Decreased Utilization of Low-Value Health Care Services during the Covid-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Low value health care is defined as care in which the potential to cause harm is greater than benefit. We hypothesize that rationing of health care services during the pandemic decreased the delivery of low value services. METHOD(S): Data was retrieved from the Mass General Brigham Research Patient Data Registry. High value care services were defined by U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, while low value care services were adapted for claims as described in the literature. Twenty-one services (4 high value and 17 low value) had adequate volume for analysis. Three month periods were considered, consisting of the pandemic period (Q4: 3/2/20 to 6/1/20) and control periods preceding the pandemic (Q1: 12/1/18 to 3/1/19;Q2: 3/2/19 to 6/1/19;and Q3: 12/1/19 to 3/1/20). Ratio measures of services per period were used to account for seasonality and differences in frequency.The 2019 high value (H) care ratio (Y0H = NHQ2/NHQ1) illustrates relative service counts during a typical year and the 2020 ratio (Y1H = NHQ4/NHQ3) represents the change due to the pandemic. Difference in ratios YH=Y1H-Y0H less than zero reflects a reduction in high value services during the pandemic. The same calculation was made for low value (L) procedures;YL=Y1LY0L. The difference between YL and YH is the difference in differences (DID) estimator and illustrates the differential decline in services. YH- YL greater than zero suggests that low value care declined to a greater degree than high value care. Subdivision DID in ratio analyses were performed for cancer and non-cancer care. RESULT(S): Included in this analysis were 3,271,957 patients. Mean age was 51.4 years, 59.1% of patients were female, and 71.7% were non-Hispanic. Of 21 identified services, 18 had a reduction in volume during the pandemic. The YL for PSA testing in men older than 75 was -0.81. The DID in ratios of all care was 0.08 (p<0.01), suggesting a modest decline in low-value care (Figure 1). The reduction was more pronounced for cancer care with a DID in ratios of 3.39 (p<0.01). CONCLUSION(S): We observed a reduction in both low and high value care with a greater reduction in low value services, especially for cancer care. Limitations include use of data from a single health system, limited number of services, and short time periods given the rapid onset of the pandemic.

COVID-19 in cancer patients: update from the joint analysis of the ESMO-CoCARE, BSMO, and PSMO international databases.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has significantly affected patients with cancer and revealed unanticipated challenges in securing optimal cancer care across different disciplines. The European Society for Medical Oncology COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international, real-world database, collecting data on the natural history, management, and outcomes of patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This is the 2nd CoCARE analysis, jointly with Belgian (Belgian Society of Medical Oncology, BSMO) and Portuguese (Portuguese Society of Medical Oncology, PSMO) registries, with data from January 2020 to December 2021. The aim is to identify significant prognostic factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality (primary outcomes), as well as intensive care unit admission and overall survival (OS) (secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses by pandemic phase and vaccination status were carried out. RESULTS: The cohort includes 3294 patients (CoCARE: 2049; BSMO: 928, all hospitalized by eligibility criteria; PSMO: 317), diagnosed in four distinct pandemic phases (January to May 2020: 36%; June to September 2020: 9%; October 2020 to February 2021: 41%; March to December 2021: 12%). COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 54% (CoCARE/PSMO), ICU admission 14%, and COVID-19 mortality 22% (all data). At a 6-month median follow-up, 1013 deaths were recorded with 73% 3-month OS rate. No significant change was observed in COVID-19 mortality among hospitalized patients across the four pandemic phases (30%-33%). Hospitalizations and ICU admission decreased significantly (from 78% to 34% and 16% to 10%, respectively). Among 1522 patients with known vaccination status at COVID-19 diagnosis, 70% were non-vaccinated, 24% had incomplete vaccination, and 7% complete vaccination. Complete vaccination had a protective effect on hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [0.14-0.38]), ICU admission (odds ratio = 0.29 [0.09-0.94]), and OS (hazard ratio = 0.39 [0.20-0.76]). In multivariable analyses, COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with patient/cancer characteristics, the first pandemic phase, the presence of COVID-19-related symptoms or inflammatory biomarkers, whereas COVID-19 mortality was significantly higher in symptomatic patients, males, older age, ethnicity other than Asian/Caucasian, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, body mass index <25, hematological malignancy, progressive disease versus no evident disease, and advanced cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: The updated CoCARE analysis, jointly with BSMO and PSMO, highlights factors that significantly affect COVID-19 outcomes, providing actionable clues for further reducing mortality.

Oncology clinical trial disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic: a COVID-19 and cancer outcomes study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disproportionately impacted patients with cancer as a result of direct infection, and delays in diagnosis and therapy. Oncological clinical trials are resource-intensive endeavors that could be particularly susceptible to disruption by the pandemic, but few studies have evaluated the impact of the pandemic on clinical trial conduct. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter study assesses the impact of the pandemic on therapeutic clinical trials at two large academic centers in the Northeastern United States between December 2019 and June 2021. The primary objective was to assess the enrollment on, accrual to, and activation of oncology therapeutic clinical trials during the pandemic using an institution-wide cohort of (i) new patient accruals to oncological trials, (ii) a manually curated cohort of patients with cancer, and (ii) a dataset of new trial activations. RESULTS: The institution-wide cohort included 4756 new patients enrolled to clinical trials from December 2019 to June 2021. A major decrease in the numbers of new patient accruals (-46%) was seen early in the pandemic, followed by a progressive recovery and return to higher-than-normal levels (+2.6%). A similar pattern (from -23.6% to +30.4%) was observed among 467 newly activated trials from June 2019 to June 2021. A more pronounced decline in new accruals was seen among academically sponsored trials (versus industry sponsored trials) (P < 0.05). In the manually curated cohort, which included 2361 patients with cancer, non-white patients tended to be more likely taken off trial in the early pandemic period (adjusted odds ratio: 2.60; 95% confidence interval 1.00-6.63), and substantial pandemic-related deviations were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial disruptions in clinical trial activities were observed early during the pandemic, with a gradual recovery during ensuing time periods, both from an enrollment and an activation standpoint. The observed decline was more prominent among academically sponsored trials, and racial disparities were seen among people taken off trial.

COVID-19 in patients with cancer: first report of the ESMO international, registry-based, cohort study (ESMO-CoCARE).

BACKGROUND: ESMO COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international collaborative registry-based, cohort study gathering real-world data from Europe, Asia/Oceania and Africa on the natural history, management and outcomes of patients with cancer infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ESMO-CoCARE captures information on patients with solid/haematological malignancies, diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data collected since June 2020 include demographics, comorbidities, laboratory measurements, cancer characteristics, COVID-19 clinical features, management and outcome. Parameters influencing COVID-19 severity/recovery were investigated as well as factors associated with overall survival (OS) upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: This analysis includes 1626 patients from 20 countries (87% from 24 European, 7% from 5 North African, 6% from 8 Asian/Oceanian centres), with COVID-19 diagnosis from January 2020 to May 2021. Median age was 64 years, with 52% of female, 57% of cancer stage III/IV and 65% receiving active cancer treatment. Nearly 64% patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 diagnosis, with 11% receiving intensive care. In multivariable analysis, male sex, older age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥2, body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2, presence of comorbidities, symptomatic disease, as well as haematological malignancies, active/progressive cancer, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥6 and OnCovid Inflammatory Score ≤40 were associated with COVID-19 severity (i.e. severe/moderate disease requiring hospitalization). About 98% of patients with mild COVID-19 recovered, as opposed to 71% with severe/moderate disease. Advanced cancer stage was an additional adverse prognostic factor for recovery. At data cut-off, and with median follow-up of 3 months, the COVID-19-related death rate was 24.5% (297/1212), with 380 deaths recorded in total. Almost all factors associated with COVID-19 severity, except for BMI and NLR, were also predictive of inferior OS, along with smoking and non-Asian ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Selected patient and cancer characteristics related to sex, ethnicity, poor fitness, comorbidities, inflammation and active malignancy predict for severe/moderate disease and adverse outcomes from COVID-19 in patients with cancer.

Disruption to care of patients with thoracic malignancies: A COVID-19 and cancer outcomes study

Introduction: Patients with thoracic malignancies are susceptible to severe outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to evaluate the disruption to care of patients with thoracic malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The COVID-19 and Cancer Outcomes Study (CCOS) is a multicenter prospective cohort study comprised of adult patients with a current or past history of hematological malignancy or invasive solid tumor who had an outpatient medical oncology visit on the index week between March 2 and March 6, 2020 at the Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, NY (MSSM) or the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, MA (DFCI). An electronic data capture platform was used to collect patient-, cancer-, and treatment-related variables during the three months prior to the index week (the baseline period) and the following three months (the pandemic period). Two-by-three contingency tables with Fisher's exact tests were computed. All tests were two-tailed and considered statistically significant for p<0.05. All analyses were done in the R statistical environment (v3.6.1). Results: The overall cohort included 2365 patients, of which 313 had thoracic malignancies, 1578 had other solid tumors, and 474 had hematological malignancies. At a median follow-up of 84 days (95% confidence interval, 82-84), 13 patients with thoracic malignancies (4.1%) had developed COVID-19 (vs. other solid: 63 [4.0%] and hematological: 52 [11.0%];p<0.001). When comparing data from the pandemic period to the baseline period, patients with thoracic malignancies had a decrease in the number of in-person outpatient visits (thoracic: 209 [66.8%] vs. other solid: 749 [47.5%] vs. hematological: 260 [54.9%];p<0.001) and an increase in the number of telehealth visits (thoracic: 126 [40.3%] vs. other solid: 465 [29.5%] vs. hematological: 168 [35.4%];p<0.001). During the pandemic period, 33 (10.5%) patients with thoracic malignancies experienced treatment delays due to the pandemic (vs. other solid: 127 [8.0%] and hematological: 79 [16.7%];p<0.001), and 26 (8.3%) patients with thoracic malignancies experienced delays in cancer imaging or diagnostic procedures (vs. other solid: 63 [4.0%] and hematological: 26 [5.5%];p=0.003). Discussion: In this prospective cohort study, patients with thoracic malignancies were not at increased risk of developing COVID-19 compared to patients with other cancers, but experienced significant cancer care disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic with a higher likelihood of decreased in-person visits and increased telehealth visits compared to patients with other malignancies. Focused efforts to ensure continuity of care for this vulnerable patient population are warranted.

Temporal changes in the screening, diagnosis and surgical treatment of genitourinary (GU) malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a significant disruption in healthcare services including cancer screening and diagnosis. Delays in cancer screening and treatment may lead to increased mortality. We aimed to analyze changes in screening, diagnosis and surgical treatment of common GU malignancies in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We evaluated screening, novel diagnoses, and surgical management modalities of prostate cancer (PCa), urothelial carcinoma (UC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) within Massachusetts General Brigham, the largest healthcare system in the Northeastern United States, over four 3-month time periods during the pandemic (March 2020- March 2021). The percentage change in screening, diagnoses and management modalities during pandemic periods as compared to the immediate pre-pandemic period (December 2019-March 2020) was calculated as (Nperiod - Ncontrol)/Ncontrol. The difference in "predicted" versus "observed" diagnoses in each pandemic period was compared to the average of the four preceding 3-month periods (March 2019-March 2020) to account for seasonal variation. Results: The first pandemic peak (March-June 2020) was associated with a significant decline across screening, diagnosis and treatment, ranging from -15.7 to -64.8%, followed by a progressive recovery, ranging from -5.9 to +25.1% in the latest period (December 2020-March 2021) (Table). Although 725 diagnoses were "missed" between March and June 2020 as compared to the previous 12 months, 971 diagnoses were "recovered" between June 2020 and March 2021. Conclusions: A substantial disruption in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of GU malignancies was observed early in the pandemic, followed by a progressive rebound and recovery. The highest declines were observed for PSA screening, and the lowest for cystectomy procedures, reflecting triaging of care based on severity during the pandemic.

COVID-19 vaccination and breakthrough infections in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is an important preventive health measure to protect against symptomatic and severe COVID-19. Impaired immunity secondary to an underlying malignancy or recent receipt of antineoplastic systemic therapies can result in less robust antibody titers following vaccination and possible risk of breakthrough infection. As clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 vaccines largely excluded patients with a history of cancer and those on active immunosuppression (including chemotherapy), limited evidence is available to inform the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination across the spectrum of patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We describe the clinical features of patients with cancer who developed symptomatic COVID-19 following vaccination and compare weighted outcomes with those of contemporary unvaccinated patients, after adjustment for confounders, using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19). RESULTS: Patients with cancer who develop COVID-19 following vaccination have substantial comorbidities and can present with severe and even lethal infection. Patients harboring hematologic malignancies are over-represented among vaccinated patients with cancer who develop symptomatic COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against COVID-19 remains an essential strategy in protecting vulnerable populations, including patients with cancer. Patients with cancer who develop breakthrough infection despite full vaccination, however, remain at risk of severe outcomes. A multilayered public health mitigation approach that includes vaccination of close contacts, boosters, social distancing, and mask-wearing should be continued for the foreseeable future.

LBA71 Systemic cancer treatment-related outcomes in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A CCC19 registry analysis

Background: SARS-CoV-2 is associated with diverse clinical presentations ranging from asymptomatic infection to lethal complications. Small studies have suggested inferior outcomes in patients (pts) on active cancer treatment. This finding was not independently validated in our prior report on 928 pts, which included treatments administered within 4 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis. Here, we examine outcomes related to systemic cancer treatment within one year of lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in an expanded cohort. Method(s): The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry (NCT04354701) was queried for pts ever receiving systemic treatment. Treatment type, cancer type, stage, and COVID-19 outcomes were examined. Pts were stratified by time from last treatment administration: <2 wk, 2-4 wk, 1-3 mo, or 3-12 mo. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) of mortality by treatment type and timing were calculated. Result(s): As of 31 July 2020, we analyzed 3920 pts;42% received systemic anti-cancer treatment within 12 mo (Table). 159 distinct medications were administered. The highest rate of COVID-19-associated complications were observed in pts treated within 1-3 months prior to COVID-19;all-cause mortality in this group was 26%. 30-day mortality by most recent treatment type was 20% for chemotherapy, 18% for immunotherapy, 17% for chemoradiotherapy, 29% for chemoimmunotherapy, 20% for targeted therapy, and 11% for endocrine therapy. SIR of mortality was highest for chemoimmunotherapy or chemotherapy <2 wks, and lowest for endocrine treatments. A high SIR was also found for targeted agents within 3-12 mo. Pts untreated in the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis had a mortality of 14%. [Formula presented] Conclusion(s): 30-day mortality was highest amongst cancer pts treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis and those treated with chemoimmunotherapy. Except for endocrine therapy, mortality for subgroups was numerically higher than in pts untreated within a year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Clinical trial identification: NCT04354701. Legal entity responsible for the study: The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19). Funding(s): National Cancer Institute (P30 CA068485). Disclosure: T.M. Wise-Draper: Research grant/Funding (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AstraZeneca;Research grant/Funding (self): BMS;Research grant/Funding (self): Tesaro/GSK;Advisory/Consultancy: Shattuck Labs;Leadership role, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, HNC POA Lead: Caris Life Sciences;Research grant/Funding (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Merck;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Eli Lilly;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Bexion. A. Elkrief: Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca. B.I. Rini: Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Merck;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Roche;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pfizer;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): AVEO;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: BMS;Advisory/Consultancy: arravive;Advisory/Consultancy: 3D medicines;Advisory/Consultancy: Synthorx;Advisory/Consultancy: Surface Oncology;Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options: PTC Therapeutics;Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca. D.B. Johnson: Advisory/Consultancy: Array Biopharma;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): BMS;Advisory/Consultancy: Janssen;Advisory/Consultancy: Merck;Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis;Research grant/Funding (self): Incyte;Leadership role: ASCO melanoma scientific committee chair;Leadership role: NCCN Melanoma committee. G. Lopes: Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pfizer;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self), Research grant/Funding (institution): AstraZeneca;Research grant/Funding (institution): Merck;Research grant/Funding (institution): EMD Serono;Research gr

Impact of #ASCO Twitter impressions on the oncology community

Background: The oncology community is embracing social media (SM) platforms like Twitter to gain exposure to research, to network, and to engage in real-time discussions. The emergence of SM activity around the ASCO annual meetings has dramatically increased over the past 5 years, with factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic further accelerating use of digital platforms. This growth in SM engagement within the oncology community has previously been presented by totaling the quantity of tweets within a given time frame. Here, we explore the impact of specific trends through impression data. Methods: To evaluate activity trends among certain oncology stakeholders, we utilized an SM analytics platform, Symplur, to conduct a content analysis around ASCO conferences (2016-2020) using hashtags (#ASCOyy) as the search criterion. We focused our analysis on trends in impressions, defined by the theoretical maximum number of Twitter users a given tweet could have directly reached in a follower's timeline. We gathered impressions data to quantitatively assess overall ASCO engagement and evaluate topics of interest, and to discover common ASCO themes and reach within specific stakeholder groups. Results: Our results show the largest increase in impressions was during #ASCO20, despite a plateauing effect seen in the actual number of tweets (Table). The cumulative number of impressions for #ASCO16 was 468.2 million compared with approximately 1.12 billion for #ASCO20. Differentiating this result from the number of tweets related to ASCO, there was stabilization in the absolute number from #ASCO17 onward. When compiling impressions by doctors and by patient advocates, a similar trend emerged, with the most impressions captured during #ASCO20 (Table). Conclusions:As SM use continues to expand in the oncology community, stakeholders have turned to their digital voice to express views and opinions. The impact of impressions versus absolute number of tweets will continue to grow with a stakeholder's follower count, thus building on the digital presence in oncology.

Effect of bacillus calmette-guerin (BCG) exposure on severity of COVID-19 infection: A COVID-19 and cancer consortium (CCC19) study

Background: Oncology patients experience more severe disease outcomes from COVID-19 infection than the general population. BCG is a live bovine tuberculosis bacillus with immunotherapeutic effects in urothelial cancers;it is also used as vaccination against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in parts of the world. As BCG vaccination has been associated with broad protection against viral pathogens, BCG exposure through vaccination or intravesical therapy may modulate host immunity and reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection. We report the effect of BCG exposure on COVID-19 severity in oncology patients from the CCC19 registry. Methods: The CCC19 registry (NCT04354701) was used to identify patients with prior BCG exposure. Cohort A received intravesical treatment for bladder carcinoma, and cohort B received prior BCG vaccination. Each cohort was matched 3:1 to non-BCG-exposed controls by age, sex, race, primary cancer type, cancer status, ECOG performance status (PS) and calendar time of COVID-19 infection. The primary endpoint was COVID-19 severity reported on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to ICU +/- ventilated, died within 30 days) of patients exposed to prior BCG compared to matched non-exposed controls. 2-sided Wilcoxon ranksum tests were used. Results: As of 6-Feb-2021 we included 124 patients with BCG exposure, 68 patients with bladder carcinoma who had received intravesical BCG (Cohort A), and 64 cancer patients with prior BCG vaccination (Cohort B). Median age was 76 years, IQR 69-83 (Cohort A) and 67 years, IQR 62-74 (Cohort B). Bladder cancer pts were predominately male (78%) vs 55% for Cohort B. Patients with PS 2+ were uncommon, 18% in Cohort A and 16% in Cohort B. COVID-19 illness severity was no different in patients exposed to prior intravesicular BCG (p=0.87). COVID-19 illness severity was no different in patients exposed to prior intradermal BCG vaccination (p=0.60). Conclusions: Despite this being the largest such cohort reported to date, we failed to demonstrate an association of prior BCG exposure with modulation of severity of COVID19 illness. Prospective trials evaluating the protective effect of BCG vaccination are ongoing and will add further insight into the effect of BCG on COVID-19 illness.

Association of clinical factors and recent anticancer therapy with COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer: a report from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients). RESULTS: A total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT04354701.

Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer: Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19)

Background: There are limited data on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. We characterize the outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors. Methods: The COVID- 19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) cohort study includes patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies reported across academic and community sites. Results: We included 1,018 cases accrued March-April 2020. Median age was 66 years (range, 18-90). Breast (20%) and prostate (16%) cancers were most prevalent;43% of patients were on active anti-cancer treatment. At time of data analysis, 106 patients (10.4%) have died and 26% met the composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, and/or mechanical ventilation. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30- day mortality were age, male sex, former smoking, ECOG performance status (2 versus 0/1: partially adjusted odds ratio (pAOR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.31-5.7;3/4 versus 0/1: pAOR 5.34, 95% CI 2.44-11.69), active malignancy (stable/responding, pAOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.06-3.5;progressing, pAOR 3.79, 95% CI 1.78-8.08), and receipt of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. Tumor type, race/ethnicity, obesity, number of comorbidities, recent surgery, and type of active cancer therapy were not significant factors for mortality. Conclusions: All-cause 30-day mortality and severe illness in this cohort were significantly higher than previously reported for the general population and were associated with general risk factors as well as those unique to patients with cancer. Cancer type and treatment were not independently associated with increased 30-day mortality. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments.

Disparities in cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: COVID-19 and cancer outcomes study (CCOS)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly altered cancer care. However, the ways in which it has done so and the associated impact at the individual and societal levels remains poorly defined. Methods: CCOS is a multicenter prospective cohort study designed to define the impact of the pandemic on cancer care delivery and outcomes. The CCOS cohort comprised consecutive outpatients with cancer seen at two US cancer centers from March 2 to March 6, 2020 (index visit). Data was collected at baseline, retrospectively from the preceding 3 months, and prospectively at 3-month follow up. Per patient changes in numbers of visits were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Correlates of increases in telehealth visits and decreases in in-person visits were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models. Adjusted Odds ratios [aOR] and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Results: Of 2365 included patients, 1219 (51.6%) had a decrease in in-person visit frequency during the pandemic period relative to the preceding 3 months. Conversely, 760 (32.2%) had an increased frequency of telehealth visits (decrease in in-person and increase in telehealth visits;both p<0.01). 128 (5.4%) patients developed COVID-19. Compared to White patients, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to have telehealth visits, had no significant change in frequency of in-person visits, and were more likely to develop COVID-19 (Table). [Formula presented] Conclusions: Significant disruptions to routine cancer care were observed during the pandemic period relative to the prior 3 months. Racial and ethnic barriers to the adoption of telehealth, and related socioeconomic factors, place these vulnerable populations simultaneously at disproportionate risk for decreased cancer-related visits and COVID infection, thereby exacerbating existing racial and ethnic health disparities. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: D. Doroshow: Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ipsen;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: Athenaeum Partners;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: Boston Healthcare Associates. A.L. Schmidt: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pfizer;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Astellas. Z. Bakouny: Non-remunerated activity/ies: Bristol Myers Squibb;Research grant/Funding (self): Genentech/ImCore. M.M. Awad: Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Bristol Myers Squibb;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Lilly;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Genentech;Advisory/Consultancy: Merck;Advisory/Consultancy: Achilles;Advisory/Consultancy: AbbVie. R. Haddad: Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Bristol Myers Squibb;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Merck;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Pfizer;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Genentech;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): GlaxoSmithKline. M.D. Galsky: Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options: Rappta Therapeutics;Honoraria (self): BioMotiv;Honoraria (self): Janssen;Honoraria (self): Dendreon;Honoraria (self): Merck;Honoraria (self): GlaxoSmithKline;Honoraria (self): Lilly;Honoraria (self): Astellas Pharma;Honoraria (self): Genentech;Honoraria (self): Bristol-Myers Squibb;Honoraria (self): Novartis;Honoraria (self): Pfizer;Honoraria (self): EMD Serono;Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca;Honoraria (self): Seattle Genetics;Honoraria (self): Incyte;Honoraria (self): Alleron Therapeutics;Honoraria (self): Dracen;Honoraria (self): Inovio Pharmaceuticals;Honoraria (self): NuMab;Honoraria (self): Dragonfly Therapeutics;Honoraria (institution): Janssen Oncology;Honoraria (institution): Dendreon;Honoraria (institution): Novartis;Honoraria (institu ion): Bristol-Myers Squibb;Honoraria (institution): Merck;Honoraria (institution): AstraZeneca;Honoraria (institution): Genentech/Roche. T.K. Choueiri: Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Alexion;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Bayer;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): BristolMyersSquibb;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Cerulean;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Eisai;Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (self): Foundation Medicine;Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (self): Exelixis;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Ipsen;Research grant/Funding (self): 16 Tracon;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Genentech;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Roche;Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (self): Roche Products Limited;Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (self): Hoffman-LaRoche;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): GlaxoSmithKline;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Lilly;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Merck;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Novartis;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Peloton;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Pfizer;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Prometheus labs;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Corvus;Research grant/Funding (self): Calithera;Research grant/Funding (self): Analysis Group;Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (self): Sanofi/Aventis;Research grant/Funding (self): Takeda;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: EMD Serono;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: UpToDate;Honoraria (self): NCCN;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Dr. Choueiri reports research support from AstraZeneca, Alexion, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Ipsen, 16 Tracon, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Calithera, Analysis Group, Sanofi/Aventis, Takeda;Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Ipsen, Up-to-Date, NCCN, Analysis Group, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy (MJH) Associates, Inc (Healthcare Communications Company with several brands such as OnClive, PeerView and PER), Research to Practice, L-path, Kidney Cancer Journal, Clinical Care Options, Platform Q, Navinata Healthcare, Harborside Press, American Society of Me: Analysis Group. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.