“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”
Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.
“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”
Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 AND CANCER 2021
Asymptomatic screening for COVID-19 in cancer patients still debated
Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).
While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.
The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.
Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional therapy in May 2020.
The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.
Results
Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.
With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.
At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.
In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).
In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.
“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.
“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.
Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.
“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.
“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.
Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.
Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).
While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.
The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.
Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional therapy in May 2020.
The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.
Results
Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.
With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.
At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.
In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).
In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.
“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.
“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.
Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.
“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.
“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.
Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.
Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).
While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.
The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.
Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional therapy in May 2020.
The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.
Results
Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.
With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.
At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.
In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).
In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.
“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.
“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.
Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.
“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.
“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.
Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 AND CANCER 2021