Antineoplastic treatment class modulates COVID-19 mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccine immunogenicity in cancer patients: a secondary analysis of the prospective Vax-On study

Abstract Objective This study describes individual cancer patients’ nonuse of extended-release or long-acting (ER/LA) opioids, including periods of gap between opioid doses taken. Design Secondary analysis of a three-month observational study of prescribed ER/LA opioids monitored using electronic pill caps. Setting Two outpatient oncology clinics of a large health system in the Mid-Atlantic region. Participants Inclusion was based on self-identified African Americans and whites, at least 18 years old, diagnosed with solid tumors or multiple myeloma. For the current analysis, the additional inclusion criterion was prescription of an oral ER/LA opioid for cancer pain to be taken around the clock. Methods The electronic monitoring period for each study participant was partitioned into intervals of days between days with one or more openings (using medication event monitoring systems) representing rates of ER/LA opioid nonuse over consecutive days and over time. Results Of the sample (N = 109), two-thirds of the cancer patients had some nonuse of prescribed ER/LA opioids, with one in four having nonuse during 31.5–87.5% of their electronic-monitoring periods. Nonuse over periods of five or more, six or more, and seven or more consecutive days occurred for 37.6%, 34.9%, and 30.3% of the participants, respectively. Conclusions About one in three ambulatory cancer patients in this study had substantial gaps between days of ER/LA opioid use, potentially resulting in risk of overdose depending upon the prescribed ER/LA opioid type, dose, and length of the time the opioid was stopped and resumed at the previous dose. This phenomenon has received little to no attention in the opioid safety discourse.

Download Full-text

Timing of Salvage Hormonal Therapy in Prostate Cancer Patients With Unfavorable Prognosis Treated With Radiotherapy: A Secondary Analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 85-31

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics ◽

10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.10.007 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 78 (5) ◽

pp. 1301-1306 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Luis Souhami ◽

Kyounghwa Bae ◽

Miljenko Pilepich ◽

Howard Sandler

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Radiation Therapy ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Hormonal Therapy ◽

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Oncology Group

Download Full-text

1334 PUBLICATION Data from the European Cancer Anaemia Survey (ECAS) confirms the high prevalence of anemia in cancer patients not receiving antineoplastic treatment

European Journal of Cancer Supplements ◽

10.1016/s1359-6349(05)81625-8 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

pp. 384

Keyword(s):

Cancer Patients ◽

Publication Data ◽

High Prevalence ◽

Antineoplastic Treatment ◽

Prevalence Of Anemia ◽

European Cancer

Download Full-text

Examining the effects of problematic alcohol use on cigarette abstinence in recently diagnosed cancer patients enrolled in a cessation trial: A secondary analysis

Addictive Behaviors ◽

10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106794 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 115 ◽

pp. 106794

Author(s):

Joanna M. Streck ◽

Kelly A. Hyland ◽

Susan Regan ◽

Alona Muzikansky ◽

Nancy A. Rigotti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Alcohol Use ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Problematic Alcohol ◽

Problematic Alcohol Use

Download Full-text

Screening cancer patients for clinical trial eligibility: A randomized study

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.6529 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽

pp. 6529-6529

Author(s):

J. Wright ◽

T. Whelan ◽

J. Julian ◽

M. Simunovic ◽

M. Levine

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Randomized Study ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Chi Square ◽

Ongoing Research ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

The Difference

6529 Background: The overall proportion of cancer patients enrolled into clinical trials is undesirably low. Research suggests many aspects of the recruitment process can be improved. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the benefit of identifying potentially eligible (PE) clinical trial patients for physicians. Methods: Consenting physicians were randomized to 26 weeks of screening support or not, and were then crossed-over to the other strategy for a second 26-week time period. A computer program reviewed new patient consultations to identify PE clinical trial patients. Physicians receiving support were provided with written individualized details of patient eligibility for trials prior to their medical consultation. The primary outcome of interest was the difference, by physician, in the number of patients who were approached for consent to enter a clinical trial. Results: Thirty-six physicians participated in the 52-week study. 5051 consultations were screened in a blinded fashion, 2,376 when physicians had support and 2,675 when they did not. 939 of 2,376 (39.5%) consultations were identified as involving PE patients when physicians were receiving support, and 1,061 of 2,675 (39.7%) when without. The primary outcome of the study, by physician, did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement, with 4.1 patients per physician without vs. 4.7 patients with screening support (p>0.05). Secondary analysis demonstrated that the overall proportion of patients approached with the clinical trial option increased from 149/2,675 (5.6%) to 169/2,376 (7.1%) with screening support (Chi-square, p=0.024) and that the number of patients that entered a clinical trial also increased from 60/2,675 (2.2%) to 83/2,376 (3.5%) (Chi-square, p=0.007). Conclusions: This study suggests that individualized patient screening for clinical trial eligibility may be useful to improve the numbers of patients approached to consider clinical trials. The number of new patients that entered clinical trials remained low, and ongoing research to facilitate improvements is required. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text