User login
Managing cancer outpatients during the pandemic: Tips from MSKCC
“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”
Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
Four guiding principles
MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.
Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.
The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.
Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.
Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine
One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.
On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.
“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”
On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.
“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”
Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.
“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”
Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.
During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”
Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.
“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”
Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
Four guiding principles
MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.
Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.
The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.
Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.
Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine
One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.
On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.
“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”
On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.
“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”
Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.
“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”
Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.
During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”
Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.
“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”
Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
Four guiding principles
MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.
Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.
The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.
Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.
Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine
One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.
On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.
“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”
On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.
“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”
Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.
“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”
Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.
During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”
Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 AND CANCER 2021
Drive By Flu-FIT: CRC screening in the COVID-19 era
The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.
The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.
Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.
“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
About the study
The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.
The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.
Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.
Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.
At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
Results
Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.
So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.
Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.
The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).
“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”
Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.
“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.
During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.
“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.
The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.
Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.
The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.
The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.
Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.
“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
About the study
The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.
The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.
Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.
Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.
At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
Results
Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.
So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.
Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.
The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).
“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”
Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.
“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.
During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.
“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.
The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.
Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.
The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.
The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.
Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.
“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
About the study
The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.
The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.
Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.
Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.
At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
Results
Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.
So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.
Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.
The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).
“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”
Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.
“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.
During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.
“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.
The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.
Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 AND CANCER 2021
Death rates ‘remain high’ in patients with thoracic cancers and COVID-19
The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.
“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.
Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.
The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.
Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.
“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.
Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.
Updated results
Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.
Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.
As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.
In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:
- Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
- Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).
The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:
- Male sex (OR, 1.67).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
- Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
- Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
- Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).
Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.
Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.
“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.
She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.
“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.
Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.
The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.
Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.
“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.
Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.
Updated results
Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.
Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.
As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.
In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:
- Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
- Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).
The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:
- Male sex (OR, 1.67).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
- Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
- Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
- Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).
Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.
Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.
“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.
She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.
“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.
Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.
The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.
Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.
“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.
Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.
Updated results
Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.
Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.
As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.
In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:
- Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
- Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).
The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:
- Male sex (OR, 1.67).
- Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
- Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
- Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
- Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
- Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).
Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.
Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.
“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.
She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
FROM WCLC 2020
Pandemic seems to impact lung cancer diagnosis and prognosis
The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.
“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”
Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Study details
Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.
The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.
The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
Differences by time period and subtype
During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.
Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).
Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.
In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).
For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).
Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).
For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
Implications and next steps
“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”
Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.
“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”
Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.
The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.
“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”
Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Study details
Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.
The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.
The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
Differences by time period and subtype
During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.
Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).
Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.
In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).
For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).
Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).
For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
Implications and next steps
“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”
Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.
“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”
Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.
The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.
“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”
Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Study details
Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.
The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.
The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
Differences by time period and subtype
During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.
Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).
Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.
In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).
For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).
Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).
For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
Implications and next steps
“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”
Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.
“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”
Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.
FROM WCLC 2020
COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients: NCCN outlines priorities
Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).
In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:
- Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
- Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
- Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
- Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.
Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
Unique concerns in patients with cancer
The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.
“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.
“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”
Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”
NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.
“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.
“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
Additional vaccine considerations
The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:
- Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
- Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
- Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
- The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.
The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.
Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.
Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).
In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:
- Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
- Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
- Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
- Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.
Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
Unique concerns in patients with cancer
The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.
“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.
“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”
Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”
NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.
“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.
“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
Additional vaccine considerations
The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:
- Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
- Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
- Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
- The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.
The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.
Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.
Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).
In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:
- Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
- Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
- Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
- Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.
Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
Unique concerns in patients with cancer
The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.
“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.
“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”
Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”
NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.
“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.
“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
Additional vaccine considerations
The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:
- Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
- Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
- Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
- The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.
The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.
Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.
Doctors search for missing link between COVID-19 and ITP
Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.
This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm3 was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).
In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.
“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
A missing link
ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets.
“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.
Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.
A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.
ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.
Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.
But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.
For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
The number of cases is underestimated
Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.
One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”
Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.
In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.
Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.
That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.
The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm3 at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.
Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.
For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.
“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.
This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm3 was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).
In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.
“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
A missing link
ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets.
“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.
Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.
A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.
ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.
Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.
But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.
For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
The number of cases is underestimated
Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.
One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”
Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.
In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.
Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.
That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.
The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm3 at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.
Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.
For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.
“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.
This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm3 was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).
In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.
“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
A missing link
ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets.
“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.
Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.
A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.
ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.
Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.
But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.
For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
The number of cases is underestimated
Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.
One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”
Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.
In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.
Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.
That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.
The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm3 at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.
Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.
For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.
“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Even patients with cancer in remission at risk for severe COVID-19
It’s been shown that hospitalized cancer patients and those undergoing active treatment are at high risk for severe COVID-19 complications. A new study shows that patients with cancer in remission are at higher risk, too.
For the study, investigators from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, analyzed 323 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a research database with more than 4,800 patients. About 20% of database patients were Black, but they accounted for almost 65% of the infections, reflecting previous reports of increased risk for COVID among Black people.
A total of 67 of the infected patients had cancer, including 18 patients with active cancer and 49 patients whose cancer was in remission. After adjusting for demographics, smoking status, and comorbidities, a diagnosis of cancer more than doubled the odds of hospitalization and increased the odds of 30-day mortality nearly sixfold.
Worse outcomes were more strongly associated with active cancer, but patients whose cancer was in remission were also at higher risk than patients who did not have cancer.
It’s not only “patients hospitalized or on treatment ... all oncology patients need to take significant precautions during the pandemic to protect themselves,” senior investigator Kara Maxwell, MD, PhD, hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a press release.
The study was published online on Jan. 21 in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.
The good news is that steps to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection work, suggests a second report from the University of Pennsylvania. Among 124 cancer patients who underwent outpatient infusions from May to October 2020, not a single one experienced seroconversion over a median of 13 clinical visits. That second study was published on Jan. 16 in medRxiv and is pending peer review.
The zero seroconversion rate likely reflects “the success of transmission mitigation measures within health care facilities,” wrote investigators led by Lova Sun, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania.
Like many institutions, the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine) is aggressive in protecting outpatients against the virus, the authors wrote. Among other steps, patients are queried about symptoms and contacts before their office visit, and their temperature is taken when they come in. Masks are worn, check-in is contactless, the number of visitors is limited, and patients who test positive are treated in a separate space.
In addition, patients in the study also reported that they wore masks and practiced social distancing in their daily lives.
Approached for comment, hematologist/oncologist Charles Shapiro, MD, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of translational breast cancer research at Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York, said he wasn’t surprised that the prevention measures followed at Penn Medicine work. They are very similar to the measures followed at Mount Sinai oncology clinics, and “there’ve been very few COVID cases in our shop,” he added.
The bigger take-home message from both studies is that cancer patients, regardless of their age or if they are in remission, should be prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19, which is the best way to mitigate risk. “I strongly urge my patients to get it” if they can, he said.
The problem in New York is that immunizations are largely limited to people aged 65 years and older. Younger cancer patients are left out, and access has been spotty for all patients. “Vaccine is available one day, then not the next. It’s disheartening,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview. “Hopefully, with the new administration, this will smooth out,” and the age limit will drop.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, among other organizations. Dr. Lova, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s been shown that hospitalized cancer patients and those undergoing active treatment are at high risk for severe COVID-19 complications. A new study shows that patients with cancer in remission are at higher risk, too.
For the study, investigators from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, analyzed 323 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a research database with more than 4,800 patients. About 20% of database patients were Black, but they accounted for almost 65% of the infections, reflecting previous reports of increased risk for COVID among Black people.
A total of 67 of the infected patients had cancer, including 18 patients with active cancer and 49 patients whose cancer was in remission. After adjusting for demographics, smoking status, and comorbidities, a diagnosis of cancer more than doubled the odds of hospitalization and increased the odds of 30-day mortality nearly sixfold.
Worse outcomes were more strongly associated with active cancer, but patients whose cancer was in remission were also at higher risk than patients who did not have cancer.
It’s not only “patients hospitalized or on treatment ... all oncology patients need to take significant precautions during the pandemic to protect themselves,” senior investigator Kara Maxwell, MD, PhD, hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a press release.
The study was published online on Jan. 21 in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.
The good news is that steps to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection work, suggests a second report from the University of Pennsylvania. Among 124 cancer patients who underwent outpatient infusions from May to October 2020, not a single one experienced seroconversion over a median of 13 clinical visits. That second study was published on Jan. 16 in medRxiv and is pending peer review.
The zero seroconversion rate likely reflects “the success of transmission mitigation measures within health care facilities,” wrote investigators led by Lova Sun, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania.
Like many institutions, the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine) is aggressive in protecting outpatients against the virus, the authors wrote. Among other steps, patients are queried about symptoms and contacts before their office visit, and their temperature is taken when they come in. Masks are worn, check-in is contactless, the number of visitors is limited, and patients who test positive are treated in a separate space.
In addition, patients in the study also reported that they wore masks and practiced social distancing in their daily lives.
Approached for comment, hematologist/oncologist Charles Shapiro, MD, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of translational breast cancer research at Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York, said he wasn’t surprised that the prevention measures followed at Penn Medicine work. They are very similar to the measures followed at Mount Sinai oncology clinics, and “there’ve been very few COVID cases in our shop,” he added.
The bigger take-home message from both studies is that cancer patients, regardless of their age or if they are in remission, should be prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19, which is the best way to mitigate risk. “I strongly urge my patients to get it” if they can, he said.
The problem in New York is that immunizations are largely limited to people aged 65 years and older. Younger cancer patients are left out, and access has been spotty for all patients. “Vaccine is available one day, then not the next. It’s disheartening,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview. “Hopefully, with the new administration, this will smooth out,” and the age limit will drop.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, among other organizations. Dr. Lova, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s been shown that hospitalized cancer patients and those undergoing active treatment are at high risk for severe COVID-19 complications. A new study shows that patients with cancer in remission are at higher risk, too.
For the study, investigators from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, analyzed 323 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a research database with more than 4,800 patients. About 20% of database patients were Black, but they accounted for almost 65% of the infections, reflecting previous reports of increased risk for COVID among Black people.
A total of 67 of the infected patients had cancer, including 18 patients with active cancer and 49 patients whose cancer was in remission. After adjusting for demographics, smoking status, and comorbidities, a diagnosis of cancer more than doubled the odds of hospitalization and increased the odds of 30-day mortality nearly sixfold.
Worse outcomes were more strongly associated with active cancer, but patients whose cancer was in remission were also at higher risk than patients who did not have cancer.
It’s not only “patients hospitalized or on treatment ... all oncology patients need to take significant precautions during the pandemic to protect themselves,” senior investigator Kara Maxwell, MD, PhD, hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a press release.
The study was published online on Jan. 21 in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.
The good news is that steps to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection work, suggests a second report from the University of Pennsylvania. Among 124 cancer patients who underwent outpatient infusions from May to October 2020, not a single one experienced seroconversion over a median of 13 clinical visits. That second study was published on Jan. 16 in medRxiv and is pending peer review.
The zero seroconversion rate likely reflects “the success of transmission mitigation measures within health care facilities,” wrote investigators led by Lova Sun, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania.
Like many institutions, the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine) is aggressive in protecting outpatients against the virus, the authors wrote. Among other steps, patients are queried about symptoms and contacts before their office visit, and their temperature is taken when they come in. Masks are worn, check-in is contactless, the number of visitors is limited, and patients who test positive are treated in a separate space.
In addition, patients in the study also reported that they wore masks and practiced social distancing in their daily lives.
Approached for comment, hematologist/oncologist Charles Shapiro, MD, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of translational breast cancer research at Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York, said he wasn’t surprised that the prevention measures followed at Penn Medicine work. They are very similar to the measures followed at Mount Sinai oncology clinics, and “there’ve been very few COVID cases in our shop,” he added.
The bigger take-home message from both studies is that cancer patients, regardless of their age or if they are in remission, should be prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19, which is the best way to mitigate risk. “I strongly urge my patients to get it” if they can, he said.
The problem in New York is that immunizations are largely limited to people aged 65 years and older. Younger cancer patients are left out, and access has been spotty for all patients. “Vaccine is available one day, then not the next. It’s disheartening,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview. “Hopefully, with the new administration, this will smooth out,” and the age limit will drop.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, among other organizations. Dr. Lova, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lung cancer screening during pandemic: Paused, then rebounded across patient subgroups
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic reduction in lung cancer screening, but the rate of decline was similar between Whites and non-Whites and between rural and nonrural populations. All groups saw their rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) return to near prepandemic levels by June 2020, according to a new analysis of two academic and two community imaging sites in North Carolina.
The study was led by Louise Henderson, PhD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, of the department of medicine, division of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine, both at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The findings appeared online in Chest.
“I am [not] surprised by the decline, but I am certainly reassured,” Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. Dr. Begnaud is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She was not involved in the study.
Dr. Begnaud said that the findings were similar to what she has seen at her own institution. Although the rebound in screening was good to see, it nevertheless suggests that screening is still lagging. “During the ramp-up period, they got back to nearly prepandemic levels, but you might have liked to see that the numbers were even higher. In theory, if you had several months of people who should have been getting screened who didn’t, if they were all getting caught up, you might have seen higher numbers after that,” said Dr. Begnaud.
The current winter surge in cases is likely to have long-lasting impact on lung cancer screening as well. Although she hasn’t seen a similar decline yet, Dr. Begnaud expects it’s coming. “I think we’ll see a major decline even throughout this year in screening until we are squarely out of the pandemic.” Things could be particularly challenging for resource-poor settings. “If physical resources (CT scanners) and human resources (techs, radiologists, primary care providers) are overworked, they may not have the bandwidth for ‘elective’ and preventive care,” said Dr. Begnaud.
Two previous studies looked at changes in lung cancer screening after the onset of the pandemic, but neither examined patient characteristics or risk factors. The current study included 3,688 screening exams (52.3% first-time exams), and divided them up into the pre-COVID-19 era (Jan. 1 to March 2, 2019), the beginning of the pandemic (March 3 to March 29, 2020), the shutdown period (March 30 to May 21, 2020) and the ramp-up period (May 22 to Sept. 30, 2020).
The largest reduction of screening volume occurred during the beginning of the pandemic, at –33.6% (95% confidence interval, –11.9% to –55.3%). By June, the reduction in volume was –9.1%, compared with pre-COVID-19 levels (95% CI, –4.7% to –23.0%). In the period between June and September 2020, the overall rate was similar to pre-COVID-19 levels (–15.3% change; 95% CI, –7.8% to 38.4%).
The researchers found no differences in screening changes among patient groups based on age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index, COPD status, hypertension, or patient residence. The proportion of exams that were first-time screens was highest before the pandemic (53.8%), and declined at the beginning of the pandemic (50.7%), during shutdown (49.7%), and during the ramp-up period (48.6%). The difference between the prepandemic and ramp-up period in terms of first-time screens was statistically significant (P = .0072).
The investigators offered a couple of caveats: “Our results do not demonstrate differences in LCS volumes pre- versus during COVID among non-White patients or rural patients, both of which have persistently experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes and other cancer screening modalities. Additionally, our results do not suggest that patients at high risk of COVID complications (i.e., patients who are obese, have COPD or hypertension) were less likely to undergo LCS.” The study demonstrated, rather, that a similar impact of the COVID-19 crisis on lung cancer screening was felt across all patient subgroups.
The study was funded by The National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rivera served as an advisory board member for Biodesix and bioAffinity Technologies, and served on an advisory research panel for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant financial disclosures.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic reduction in lung cancer screening, but the rate of decline was similar between Whites and non-Whites and between rural and nonrural populations. All groups saw their rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) return to near prepandemic levels by June 2020, according to a new analysis of two academic and two community imaging sites in North Carolina.
The study was led by Louise Henderson, PhD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, of the department of medicine, division of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine, both at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The findings appeared online in Chest.
“I am [not] surprised by the decline, but I am certainly reassured,” Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. Dr. Begnaud is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She was not involved in the study.
Dr. Begnaud said that the findings were similar to what she has seen at her own institution. Although the rebound in screening was good to see, it nevertheless suggests that screening is still lagging. “During the ramp-up period, they got back to nearly prepandemic levels, but you might have liked to see that the numbers were even higher. In theory, if you had several months of people who should have been getting screened who didn’t, if they were all getting caught up, you might have seen higher numbers after that,” said Dr. Begnaud.
The current winter surge in cases is likely to have long-lasting impact on lung cancer screening as well. Although she hasn’t seen a similar decline yet, Dr. Begnaud expects it’s coming. “I think we’ll see a major decline even throughout this year in screening until we are squarely out of the pandemic.” Things could be particularly challenging for resource-poor settings. “If physical resources (CT scanners) and human resources (techs, radiologists, primary care providers) are overworked, they may not have the bandwidth for ‘elective’ and preventive care,” said Dr. Begnaud.
Two previous studies looked at changes in lung cancer screening after the onset of the pandemic, but neither examined patient characteristics or risk factors. The current study included 3,688 screening exams (52.3% first-time exams), and divided them up into the pre-COVID-19 era (Jan. 1 to March 2, 2019), the beginning of the pandemic (March 3 to March 29, 2020), the shutdown period (March 30 to May 21, 2020) and the ramp-up period (May 22 to Sept. 30, 2020).
The largest reduction of screening volume occurred during the beginning of the pandemic, at –33.6% (95% confidence interval, –11.9% to –55.3%). By June, the reduction in volume was –9.1%, compared with pre-COVID-19 levels (95% CI, –4.7% to –23.0%). In the period between June and September 2020, the overall rate was similar to pre-COVID-19 levels (–15.3% change; 95% CI, –7.8% to 38.4%).
The researchers found no differences in screening changes among patient groups based on age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index, COPD status, hypertension, or patient residence. The proportion of exams that were first-time screens was highest before the pandemic (53.8%), and declined at the beginning of the pandemic (50.7%), during shutdown (49.7%), and during the ramp-up period (48.6%). The difference between the prepandemic and ramp-up period in terms of first-time screens was statistically significant (P = .0072).
The investigators offered a couple of caveats: “Our results do not demonstrate differences in LCS volumes pre- versus during COVID among non-White patients or rural patients, both of which have persistently experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes and other cancer screening modalities. Additionally, our results do not suggest that patients at high risk of COVID complications (i.e., patients who are obese, have COPD or hypertension) were less likely to undergo LCS.” The study demonstrated, rather, that a similar impact of the COVID-19 crisis on lung cancer screening was felt across all patient subgroups.
The study was funded by The National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rivera served as an advisory board member for Biodesix and bioAffinity Technologies, and served on an advisory research panel for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant financial disclosures.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic reduction in lung cancer screening, but the rate of decline was similar between Whites and non-Whites and between rural and nonrural populations. All groups saw their rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) return to near prepandemic levels by June 2020, according to a new analysis of two academic and two community imaging sites in North Carolina.
The study was led by Louise Henderson, PhD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, of the department of medicine, division of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine, both at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The findings appeared online in Chest.
“I am [not] surprised by the decline, but I am certainly reassured,” Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. Dr. Begnaud is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She was not involved in the study.
Dr. Begnaud said that the findings were similar to what she has seen at her own institution. Although the rebound in screening was good to see, it nevertheless suggests that screening is still lagging. “During the ramp-up period, they got back to nearly prepandemic levels, but you might have liked to see that the numbers were even higher. In theory, if you had several months of people who should have been getting screened who didn’t, if they were all getting caught up, you might have seen higher numbers after that,” said Dr. Begnaud.
The current winter surge in cases is likely to have long-lasting impact on lung cancer screening as well. Although she hasn’t seen a similar decline yet, Dr. Begnaud expects it’s coming. “I think we’ll see a major decline even throughout this year in screening until we are squarely out of the pandemic.” Things could be particularly challenging for resource-poor settings. “If physical resources (CT scanners) and human resources (techs, radiologists, primary care providers) are overworked, they may not have the bandwidth for ‘elective’ and preventive care,” said Dr. Begnaud.
Two previous studies looked at changes in lung cancer screening after the onset of the pandemic, but neither examined patient characteristics or risk factors. The current study included 3,688 screening exams (52.3% first-time exams), and divided them up into the pre-COVID-19 era (Jan. 1 to March 2, 2019), the beginning of the pandemic (March 3 to March 29, 2020), the shutdown period (March 30 to May 21, 2020) and the ramp-up period (May 22 to Sept. 30, 2020).
The largest reduction of screening volume occurred during the beginning of the pandemic, at –33.6% (95% confidence interval, –11.9% to –55.3%). By June, the reduction in volume was –9.1%, compared with pre-COVID-19 levels (95% CI, –4.7% to –23.0%). In the period between June and September 2020, the overall rate was similar to pre-COVID-19 levels (–15.3% change; 95% CI, –7.8% to 38.4%).
The researchers found no differences in screening changes among patient groups based on age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index, COPD status, hypertension, or patient residence. The proportion of exams that were first-time screens was highest before the pandemic (53.8%), and declined at the beginning of the pandemic (50.7%), during shutdown (49.7%), and during the ramp-up period (48.6%). The difference between the prepandemic and ramp-up period in terms of first-time screens was statistically significant (P = .0072).
The investigators offered a couple of caveats: “Our results do not demonstrate differences in LCS volumes pre- versus during COVID among non-White patients or rural patients, both of which have persistently experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes and other cancer screening modalities. Additionally, our results do not suggest that patients at high risk of COVID complications (i.e., patients who are obese, have COPD or hypertension) were less likely to undergo LCS.” The study demonstrated, rather, that a similar impact of the COVID-19 crisis on lung cancer screening was felt across all patient subgroups.
The study was funded by The National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rivera served as an advisory board member for Biodesix and bioAffinity Technologies, and served on an advisory research panel for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM CHEST
COVID-19 vaccines and cancer patients: 4 things to know
Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.
Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.
We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.
Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.
The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.
Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.
The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.
Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.
These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.
Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.
Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.
It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.
Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.
We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.
Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.
The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.
Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.
The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.
Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.
These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.
Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.
Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.
It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.
Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.
We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.
Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.
The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.
Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.
The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.
Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.
These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.
Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.
Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.
It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with lung and blood cancers most vulnerable to COVID-19
Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.
Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)
These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.
The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.
The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.
The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.
For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.
The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.
Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.
The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).
Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.
Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).
Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)
However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”
The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.
“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.
Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)
These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.
The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.
The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.
The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.
For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.
The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.
Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.
The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).
Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.
Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).
Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)
However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”
The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.
“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.
Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)
These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.
The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.
The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.
The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.
For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.
The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.
Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.
The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).
Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.
Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).
Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)
However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”
The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.
“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.