scholarly journals Clinical and laboratory outcomes of the solid cancer patients reinfected with SARS-CoV-2

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oktay Ünsal ◽  
Ozan Yazıcı ◽  
Nuriye Özdemir ◽  
Erdem Çubukçu ◽  
Birol Ocak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Serum Ferritin ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Solid Cancer ◽  
Reinfection Rate ◽  
Solid Malignancy ◽  
Clinical Conditions ◽  
Pcr Test

Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and laboratory outcomes of solid cancer patients who were reinfected with COVID-19. Methods: Patients who were tested negative on the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) PCR test and those with improved clinical conditions after infection with COVID-19 were enrolled in this study. Patients who received a positive COVID-19 PCR test 28 days after the initial positive PCR test were considered as reinfected. Results: A total of 1024 patients with the diagnosis of solid malignancy and COVID-19 PCR positivity were examined. The reinfection rate was 3.1%. Mortality rate of reinfection was 34.3%. The serum ferritin and creatinine values in reinfection were found to be significantly higher than the first infection (respectively; p = 0.015, p = 0.014). Conclusion: This study has demonstrated one of the first preliminary clinical results of COVID-19 reinfection in solid cancer patients.

scholarly journals Sepsis in patients with haematological versus solid cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e038349
Author(s):  
Ralphe Bou Chebl ◽  
Rawan Safa ◽  
Mohammad Sabra ◽  
Ali Chami ◽  
Iskandar Berbari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Haematological Malignancy ◽  
Solid Cancer ◽  
Solid Malignancy

ObjectivesThis study aims to examine the outcome of haematological and patients with solid cancer presenting with sepsis to the emergency department (ED).DesignSingle-centred, retrospective cohort study. Setting conducted at an academic emergency department of a tertiary hospital.ParticipantsAll patients >18 years of age admitted with sepsis were included.InterventionsPatients were stratified into two groups: haematological and solid malignancy.Primary and secondary outcomeThe primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, ICU and hospital lengths of stay and mechanical ventilation duration.Results442 sepsis cancer patients were included in the study, of which 305 patients (69%) had solid tumours and 137 patients (31%) had a haematological malignancy. The mean age at presentation was 67.92 (±13.32) and 55.37 (±20.85) (p<0.001) for solid and liquid tumours, respectively. Among patients with solid malignancies, lung cancer was the most common source (15.6%). As for the laboratory workup, septic solid cancer patients were found to have a higher white blood count (12 576.90 vs 9137.23; p=0.026). During their hospital stay, a total of 158 (51.8%) patients with a solid malignancy died compared with 57 (41.6%) patients with a haematological malignancy (p=0.047). There was no statistically significant association between cancer type and hospital mortality (OR 1.15 for liquid cancer p 0.58). There was also no statistically significant difference regarding intravenous fluid administration, vasopressor use, steroid use or intubation.ConclusionSolid tumour patients with sepsis or septic shock are at the same risk of mortality as patients with haematological tumours. However, haematological malignancy patients admitted with sepsis or septic shock have higher rates of bacteraemia.

scholarly journals Comparison of Cancer Patients to Non-Cancer Patients among COVID-19 Inpatients at a National Level

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1436
Author(s):  
Alain Bernard ◽  
Jonathan Cottenet ◽  
Philippe Bonniaud ◽  
Lionel Piroth ◽  
Patrick Arveux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
National Level ◽  
Administrative Database ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Solid Cancer ◽  
Hematological Cancer ◽  
Risk Of Death

(1) Background: Several smaller studies have shown that COVID-19 patients with cancer are at a significantly higher risk of death. Our objective was to compare patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with cancer to those without cancer using national data and to study the effect of cancer on the risk of hospital death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. (2) Methods: All patients hospitalized in France for COVID-19 in March–April 2020 were included from the French national administrative database, which contains discharge summaries for all hospital admissions in France. Cancer patients were identified within this population. The effect of cancer was estimated with logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities. (3) Results: Among the 89,530 COVID-19 patients, we identified 6201 cancer patients (6.9%). These patients were older and were more likely to be men and to have complications (acute respiratory and kidney failure, venous thrombosis, atrial fibrillation) than those without cancer. In patients with hematological cancer, admission to ICU was significantly more frequent (24.8%) than patients without cancer (16.4%) (p < 0.01). Solid cancer patients without metastasis had a significantly higher mortality risk than patients without cancer (aOR = 1.4 [1.3–1.5]), and the difference was even more marked for metastatic solid cancer patients (aOR = 3.6 [3.2–4.0]). Compared to patients with colorectal cancer, patients with lung cancer, digestive cancer (excluding colorectal cancer) and hematological cancer had a higher mortality risk (aOR = 2.0 [1.6–2.6], 1.6 [1.3–2.1] and 1.4 [1.1–1.8], respectively). (4) Conclusions: This study shows that, in France, patients with COVID-19 and cancer have a two-fold risk of death when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer. We suggest the need to reorganize facilities to prevent the contamination of patients being treated for cancer, similar to what is already being done in some countries.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Cancer Patients: A Single Centre Experience

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 3573
Author(s):  
Alfred Chung Pui So ◽  
Harriet McGrath ◽  
Jonathan Ting ◽  
Krishnie Srikandarajah ◽  
Styliani Germanou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Solid Malignancy ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Oncology Centre

Emergency approval of vaccines against COVID-19 provides an opportunity for us to return to pre-pandemic oncology care. However, safety data in cancer patients is lacking due to their exclusion from most phase III trials. We included all patients aged less than 65 years who received a COVID-19 vaccine from 8 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 at our London tertiary oncology centre. Solicited and unsolicited vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) were collected using telephone or face-to-face consultation. Within the study period, 373 patients received their first dose of vaccine: Pfizer/BioNTech (75.1%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (23.6%), Moderna (0.3%), and unknown (1.1%). Median follow-up was 25 days (5–85). Median age was 56 years (19–65). Of the patients, 94.9% had a solid malignancy and 76.7% were stage 3–4. The most common cancers were breast (34.0%), lung (13.4%), colorectal (10.2%), and gynaecological (10.2%). Of the patients, 88.5% were receiving anti-cancer treatment (36.2% parenteral chemotherapy and 15.3% immunotherapy), 76.1% developed any grade VRAE of which 2.1% were grade 3. No grade 4/5 or anaphylaxis were observed. The most common VRAEs within 7 days post-vaccination were sore arm (61.7%), fatigue (18.2%), and headaches (12.1%). Most common grade 3 VRAE was fatigue (1.1%). Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines in oncology patients have mild reactogenicity.

scholarly journals The association between immune-related adverse events and the prognosis of solid cancer patients treated with immunotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592098054
Author(s):  
Huilin Xu ◽  
Ximing Xu ◽  
Wei Ge ◽  
Jinju Lei ◽  
Dedong Cao
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Good Survival ◽  
Solid Cancer ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Early Effect ◽  
Overall Response

Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment and reported to be associated with good survival. This study evaluated the association between onset timing of irAEs and survival of cancer patients treated with ICIs. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched to retrieve clinical studies assessing the relationship between irAEs and survival in cancer patients with ICIs. The overall response rate for treatment response and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using RevMan 5.3. Subgroup analysis in terms of cancer type, ICIs type, region, specific irAEs, accordingly. Results: A total of 34 studies were included. The HRs for OS and PFS in cancer patients with versus without irAEs were 0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44, 0.74; p < 0.0001], and 0.50 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.67; p < 0.00001), respectively. The odds ratio for overall response in cancer patients with irAEs was 4.72 (95% CI: 3.48, 6.40; p < 0.00001) compared with those without irAEs. Subgroup analyses suggested that the prognostic role of irAEs was associated with cancer types and region, but not irAEs types. The landmark analysis of OS revealed that there is a non-proportional (early) effect of irAEs on OS in ICI-treated cancer patients (landmark >12 weeks, HROS = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.30; p = 0.46). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the occurrence of irAEs could be a prognostic factor for cancer patients who were treated with ICIs.

scholarly journals Increased Hospitalization and Mortality from COVID-19 in Prostate Cancer Patients

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1630
Author(s):  
Dimple Chakravarty ◽  
Parita Ratnani ◽  
Stanislaw Sobotka ◽  
Dara Lundon ◽  
Peter Wiklund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Mount Sinai Hospital ◽  
Solid Cancer ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Hospital System ◽  
Tumor Types

Background: Cancer patients with COVID-19 have a poor disease course. Among tumor types, prostate cancer and COVID-19 share several risk factors, and the interaction of prostate cancer and COVID-19 is purported to have an adverse outcome. Methods: This was a single-institution retrospective study on 286,609 patients who underwent the COVID-19 test at Mount Sinai Hospital system from March 2020 to December 2020. Chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests were used to summarize baseline characteristics of categorical data, and Mann–Whitney U test was used for continuous variables. Univariable logistic regression analysis to compare the hospitalization and mortality rates and the strength of association was obtained by the odds ratio and confidence interval. Results: This study aimed to compare hospitalization and mortality rates between men with COVID-19 and prostate cancer and those who were COVID-19-positive with non-prostate genitourinary malignancy or any solid cancer, and with breast cancer patients. We also compared our studies to others that reported the incidence and severity of COVID-19 in prostate cancer patients. Our studies highlight that patients with prostate cancer had higher susceptibility to COVID-19-related pathogenesis, resulting in higher mortality and hospitalization rates. Hospitalization and mortality rates were higher in prostate cancer patients with COVID-19 when compared with COVID-19 patients with non-prostate genitourinary (GU) malignancies.

scholarly journals Association of SCFA in gut microbiome and clinical response in solid cancer patients treated with andi-PD-1 antibody

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. v509 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Nomura ◽  
R. Nagatomo ◽  
K. Inoue ◽  
K. Doi ◽  
J. Shimizu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Gut Microbiome ◽  
Solid Cancer

Beta-Blocker Attenuates Cardiotoxicity Related Anthracycline Usage

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (8) ◽  
pp. 1389-1392
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Beta Blocker ◽  
The Other ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Therapy Effectiveness ◽  
Chemotherapy Agents

To summarize the recent trials and studies of the role of beta-blocker on the treatment for cancer patients treated with anthracycline to decrease morbidity and mortality rate. Good management of cancer will result in large numbers of cancer survivors. On the other hand, cancer therapy also has side effects, one of which is cardiotoxicity. Cardiotoxicity could reduce therapy effectiveness, hence, increase disease progression and mortality rate. Anthracyclines is one of the chemotherapy agents with cardiotoxicity as a side effect. Beta-blocker has the ability to reduce cardiotoxicity due to anthracyclines usage. Keywords: Beta-blocker; Cardiotoxicity; Anthracyclines

Clinical outcomes of cancer patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18600-e18600
Author(s):  
Maryam Alasfour ◽  
Salman Alawadi ◽  
Malak AlMojel ◽  
Philippos Apolinario Costa ◽  
Priscila Barreto Coelho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Prediction Intervals ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Small Sample Sizes ◽  
Meta Analyses

e18600 Background: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and cancer have worse clinical outcomes compared to those without cancer. Primary studies have examined this population, but most had small sample sizes and conflicting results. Prior meta-analyses exclude most US and European data or only examine mortality. The present meta-analysis evaluates the prevalence of several clinical outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19, including new emerging data from Europe and the US. Methods: A systematic search of PubMED, medRxiv, JMIR and Embase by two independent investigators included peer-reviewed papers and preprints up to July 8, 2020. The primary outcome was mortality. Other outcomes were ICU and non-ICU admission, mild, moderate and severe complications, ARDS, invasive ventilation, stable, and clinically improved rates. Study quality was assessed through the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Random effects model was used to derive prevalence rates, their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and 95% prediction intervals (PI). Results: Thirty-four studies (N = 4,371) were included in the analysis. The mortality prevalence rate was 25.2% (95% CI: 21.1–29.7; 95% PI: 9.8-51.1; I 2 = 85.4), with 11.9% ICU admissions (95% CI: 9.2-15.4; 95% PI: 4.3-28.9; I 2= 77.8) and 25.2% clinically stable (95% CI: 21.1-29.7; 95% PI: 9.8-51.1; I 2 = 85.4). Furthermore, 42.5% developed severe complications (95% CI: 30.4-55.7; 95% PI: 8.2-85.9; I 2 = 94.3), with 22.7% developing ARDS (95% CI: 15.4-32.2; 95% PI: 5.8-58.6; I 2 = 82.4), and 11.3% needing invasive ventilation (95% CI: 6.7-18.4; 95% PI: 2.3-41.1; I 2 = 79.8). Post-follow up, 49% clinically improved (95% CI: 35.6-62.6; 95% PI: 9.8-89.4; I 2 = 92.5). All outcomes had large I 2 , suggesting high levels of heterogeneity among studies, and wide PIs indicating high variability within outcomes. Despite this variability, the mortality rate in cancer patients with COVID-19, even at the lower end of the PI (9.8%), is higher than the 2% mortality rate of the non-cancer with COVID-19 population, but not as high as what other meta-analyses conclude, which is around 25%. Conclusions: Patients with cancer who develop COVID-19 have a higher probability of mortality compared to the general population with COVID-19, but possibly not as high as previous studies have shown. A large proportion of them developed severe complications, but a larger proportion recovered. Prevalence of mortality and other outcomes published in prior meta-analyses did not report prediction intervals, which compromises the clinical utilization of such results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document