AVAHO

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Northeast Ohio Healthcare System has been eaching out directly by postal mail to hundreds of veterans with cancer who may have been exposed to Agent Orange or contaminated water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Advocates say they’ve connected dozens to “service-connected” benefits that pay for 100% of the veterans’ care and can potentially provide support to their spouses after they pass away.

The details and outcomes of the outreach project were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and in person in Denver, Colorado, from September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Once you get a devastating diagnosis like cancer, you’ve got enough going on in your head. You shouldn’t have to worry about what the next step is in the benefit process,” said VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System outreach coordinator Willie J. Berry in an interview. “We want you to focus on your care and not have to worry about anything else.”

Agent Orange, made up of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, was used to defoliate forests and kill crops during the Vietnam War. Through “100% service connection” the VA fully covers benefits for certain cancers and other diseases for veterans who are considered to have been exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Veterans do not need to pay copays in these cases, Berry said, and care outside the VA may be fully funded once arrangements are made.

The VA also fully covers benefits for a similar list of diseases, also including some types of cancer, for veterans who are considered to have been exposed to a contaminated water supply at Camp Lejeune in the early 1980s.

Vietnam War veterans may not be aware of the Agent Orange benefits due to a negative perception of the VA, Berry said. “They were treated poorly [by the VA] and didn’t want to have anything to do with it.”

In the first phase of the project, the VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System tried to reach potentially eligible veterans with both cancer and possible Agent Orange exposure via phone. Seventy veterans were referred to outreach coordinators, and 16 received 100% service connection after 6 months. The latter number later grew to 34.

“The most inefficient thing were doing was calling veterans one by one,” Berry said. “We felt a mailer would be more efficient in order to reach more people.”

For the second phase, in 2021, coordinators sent informational “Dear veteran” mailers to 427 veterans with cancer who may be eligible for special Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune benefits based on their service history.

The Agent Orange letters began this way: “Through a recent medical diagnosis, VA has identified you as possibly being impacted by a change in Agent Orange Exposure legislation.” The letters then list the eligible conditions, which as of 2021 now include bladder cancer, hyperthyroidism and parkinsonism.

The letters also note that “claims often enhance a veteran’s VA compensation and reduce their cost of care. Additionally, if a veteran were to succumb to a diagnosis that they were service connected for, their spouse might be able to receive both VA health care (until the age of Medicare eligibility) as well as financial benefits for the rest of their life.”

If veterans were terminally ill, the application process for the special benefits could be expedited, Berry said. The number of veterans who received 100% service connection in the second phase of the project was not provided.

No study funding is reported. Berry has no disclosures.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Northeast Ohio Healthcare System has been eaching out directly by postal mail to hundreds of veterans with cancer who may have been exposed to Agent Orange or contaminated water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Advocates say they’ve connected dozens to “service-connected” benefits that pay for 100% of the veterans’ care and can potentially provide support to their spouses after they pass away.

The details and outcomes of the outreach project were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and in person in Denver, Colorado, from September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Once you get a devastating diagnosis like cancer, you’ve got enough going on in your head. You shouldn’t have to worry about what the next step is in the benefit process,” said VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System outreach coordinator Willie J. Berry in an interview. “We want you to focus on your care and not have to worry about anything else.”

Agent Orange, made up of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, was used to defoliate forests and kill crops during the Vietnam War. Through “100% service connection” the VA fully covers benefits for certain cancers and other diseases for veterans who are considered to have been exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Veterans do not need to pay copays in these cases, Berry said, and care outside the VA may be fully funded once arrangements are made.

The VA also fully covers benefits for a similar list of diseases, also including some types of cancer, for veterans who are considered to have been exposed to a contaminated water supply at Camp Lejeune in the early 1980s.

Vietnam War veterans may not be aware of the Agent Orange benefits due to a negative perception of the VA, Berry said. “They were treated poorly [by the VA] and didn’t want to have anything to do with it.”

In the first phase of the project, the VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System tried to reach potentially eligible veterans with both cancer and possible Agent Orange exposure via phone. Seventy veterans were referred to outreach coordinators, and 16 received 100% service connection after 6 months. The latter number later grew to 34.

“The most inefficient thing were doing was calling veterans one by one,” Berry said. “We felt a mailer would be more efficient in order to reach more people.”

For the second phase, in 2021, coordinators sent informational “Dear veteran” mailers to 427 veterans with cancer who may be eligible for special Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune benefits based on their service history.

The Agent Orange letters began this way: “Through a recent medical diagnosis, VA has identified you as possibly being impacted by a change in Agent Orange Exposure legislation.” The letters then list the eligible conditions, which as of 2021 now include bladder cancer, hyperthyroidism and parkinsonism.

The letters also note that “claims often enhance a veteran’s VA compensation and reduce their cost of care. Additionally, if a veteran were to succumb to a diagnosis that they were service connected for, their spouse might be able to receive both VA health care (until the age of Medicare eligibility) as well as financial benefits for the rest of their life.”

If veterans were terminally ill, the application process for the special benefits could be expedited, Berry said. The number of veterans who received 100% service connection in the second phase of the project was not provided.

No study funding is reported. Berry has no disclosures.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Northeast Ohio Healthcare System has been eaching out directly by postal mail to hundreds of veterans with cancer who may have been exposed to Agent Orange or contaminated water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Advocates say they’ve connected dozens to “service-connected” benefits that pay for 100% of the veterans’ care and can potentially provide support to their spouses after they pass away.

The details and outcomes of the outreach project were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and in person in Denver, Colorado, from September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Once you get a devastating diagnosis like cancer, you’ve got enough going on in your head. You shouldn’t have to worry about what the next step is in the benefit process,” said VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System outreach coordinator Willie J. Berry in an interview. “We want you to focus on your care and not have to worry about anything else.”

Agent Orange, made up of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, was used to defoliate forests and kill crops during the Vietnam War. Through “100% service connection” the VA fully covers benefits for certain cancers and other diseases for veterans who are considered to have been exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Veterans do not need to pay copays in these cases, Berry said, and care outside the VA may be fully funded once arrangements are made.

The VA also fully covers benefits for a similar list of diseases, also including some types of cancer, for veterans who are considered to have been exposed to a contaminated water supply at Camp Lejeune in the early 1980s.

Vietnam War veterans may not be aware of the Agent Orange benefits due to a negative perception of the VA, Berry said. “They were treated poorly [by the VA] and didn’t want to have anything to do with it.”

In the first phase of the project, the VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System tried to reach potentially eligible veterans with both cancer and possible Agent Orange exposure via phone. Seventy veterans were referred to outreach coordinators, and 16 received 100% service connection after 6 months. The latter number later grew to 34.

“The most inefficient thing were doing was calling veterans one by one,” Berry said. “We felt a mailer would be more efficient in order to reach more people.”

For the second phase, in 2021, coordinators sent informational “Dear veteran” mailers to 427 veterans with cancer who may be eligible for special Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune benefits based on their service history.

The Agent Orange letters began this way: “Through a recent medical diagnosis, VA has identified you as possibly being impacted by a change in Agent Orange Exposure legislation.” The letters then list the eligible conditions, which as of 2021 now include bladder cancer, hyperthyroidism and parkinsonism.

The letters also note that “claims often enhance a veteran’s VA compensation and reduce their cost of care. Additionally, if a veteran were to succumb to a diagnosis that they were service connected for, their spouse might be able to receive both VA health care (until the age of Medicare eligibility) as well as financial benefits for the rest of their life.”

If veterans were terminally ill, the application process for the special benefits could be expedited, Berry said. The number of veterans who received 100% service connection in the second phase of the project was not provided.

No study funding is reported. Berry has no disclosures.

Community outreach coordinators identified Veterans who were not aware of their entitlement to service-connected benefits. Veterans were also unaware of the importance of adding new presumptive diagnoses to their existing service connection and were unaware of new conditions that were added to the presumptive lists. Many Veterans, unaware of the Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune presumptive conditions, were paying out of pocket for their oncology care. A project was developed between community outreach and oncology to identify, and contact Veterans newly diagnosed with cancers on the presumptive list for Vietnam and Camp Lejeune. The goals for the project were to: Increase presumptive condition awareness, assist Veterans in navigating the VHA, VBA and VSC (Veteran Service Commission) and provide a VA resource for the Veterans for assistance. Oncology team reviewed the cancer registry each month and identified Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era or the Marine Corps and contacted them to screen for military history. If a Veteran met the time and location qualifications, the Veteran was referred to the community outreach coordinators. The coordinators then further screened the Veterans for eligibility, assisted the Veterans in initiating their claims applications and connected the Veterans with their local VSC. At the six month follow up, 74 Veterans had been referred to community outreach, and 16 Veterans had received 100% service connection. It is important to note, the benefits application process can take several months to complete under normal circumstances. Since implementation the project has been revised. The project team developed mailers to alert Veterans of: Potential benefits eligibility, importance for filing claims, contact information for their local VSC and contact information for VA Outreach for additional assistance. Informatics was recruited to assist with identifying Veterans who met the service criteria and providing their addresses. The Veterans identified were then sent mailers, which expedited the process, allowing the project team to reach more Veterans in a shorter timeframe. Since project initiation, 74 Veterans were contacted directly by outreach coordinators, 273 mailers have been sent to potentially eligible Veterans, and 34 have received 100% service connection to date. al center will continue this practice moving forward.

Community outreach coordinators identified Veterans who were not aware of their entitlement to service-connected benefits. Veterans were also unaware of the importance of adding new presumptive diagnoses to their existing service connection and were unaware of new conditions that were added to the presumptive lists. Many Veterans, unaware of the Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune presumptive conditions, were paying out of pocket for their oncology care. A project was developed between community outreach and oncology to identify, and contact Veterans newly diagnosed with cancers on the presumptive list for Vietnam and Camp Lejeune. The goals for the project were to: Increase presumptive condition awareness, assist Veterans in navigating the VHA, VBA and VSC (Veteran Service Commission) and provide a VA resource for the Veterans for assistance. Oncology team reviewed the cancer registry each month and identified Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era or the Marine Corps and contacted them to screen for military history. If a Veteran met the time and location qualifications, the Veteran was referred to the community outreach coordinators. The coordinators then further screened the Veterans for eligibility, assisted the Veterans in initiating their claims applications and connected the Veterans with their local VSC. At the six month follow up, 74 Veterans had been referred to community outreach, and 16 Veterans had received 100% service connection. It is important to note, the benefits application process can take several months to complete under normal circumstances. Since implementation the project has been revised. The project team developed mailers to alert Veterans of: Potential benefits eligibility, importance for filing claims, contact information for their local VSC and contact information for VA Outreach for additional assistance. Informatics was recruited to assist with identifying Veterans who met the service criteria and providing their addresses. The Veterans identified were then sent mailers, which expedited the process, allowing the project team to reach more Veterans in a shorter timeframe. Since project initiation, 74 Veterans were contacted directly by outreach coordinators, 273 mailers have been sent to potentially eligible Veterans, and 34 have received 100% service connection to date. al center will continue this practice moving forward.

Community outreach coordinators identified Veterans who were not aware of their entitlement to service-connected benefits. Veterans were also unaware of the importance of adding new presumptive diagnoses to their existing service connection and were unaware of new conditions that were added to the presumptive lists. Many Veterans, unaware of the Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune presumptive conditions, were paying out of pocket for their oncology care. A project was developed between community outreach and oncology to identify, and contact Veterans newly diagnosed with cancers on the presumptive list for Vietnam and Camp Lejeune. The goals for the project were to: Increase presumptive condition awareness, assist Veterans in navigating the VHA, VBA and VSC (Veteran Service Commission) and provide a VA resource for the Veterans for assistance. Oncology team reviewed the cancer registry each month and identified Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era or the Marine Corps and contacted them to screen for military history. If a Veteran met the time and location qualifications, the Veteran was referred to the community outreach coordinators. The coordinators then further screened the Veterans for eligibility, assisted the Veterans in initiating their claims applications and connected the Veterans with their local VSC. At the six month follow up, 74 Veterans had been referred to community outreach, and 16 Veterans had received 100% service connection. It is important to note, the benefits application process can take several months to complete under normal circumstances. Since implementation the project has been revised. The project team developed mailers to alert Veterans of: Potential benefits eligibility, importance for filing claims, contact information for their local VSC and contact information for VA Outreach for additional assistance. Informatics was recruited to assist with identifying Veterans who met the service criteria and providing their addresses. The Veterans identified were then sent mailers, which expedited the process, allowing the project team to reach more Veterans in a shorter timeframe. Since project initiation, 74 Veterans were contacted directly by outreach coordinators, 273 mailers have been sent to potentially eligible Veterans, and 34 have received 100% service connection to date. al center will continue this practice moving forward.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients in their 90s with cancer tolerated immunotherapy well with few serious adverse effects, and they lived for an average of 1.6 years after treatment, a small new study within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system reports.

Only 6.3% of 48 patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experienced the most severe types of side effects – grade III/IV events – and a total of 27% had any adverse effects, according to the report, which was presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and inperson in Denver Colorado, September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Our project should help give confidence to oncologists treating the elderly,” said Andrew Joseph Benefield, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Immunotherapy can be given safely and likely effectively in select individuals over the age of 90 with good performance status.”

Benefield and colleagues launched their study to gain insight into a little-studied area: How does cancer treatment affects nonagenarians? “I think many oncologists have been in a situation where they encounter an individual over the age of 90 years who has a good performance status, and they've wondered if immunotherapy would be helpful and safe, particularly given our knowledge of waning immune strength as people age,” he said.

The researchers retrospectively tracked patients with cancer who were at least 90 years old from 2016 to 2017 and were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most were fit or fairly fit with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) physical performance scales of 0 or 1 (n = 26), and nearly all had cancer in stage IV (n = 42). Melanoma was the most common type of cancer (n = 19), followed by non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 15). Patients were treated with an average of 12.2 cycles.

“In general, we saw that treatment was well-tolerated,” Dr. Benefield said. “We also noted that a trend toward better long-term survival outcomes in individuals with very good performance status at the start of treatment. We hope to parse this out more as we add more data to our data-set, as the numbers are still too small for confident direct comparison.”

Dr. Benefield said he has treated a limited number of patients in their 90s who were highly physical fit for their age and “very eager” to be treated. “They wanted to do anything they could to maintain their lifestyle,” he said. “In my experience, aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for developing toxicities has been most helpful.”

The researchers don’t know the causes of death of many of the patients, and it’s not clear how they fared in their final days. Still, Dr. Benefield said, “extending someone's life by more than 1 year with relatively low risk of adverse effects is reasonable.”

Oncologist Melisa Wong, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed the study and said in an interview that it “a valuable description of outcomes for nonagenarians receiving immunotherapy in the VA healthcare system.” As she noted, “many other studies of immunotherapy among older adults focus on patients aged 65 or 70 and older while very few focus on octogenarians or nonagenarians.”

The findings suggest that “it is important to move beyond chronological age and assess patients’ physiologic age through a geriatric assessment,” she said. “Geriatric assessment-derived risk scores have been shown to predict chemotherapy toxicity for older adults and research to develop similar tools for immunotherapy are ongoing.”

However, she cautioned that older patients may become suffer so much from the most common side effect of immunotherapy -- fatigue – that “their independence is at stake.”

“Some of these patient choose to stop immunotherapy because the side effects aren’t worth it anymore,” she said. “The challenge for oncologists is not knowing in advance which patients will fall into each of these categories.”

She added that her geriatric oncology research focuses on improving risk stratification for older adults, such as those who are at least 70 with lung adenocarcinoma.

Oncologist Grant R. Williams, MD, MSPH, director of the Cancer & Aging Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed in an interview that comprehensive geriatric assessments are important to guide treatment in the oldest adults. “In addition, it is important to elicit the goals of treatment as well,” he said. “For older adults that are fit or at least pre-frail and desire aggressive treatment, immunotherapy is a very reasonable approach, particularly when patients are closely monitored for side effects.”

No study funding is reported. The authors report no disclosures. Dr. Wong discloses an immediate family member is an employee and stock holder of Genentech. Dr. Williams has no disclosures.

Patients in their 90s with cancer tolerated immunotherapy well with few serious adverse effects, and they lived for an average of 1.6 years after treatment, a small new study within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system reports.

Only 6.3% of 48 patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experienced the most severe types of side effects – grade III/IV events – and a total of 27% had any adverse effects, according to the report, which was presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and inperson in Denver Colorado, September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Our project should help give confidence to oncologists treating the elderly,” said Andrew Joseph Benefield, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Immunotherapy can be given safely and likely effectively in select individuals over the age of 90 with good performance status.”

Benefield and colleagues launched their study to gain insight into a little-studied area: How does cancer treatment affects nonagenarians? “I think many oncologists have been in a situation where they encounter an individual over the age of 90 years who has a good performance status, and they've wondered if immunotherapy would be helpful and safe, particularly given our knowledge of waning immune strength as people age,” he said.

The researchers retrospectively tracked patients with cancer who were at least 90 years old from 2016 to 2017 and were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most were fit or fairly fit with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) physical performance scales of 0 or 1 (n = 26), and nearly all had cancer in stage IV (n = 42). Melanoma was the most common type of cancer (n = 19), followed by non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 15). Patients were treated with an average of 12.2 cycles.

“In general, we saw that treatment was well-tolerated,” Dr. Benefield said. “We also noted that a trend toward better long-term survival outcomes in individuals with very good performance status at the start of treatment. We hope to parse this out more as we add more data to our data-set, as the numbers are still too small for confident direct comparison.”

Dr. Benefield said he has treated a limited number of patients in their 90s who were highly physical fit for their age and “very eager” to be treated. “They wanted to do anything they could to maintain their lifestyle,” he said. “In my experience, aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for developing toxicities has been most helpful.”

The researchers don’t know the causes of death of many of the patients, and it’s not clear how they fared in their final days. Still, Dr. Benefield said, “extending someone's life by more than 1 year with relatively low risk of adverse effects is reasonable.”

Oncologist Melisa Wong, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed the study and said in an interview that it “a valuable description of outcomes for nonagenarians receiving immunotherapy in the VA healthcare system.” As she noted, “many other studies of immunotherapy among older adults focus on patients aged 65 or 70 and older while very few focus on octogenarians or nonagenarians.”

The findings suggest that “it is important to move beyond chronological age and assess patients’ physiologic age through a geriatric assessment,” she said. “Geriatric assessment-derived risk scores have been shown to predict chemotherapy toxicity for older adults and research to develop similar tools for immunotherapy are ongoing.”

However, she cautioned that older patients may become suffer so much from the most common side effect of immunotherapy -- fatigue – that “their independence is at stake.”

“Some of these patient choose to stop immunotherapy because the side effects aren’t worth it anymore,” she said. “The challenge for oncologists is not knowing in advance which patients will fall into each of these categories.”

She added that her geriatric oncology research focuses on improving risk stratification for older adults, such as those who are at least 70 with lung adenocarcinoma.

Oncologist Grant R. Williams, MD, MSPH, director of the Cancer & Aging Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed in an interview that comprehensive geriatric assessments are important to guide treatment in the oldest adults. “In addition, it is important to elicit the goals of treatment as well,” he said. “For older adults that are fit or at least pre-frail and desire aggressive treatment, immunotherapy is a very reasonable approach, particularly when patients are closely monitored for side effects.”

No study funding is reported. The authors report no disclosures. Dr. Wong discloses an immediate family member is an employee and stock holder of Genentech. Dr. Williams has no disclosures.

Patients in their 90s with cancer tolerated immunotherapy well with few serious adverse effects, and they lived for an average of 1.6 years after treatment, a small new study within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system reports.

Only 6.3% of 48 patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experienced the most severe types of side effects – grade III/IV events – and a total of 27% had any adverse effects, according to the report, which was presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and inperson in Denver Colorado, September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Our project should help give confidence to oncologists treating the elderly,” said Andrew Joseph Benefield, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Immunotherapy can be given safely and likely effectively in select individuals over the age of 90 with good performance status.”

Benefield and colleagues launched their study to gain insight into a little-studied area: How does cancer treatment affects nonagenarians? “I think many oncologists have been in a situation where they encounter an individual over the age of 90 years who has a good performance status, and they've wondered if immunotherapy would be helpful and safe, particularly given our knowledge of waning immune strength as people age,” he said.

The researchers retrospectively tracked patients with cancer who were at least 90 years old from 2016 to 2017 and were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most were fit or fairly fit with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) physical performance scales of 0 or 1 (n = 26), and nearly all had cancer in stage IV (n = 42). Melanoma was the most common type of cancer (n = 19), followed by non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 15). Patients were treated with an average of 12.2 cycles.

“In general, we saw that treatment was well-tolerated,” Dr. Benefield said. “We also noted that a trend toward better long-term survival outcomes in individuals with very good performance status at the start of treatment. We hope to parse this out more as we add more data to our data-set, as the numbers are still too small for confident direct comparison.”

Dr. Benefield said he has treated a limited number of patients in their 90s who were highly physical fit for their age and “very eager” to be treated. “They wanted to do anything they could to maintain their lifestyle,” he said. “In my experience, aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for developing toxicities has been most helpful.”

The researchers don’t know the causes of death of many of the patients, and it’s not clear how they fared in their final days. Still, Dr. Benefield said, “extending someone's life by more than 1 year with relatively low risk of adverse effects is reasonable.”

Oncologist Melisa Wong, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed the study and said in an interview that it “a valuable description of outcomes for nonagenarians receiving immunotherapy in the VA healthcare system.” As she noted, “many other studies of immunotherapy among older adults focus on patients aged 65 or 70 and older while very few focus on octogenarians or nonagenarians.”

The findings suggest that “it is important to move beyond chronological age and assess patients’ physiologic age through a geriatric assessment,” she said. “Geriatric assessment-derived risk scores have been shown to predict chemotherapy toxicity for older adults and research to develop similar tools for immunotherapy are ongoing.”

However, she cautioned that older patients may become suffer so much from the most common side effect of immunotherapy -- fatigue – that “their independence is at stake.”

“Some of these patient choose to stop immunotherapy because the side effects aren’t worth it anymore,” she said. “The challenge for oncologists is not knowing in advance which patients will fall into each of these categories.”

She added that her geriatric oncology research focuses on improving risk stratification for older adults, such as those who are at least 70 with lung adenocarcinoma.

Oncologist Grant R. Williams, MD, MSPH, director of the Cancer & Aging Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed in an interview that comprehensive geriatric assessments are important to guide treatment in the oldest adults. “In addition, it is important to elicit the goals of treatment as well,” he said. “For older adults that are fit or at least pre-frail and desire aggressive treatment, immunotherapy is a very reasonable approach, particularly when patients are closely monitored for side effects.”

No study funding is reported. The authors report no disclosures. Dr. Wong discloses an immediate family member is an employee and stock holder of Genentech. Dr. Williams has no disclosures.

Background

We sought to evaluate passive recruitment efforts of VA patients into a precision medicine research program. Access to clinical trials and other research opportunities is important to discovering new disease treatments and better ways to detect, diagnose, and reduce disease risk. The WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk) Study is a multi-site, pragmatic trial with webbased participation based at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) that aims to move breast cancer screening away from its current one-size-fitsall approach to one that is personalized based on each woman’s individual risk.

Methods

We created a hub and spoke recruitment model with the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) serving as the central hub of passive recruitment activities and eligible VA facilities that agreed to participate serving as the spoke recruitment sites. Eligible facilities had at least 3,000 women patients, VA clinical genetic services available, a site lead from the VA Women’s Health-Practice-Based Research Network, and mammography on site. Site participation involved permission for the research team to email eligible patients (women aged 40-74 without prior breast cancer diagnosis) about the WISDOM Study. We evaluated the effectiveness of the recruitment by assessing trends in enrollment and monitoring participation of VA patients in the WISDOM Study. Analysis: Pre/post frequencies of women consenting to participate in the WISDOM Study.

Results

From 5/24/2021 through 6/21/2021, we emailed 27,061 eligible VA patients from six participating VA facilities. Prior to the VA emailing, an average of 22 women per week consented to participating in the WISDOM Study and none were Veterans. After the first month of the VA emailing, an average of 186 women per week consented – a 7.5-fold increase. Additionally, during the first month of VA emailing, 81% of women registering with the WISDOM Study said they heard about the study from the VA.

Implications

The VA has recently approved of emailing as a method for recruiting research subjects. Our results demonstrate this is a feasible approach for precision medicine research, a growing area of research in VA and at academic affiliates.

Background

We sought to evaluate passive recruitment efforts of VA patients into a precision medicine research program. Access to clinical trials and other research opportunities is important to discovering new disease treatments and better ways to detect, diagnose, and reduce disease risk. The WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk) Study is a multi-site, pragmatic trial with webbased participation based at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) that aims to move breast cancer screening away from its current one-size-fitsall approach to one that is personalized based on each woman’s individual risk.

Methods

We created a hub and spoke recruitment model with the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) serving as the central hub of passive recruitment activities and eligible VA facilities that agreed to participate serving as the spoke recruitment sites. Eligible facilities had at least 3,000 women patients, VA clinical genetic services available, a site lead from the VA Women’s Health-Practice-Based Research Network, and mammography on site. Site participation involved permission for the research team to email eligible patients (women aged 40-74 without prior breast cancer diagnosis) about the WISDOM Study. We evaluated the effectiveness of the recruitment by assessing trends in enrollment and monitoring participation of VA patients in the WISDOM Study. Analysis: Pre/post frequencies of women consenting to participate in the WISDOM Study.

Results

From 5/24/2021 through 6/21/2021, we emailed 27,061 eligible VA patients from six participating VA facilities. Prior to the VA emailing, an average of 22 women per week consented to participating in the WISDOM Study and none were Veterans. After the first month of the VA emailing, an average of 186 women per week consented – a 7.5-fold increase. Additionally, during the first month of VA emailing, 81% of women registering with the WISDOM Study said they heard about the study from the VA.

Implications

The VA has recently approved of emailing as a method for recruiting research subjects. Our results demonstrate this is a feasible approach for precision medicine research, a growing area of research in VA and at academic affiliates.

Background

We sought to evaluate passive recruitment efforts of VA patients into a precision medicine research program. Access to clinical trials and other research opportunities is important to discovering new disease treatments and better ways to detect, diagnose, and reduce disease risk. The WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk) Study is a multi-site, pragmatic trial with webbased participation based at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) that aims to move breast cancer screening away from its current one-size-fitsall approach to one that is personalized based on each woman’s individual risk.

Methods

We created a hub and spoke recruitment model with the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) serving as the central hub of passive recruitment activities and eligible VA facilities that agreed to participate serving as the spoke recruitment sites. Eligible facilities had at least 3,000 women patients, VA clinical genetic services available, a site lead from the VA Women’s Health-Practice-Based Research Network, and mammography on site. Site participation involved permission for the research team to email eligible patients (women aged 40-74 without prior breast cancer diagnosis) about the WISDOM Study. We evaluated the effectiveness of the recruitment by assessing trends in enrollment and monitoring participation of VA patients in the WISDOM Study. Analysis: Pre/post frequencies of women consenting to participate in the WISDOM Study.

Results

From 5/24/2021 through 6/21/2021, we emailed 27,061 eligible VA patients from six participating VA facilities. Prior to the VA emailing, an average of 22 women per week consented to participating in the WISDOM Study and none were Veterans. After the first month of the VA emailing, an average of 186 women per week consented – a 7.5-fold increase. Additionally, during the first month of VA emailing, 81% of women registering with the WISDOM Study said they heard about the study from the VA.

Implications

The VA has recently approved of emailing as a method for recruiting research subjects. Our results demonstrate this is a feasible approach for precision medicine research, a growing area of research in VA and at academic affiliates.

To view the abstracts and poster from this year's AVAHO 2021 meeting Click Here or on the cover image.

To view the abstracts and poster from this year's AVAHO 2021 meeting Click Here or on the cover image.

To view the abstracts and poster from this year's AVAHO 2021 meeting Click Here or on the cover image.

Although most children and adolescents with cancer have mild illness from COVID-19 infection, some do experience severe disease and a small percentage even die, according to a recent analysis.

The findings, published online in Lancet Oncology, represent the first global registry data spanning different income groups to report COVID-19 outcomes in pediatric oncology patients.

“We wanted to create a global pool of evidence to answer the question: Do we see severe [COVID-19] infection [in children with cancer]?” corresponding author Sheena Mukkada, MD, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in an interview.

In a cohort of 1,319 pediatric patients followed for 30 days, Dr. Mukkada and colleagues reported that 80% of these patients had asymptomatic to moderate disease from COVID-19, while 1 in 5 experienced severe or critical illness and almost 4% died – four times the mortality rate observed in published cohorts of general pediatric patients.

The results highlight that “children and adolescents with cancer generally recover without incident from COVID-19, but can have a severe course of infection,” the authors concluded.

And knowing that some children can get very sick, investigators wanted “to identify who these patients are so that we can prioritize and protect that group,” she added.

Echoing that sentiment, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, MD, president of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology and coauthor on the study, noted in a press release that, “by working together to create this global registry, we have enabled hospitals around the world to rapidly share and learn how COVID-19 is affecting children with cancer.”

Dr. Pritchard-Jones commented that overall these results provide reassurance that “many children can continue their cancer treatment safely, but they also highlight important clinical features that may predict a more severe clinical course and the need for greater vigilance for some patients.”
 

Inside the Global Registry data

The Global Registry of COVID-19 in Childhood Cancer, created jointly by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and SIOP, included data from 131 institutions in 45 countries. Children recruited into the registry between April 2020 and February 2021 ranged in age from infancy to 18 years old.  

Most patients remained asymptomatic (35%) or experienced mild to moderate illness (45%), though 20% did develop severe or critical illness.

The investigators highlighted several factors associated with a greater risk of developing more severe illness from COVID-19, which included cancer type, intensity of therapy, age, absolute lymphocyte count, and presence of comorbidities or COVID-19 symptoms.

Notably, more than 80% of either severe or critical infections occurred in patients with hematologic malignancies – with 56% of cases in patients with acute lymphoblastic lymphoma or acute lymphoblastic leukemia – followed by extracranial solid tumors (15.8%), and central nervous system tumors (2.7%).

In patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, severe or critical disease was most common in those receiving induction therapy (30%), relapse or refractory therapy (30%), and those in the maintenance or continuation phase of therapy (19%).

Older age was associated with a higher likelihood of having severe disease – with the lowest risk in infants (9.7%) and the highest in the 15- to 18-year-old cohort (27.3%).

Patients with lymphopenia who had an absolute lymphocyte count of 300 cells per mm³ or less and an absolute neutrophil count of 500 cells per mm³ or more also had an elevated risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

Regarding whether the presence of lymphopenia or neutropenia should change the treatment approach, Dr. Mukkada noted that, when possible, these patients should receive antiviral treatment, such as remdesivir, if the center has antivirals, or be prioritized for hospital admission.

Modifying cancer treatment might be recommended if patients are highly lymphopenic or have very low neutrophil counts, but a more effective strategy is simply to ensure that age-eligible children and adolescents with cancer or who have had a hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. For children who are not yet age-eligible, everyone around them should be vaccinated.

Pediatric patients in low- and middle-income countries were also more likely to have severe or critical outcomes from COVID-19 (41.7%), compared with patients in other income groups (23.9%).

The impact of COVID-19 “has been felt in every corner of the world, but particularly in low- and middle-income countries, compared to high-income countries,” senior author Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, global director at St. Jude, said in a statement.

In terms of the intersection of cancer treatment and COVID diagnosis, almost 83% of pediatric patients were receiving treatment for their cancer. Chemotherapy was withheld in about 45% of these patients and some modification to the treatment regimen occurred in almost 56% of participants on active therapy.

“Treatment modifications were least common in patients from upper-middle–income countries, compared with other income groups,” the authors wrote.

Although an interesting observation, Dr. Mukkada noted that the registry data could not explain why treatment modifications occurred less frequently in upper-middle income countries as opposed to high-income and lower-income countries.
 

U.K. Monitoring Project

Not all studies, however, have found that COVID-19 infection is significantly more severe in children with cancer. In a 2020 report from the U.K. Paediatric Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project, researchers evaluated all children in the United Kingdom under the age of 16 diagnosed with COVID and cancer.

“[Given that] we had complete coverage of every center in the U.K. that cares for children with cancer, we are confident that we picked up at least all the severe or critical cases,” lead author Gerard Millen, MD, honorary clinical research fellow, University of Birmingham (England), said in an interview.

Between March 2020 and July 2020, Dr. Millen and colleagues identified 54 positive cases of COVID-19, 15 (28%) of which were asymptomatic, 34 (63%) mild, and 4 (7.4%) severe or critical – more in line with the incidence of severe illness reported in the general pediatric population.

“Thankfully, we had no children with cancer in the U.K. who died from COVID-19,” Dr. Millen noted. “Overall, in the U.K., we have taken the approach that the majority of children with cancer in this country are at very low risk from COVID-19 and that we do not have good evidence to modify their treatment.”

Dr. Millen pointed out that the data in the U.K. study were “remarkably similar” to those from the high-income countries in the global St. Jude/SIOP cohort, where 7.4% of patients in that cohort had severe or critical disease, compared with 7.4% of patients from their own U.K. cohort.

“I think many of the key differences between the two cohorts reflect the fact that access to treatment in many low- to middle-income countries is more challenging with many factors contributing to overall poorer outcomes for both cancer and noncancer metrics,” Dr. Millen said.

Both the U.K. and registry studies were performed prior to vaccinations becoming available to older children, and before the emergence of certain variants, including the Delta variant, which is responsible for the most recent surge of COVID-19 infections around the world.

Data on COVID-19 vaccination in children with cancer are limited but promising so far.

As for whether the Delta variant might affect outcomes for children with cancer and COVID-19, Dr. Mukkada could only speculate, but she noted that “what we are hearing anecdotally about the [Delta] disease being more severe, even in patients who don’t have cancer, is leading us to say that we can’t close the registry yet. We are still actively enrolling children.”

The study was funded by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and the National Cancer Institute. The study authors and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although most children and adolescents with cancer have mild illness from COVID-19 infection, some do experience severe disease and a small percentage even die, according to a recent analysis.

The findings, published online in Lancet Oncology, represent the first global registry data spanning different income groups to report COVID-19 outcomes in pediatric oncology patients.

“We wanted to create a global pool of evidence to answer the question: Do we see severe [COVID-19] infection [in children with cancer]?” corresponding author Sheena Mukkada, MD, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in an interview.

In a cohort of 1,319 pediatric patients followed for 30 days, Dr. Mukkada and colleagues reported that 80% of these patients had asymptomatic to moderate disease from COVID-19, while 1 in 5 experienced severe or critical illness and almost 4% died – four times the mortality rate observed in published cohorts of general pediatric patients.

The results highlight that “children and adolescents with cancer generally recover without incident from COVID-19, but can have a severe course of infection,” the authors concluded.

And knowing that some children can get very sick, investigators wanted “to identify who these patients are so that we can prioritize and protect that group,” she added.

Echoing that sentiment, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, MD, president of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology and coauthor on the study, noted in a press release that, “by working together to create this global registry, we have enabled hospitals around the world to rapidly share and learn how COVID-19 is affecting children with cancer.”

Dr. Pritchard-Jones commented that overall these results provide reassurance that “many children can continue their cancer treatment safely, but they also highlight important clinical features that may predict a more severe clinical course and the need for greater vigilance for some patients.”
 

Inside the Global Registry data

The Global Registry of COVID-19 in Childhood Cancer, created jointly by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and SIOP, included data from 131 institutions in 45 countries. Children recruited into the registry between April 2020 and February 2021 ranged in age from infancy to 18 years old.  

Most patients remained asymptomatic (35%) or experienced mild to moderate illness (45%), though 20% did develop severe or critical illness.

The investigators highlighted several factors associated with a greater risk of developing more severe illness from COVID-19, which included cancer type, intensity of therapy, age, absolute lymphocyte count, and presence of comorbidities or COVID-19 symptoms.

Notably, more than 80% of either severe or critical infections occurred in patients with hematologic malignancies – with 56% of cases in patients with acute lymphoblastic lymphoma or acute lymphoblastic leukemia – followed by extracranial solid tumors (15.8%), and central nervous system tumors (2.7%).

In patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, severe or critical disease was most common in those receiving induction therapy (30%), relapse or refractory therapy (30%), and those in the maintenance or continuation phase of therapy (19%).

Older age was associated with a higher likelihood of having severe disease – with the lowest risk in infants (9.7%) and the highest in the 15- to 18-year-old cohort (27.3%).

Patients with lymphopenia who had an absolute lymphocyte count of 300 cells per mm³ or less and an absolute neutrophil count of 500 cells per mm³ or more also had an elevated risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

Regarding whether the presence of lymphopenia or neutropenia should change the treatment approach, Dr. Mukkada noted that, when possible, these patients should receive antiviral treatment, such as remdesivir, if the center has antivirals, or be prioritized for hospital admission.

Modifying cancer treatment might be recommended if patients are highly lymphopenic or have very low neutrophil counts, but a more effective strategy is simply to ensure that age-eligible children and adolescents with cancer or who have had a hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. For children who are not yet age-eligible, everyone around them should be vaccinated.

Pediatric patients in low- and middle-income countries were also more likely to have severe or critical outcomes from COVID-19 (41.7%), compared with patients in other income groups (23.9%).

The impact of COVID-19 “has been felt in every corner of the world, but particularly in low- and middle-income countries, compared to high-income countries,” senior author Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, global director at St. Jude, said in a statement.

In terms of the intersection of cancer treatment and COVID diagnosis, almost 83% of pediatric patients were receiving treatment for their cancer. Chemotherapy was withheld in about 45% of these patients and some modification to the treatment regimen occurred in almost 56% of participants on active therapy.

“Treatment modifications were least common in patients from upper-middle–income countries, compared with other income groups,” the authors wrote.

Although an interesting observation, Dr. Mukkada noted that the registry data could not explain why treatment modifications occurred less frequently in upper-middle income countries as opposed to high-income and lower-income countries.
 

U.K. Monitoring Project

Not all studies, however, have found that COVID-19 infection is significantly more severe in children with cancer. In a 2020 report from the U.K. Paediatric Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project, researchers evaluated all children in the United Kingdom under the age of 16 diagnosed with COVID and cancer.

“[Given that] we had complete coverage of every center in the U.K. that cares for children with cancer, we are confident that we picked up at least all the severe or critical cases,” lead author Gerard Millen, MD, honorary clinical research fellow, University of Birmingham (England), said in an interview.

Between March 2020 and July 2020, Dr. Millen and colleagues identified 54 positive cases of COVID-19, 15 (28%) of which were asymptomatic, 34 (63%) mild, and 4 (7.4%) severe or critical – more in line with the incidence of severe illness reported in the general pediatric population.

“Thankfully, we had no children with cancer in the U.K. who died from COVID-19,” Dr. Millen noted. “Overall, in the U.K., we have taken the approach that the majority of children with cancer in this country are at very low risk from COVID-19 and that we do not have good evidence to modify their treatment.”

Dr. Millen pointed out that the data in the U.K. study were “remarkably similar” to those from the high-income countries in the global St. Jude/SIOP cohort, where 7.4% of patients in that cohort had severe or critical disease, compared with 7.4% of patients from their own U.K. cohort.

“I think many of the key differences between the two cohorts reflect the fact that access to treatment in many low- to middle-income countries is more challenging with many factors contributing to overall poorer outcomes for both cancer and noncancer metrics,” Dr. Millen said.

Both the U.K. and registry studies were performed prior to vaccinations becoming available to older children, and before the emergence of certain variants, including the Delta variant, which is responsible for the most recent surge of COVID-19 infections around the world.

Data on COVID-19 vaccination in children with cancer are limited but promising so far.

As for whether the Delta variant might affect outcomes for children with cancer and COVID-19, Dr. Mukkada could only speculate, but she noted that “what we are hearing anecdotally about the [Delta] disease being more severe, even in patients who don’t have cancer, is leading us to say that we can’t close the registry yet. We are still actively enrolling children.”

The study was funded by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and the National Cancer Institute. The study authors and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although most children and adolescents with cancer have mild illness from COVID-19 infection, some do experience severe disease and a small percentage even die, according to a recent analysis.

The findings, published online in Lancet Oncology, represent the first global registry data spanning different income groups to report COVID-19 outcomes in pediatric oncology patients.

“We wanted to create a global pool of evidence to answer the question: Do we see severe [COVID-19] infection [in children with cancer]?” corresponding author Sheena Mukkada, MD, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in an interview.

In a cohort of 1,319 pediatric patients followed for 30 days, Dr. Mukkada and colleagues reported that 80% of these patients had asymptomatic to moderate disease from COVID-19, while 1 in 5 experienced severe or critical illness and almost 4% died – four times the mortality rate observed in published cohorts of general pediatric patients.

The results highlight that “children and adolescents with cancer generally recover without incident from COVID-19, but can have a severe course of infection,” the authors concluded.

And knowing that some children can get very sick, investigators wanted “to identify who these patients are so that we can prioritize and protect that group,” she added.

Echoing that sentiment, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, MD, president of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology and coauthor on the study, noted in a press release that, “by working together to create this global registry, we have enabled hospitals around the world to rapidly share and learn how COVID-19 is affecting children with cancer.”

Dr. Pritchard-Jones commented that overall these results provide reassurance that “many children can continue their cancer treatment safely, but they also highlight important clinical features that may predict a more severe clinical course and the need for greater vigilance for some patients.”
 

Inside the Global Registry data

The Global Registry of COVID-19 in Childhood Cancer, created jointly by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and SIOP, included data from 131 institutions in 45 countries. Children recruited into the registry between April 2020 and February 2021 ranged in age from infancy to 18 years old.  

Most patients remained asymptomatic (35%) or experienced mild to moderate illness (45%), though 20% did develop severe or critical illness.

The investigators highlighted several factors associated with a greater risk of developing more severe illness from COVID-19, which included cancer type, intensity of therapy, age, absolute lymphocyte count, and presence of comorbidities or COVID-19 symptoms.

Notably, more than 80% of either severe or critical infections occurred in patients with hematologic malignancies – with 56% of cases in patients with acute lymphoblastic lymphoma or acute lymphoblastic leukemia – followed by extracranial solid tumors (15.8%), and central nervous system tumors (2.7%).

In patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, severe or critical disease was most common in those receiving induction therapy (30%), relapse or refractory therapy (30%), and those in the maintenance or continuation phase of therapy (19%).

Older age was associated with a higher likelihood of having severe disease – with the lowest risk in infants (9.7%) and the highest in the 15- to 18-year-old cohort (27.3%).

Patients with lymphopenia who had an absolute lymphocyte count of 300 cells per mm³ or less and an absolute neutrophil count of 500 cells per mm³ or more also had an elevated risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

Regarding whether the presence of lymphopenia or neutropenia should change the treatment approach, Dr. Mukkada noted that, when possible, these patients should receive antiviral treatment, such as remdesivir, if the center has antivirals, or be prioritized for hospital admission.

Modifying cancer treatment might be recommended if patients are highly lymphopenic or have very low neutrophil counts, but a more effective strategy is simply to ensure that age-eligible children and adolescents with cancer or who have had a hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. For children who are not yet age-eligible, everyone around them should be vaccinated.

Pediatric patients in low- and middle-income countries were also more likely to have severe or critical outcomes from COVID-19 (41.7%), compared with patients in other income groups (23.9%).

The impact of COVID-19 “has been felt in every corner of the world, but particularly in low- and middle-income countries, compared to high-income countries,” senior author Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, global director at St. Jude, said in a statement.

In terms of the intersection of cancer treatment and COVID diagnosis, almost 83% of pediatric patients were receiving treatment for their cancer. Chemotherapy was withheld in about 45% of these patients and some modification to the treatment regimen occurred in almost 56% of participants on active therapy.

“Treatment modifications were least common in patients from upper-middle–income countries, compared with other income groups,” the authors wrote.

Although an interesting observation, Dr. Mukkada noted that the registry data could not explain why treatment modifications occurred less frequently in upper-middle income countries as opposed to high-income and lower-income countries.
 

U.K. Monitoring Project

Not all studies, however, have found that COVID-19 infection is significantly more severe in children with cancer. In a 2020 report from the U.K. Paediatric Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project, researchers evaluated all children in the United Kingdom under the age of 16 diagnosed with COVID and cancer.

“[Given that] we had complete coverage of every center in the U.K. that cares for children with cancer, we are confident that we picked up at least all the severe or critical cases,” lead author Gerard Millen, MD, honorary clinical research fellow, University of Birmingham (England), said in an interview.

Between March 2020 and July 2020, Dr. Millen and colleagues identified 54 positive cases of COVID-19, 15 (28%) of which were asymptomatic, 34 (63%) mild, and 4 (7.4%) severe or critical – more in line with the incidence of severe illness reported in the general pediatric population.

“Thankfully, we had no children with cancer in the U.K. who died from COVID-19,” Dr. Millen noted. “Overall, in the U.K., we have taken the approach that the majority of children with cancer in this country are at very low risk from COVID-19 and that we do not have good evidence to modify their treatment.”

Dr. Millen pointed out that the data in the U.K. study were “remarkably similar” to those from the high-income countries in the global St. Jude/SIOP cohort, where 7.4% of patients in that cohort had severe or critical disease, compared with 7.4% of patients from their own U.K. cohort.

“I think many of the key differences between the two cohorts reflect the fact that access to treatment in many low- to middle-income countries is more challenging with many factors contributing to overall poorer outcomes for both cancer and noncancer metrics,” Dr. Millen said.

Both the U.K. and registry studies were performed prior to vaccinations becoming available to older children, and before the emergence of certain variants, including the Delta variant, which is responsible for the most recent surge of COVID-19 infections around the world.

Data on COVID-19 vaccination in children with cancer are limited but promising so far.

As for whether the Delta variant might affect outcomes for children with cancer and COVID-19, Dr. Mukkada could only speculate, but she noted that “what we are hearing anecdotally about the [Delta] disease being more severe, even in patients who don’t have cancer, is leading us to say that we can’t close the registry yet. We are still actively enrolling children.”

The study was funded by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and the National Cancer Institute. The study authors and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.