Professional Challenges for United States Hematology/Oncology Trainees during COVID-19.

COVID-19 has been devastating for patients with cancer. In this commentary, we chronicle the pandemic's downstream impacts on United States hematology/oncology trainees in terms of professional development and career advancement. These include loss of access to clinical electives and protocol workshops, delays in research approval and execution, mentor shortages due to academic burnout, and obstacles with career transitions (most notably the post-fellowship job search). While certain silver linings from the pandemic have undoubtedly emerged, continued progress against COVID-19 will be essential to fully overcome the professional challenges it has created for the future hematology/oncology workforce.

Interplay of Immunosuppression and Immunotherapy Among Patients With Cancer and COVID-19.

Importance: Cytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation. Objective: To determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings. Exposures: Immunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm. Results: The median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701.

Effect of 2 vs 3 Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Population-based Propensity Matched Analysis.

AIM: There are limited data on the impact of 2 vs 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The primary aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine based on number of administered doses in patients with IBD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database to compare patients with IBD who received 1, 2, or 3 doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 to unvaccinated IBD patients (1.1.2020-7.26.2022) to assess the risk of COVID-19 after 1:1 propensity score matching. We also evaluated the impact of vaccine on a composite of severe COVID-19 outcomes including hospitalization, intubation, intensive care unit care, acute kidney injury, or mortality. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, vaccinated patients with 2 (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-0.9) and 3 doses (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) were found to have a lower risk of COVID-19 compared with unvaccinated patients. Vaccinated patients with IBD had a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) compared with unvaccinated patients. There was no difference in the risk of COVID-19 in IBD patients with 2 compared with 3 doses (aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3). However, IBD patients with 2 doses were at an increased risk for hospitalization due to COVID-19 (aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.02-3.11) compared with those that received 3 doses. CONCLUSION: Vaccinated patients with IBD had a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with unvaccinated patients. A third dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with 2 doses decreases the risk of hospitalization but not breakthrough infection in patients with IBD.

Geriatric risk factors for serious COVID-19 outcomes among older adults with cancer: a cohort study from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Older age is associated with poorer outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the heterogeneity of ageing results in some older adults being at greater risk than others. The objective of this study was to quantify the association of a novel geriatric risk index, comprising age, modified Charlson comorbidity index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality among older adults with cancer. METHODS: In this cohort study, we enrolled patients aged 60 years and older with a current or previous cancer diagnosis (excluding those with non-invasive cancers and premalignant or non-malignant conditions) and a current or previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) multinational, multicentre, registry between March 17, 2020, and June 6, 2021. Patients were also excluded for unknown age, missing data resulting in unknown geriatric risk measure, inadequate data quality, or incomplete follow-up resulting in unknown COVID-19 severity. The exposure of interest was the CCC19 geriatric risk index. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity and the secondary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; both were assessed in the full dataset. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated from ordinal and binary logistic regression models. FINDINGS: 5671 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were included in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 56 days (IQR 22-120), and median age was 72 years (IQR 66-79). The CCC19 geriatric risk index identified 2365 (41·7%) patients as standard risk, 2217 (39·1%) patients as intermediate risk, and 1089 (19·2%) as high risk. 36 (0·6%) patients were excluded due to non-calculable geriatric risk index. Compared with standard-risk patients, high-risk patients had significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR 7·24; 95% CI 6·20-8·45). 920 (16·2%) of 5671 patients died within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis, including 161 (6·8%) of 2365 standard-risk patients, 409 (18·5%) of 2217 intermediate-risk patients, and 350 (32·1%) of 1089 high-risk patients. High-risk patients had higher adjusted odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 10·7; 95% CI 8·54-13·5) than standard-risk patients. INTERPRETATION: The CCC19 geriatric risk index was strongly associated with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality. Our CCC19 geriatric risk index, based on readily available clinical factors, might provide clinicians with an easy-to-use risk stratification method to identify older adults most at risk for severe COVID-19 as well as mortality. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

COVID-19 and Cancer: A Review of the Registry-Based Pandemic Response.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had consequences for patients with cancer worldwide and has been associated with delays in diagnosis, interruption of treatment and follow-up care, and increases in overall infection rates and premature mortality. Observations: Despite the challenges experienced during the pandemic, the global oncology community has responded with an unprecedented level of investigation, collaboration, and technological innovation through the rapid development of COVID-19 registries that have allowed an increased understanding of the natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of patients with cancer who are diagnosed with COVID-19. This review describes 14 major registries comprising more than 28 500 patients with cancer and COVID-19; these ongoing registry efforts have provided an improved understanding of the impact and outcomes of COVID-19 among patients with cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: An initiative is needed to promote active collaboration between different registries to improve the quality and consistency of information. Well-designed prospective and randomized clinical trials are needed to collect high-level evidence to guide long-term epidemiologic, behavioral, and clinical decision-making for this and future pandemics.

The CoVID-TE risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have increased risks of venous (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Active cancer diagnosis and treatment are well-known risk factors; however, a risk assessment model (RAM) for VTE in patients with both cancer and COVID-19 is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of and risk factors for thrombosis in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19. METHODS: Among patients with cancer in the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry (CCC19) cohort study, we assessed the incidence of VTE and ATE within 90 days of COVID-19-associated hospitalization. A multivariable logistic regression model specifically for VTE was built using a priori determined clinical risk factors. A simplified RAM was derived and internally validated using bootstrap. RESULTS: From March 17, 2020 to November 30, 2020, 2804 hospitalized patients were analyzed. The incidence of VTE and ATE was 7.6% and 3.9%, respectively. The incidence of VTE, but not ATE, was higher in patients receiving recent anti-cancer therapy. A simplified RAM for VTE was derived and named CoVID-TE (Cancer subtype high to very-high risk by original Khorana score +1, VTE history +2, ICU admission +2, D-dimer elevation +1, recent systemic anti-cancer Therapy +1, and non-Hispanic Ethnicity +1). The RAM stratified patients into two cohorts (low-risk, 0-2 points, n = 1423 vs. high-risk, 3+ points, n = 1034) where VTE occurred in 4.1% low-risk and 11.3% high-risk patients (c statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.71). The RAM performed similarly well in subgroups of patients not on anticoagulant prior to admission and moderately ill patients not requiring direct ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19 have elevated thrombotic risks. The CoVID-TE RAM for VTE prediction may help real-time data-driven decisions in this vulnerable population.

Opportunities and Challenges of Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials for Evaluating the Therapeutic Efficacy of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.

Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy. However, observational studies, including non-randomized cohort studies, as well as small RCTs have gained increasing attention especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic where critical evaluation of limited therapeutic options are sought to improve patient care while awaiting results for subsequent RCTs. As the authors have previously discussed, RCTs and observational studies are complementary approaches which often appear synergistic with one another. While not all real-world studies are the same, the results of observational studies are notoriously subject to both known and unknown confounding factors. The utilization of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma is a timely illustration of evaluating the efficacy and safety of a COVID-19 therapy given the dangerous and often lethal effects of the virus and the limited approved therapeutic options for the disease. While awaiting the results of large RCTS of convalescent plasma, serval observational cohorts and small RCTs have attempted to assess the efficacy and safety of this approach with very mixed results. Among the likely reasons for this failure to provide a definitive answer concerning the value of convalescent plasma are the many limitations inherent to addressing treatment efficacy in non-randomized studies. While such studies are often able to capture information on large numbers of individuals rapidly, it is important to understand that although larger numbers may enhance the precision of estimates provided, larger numbers, in and of themselves, do not increase the accuracy of estimates due to patient selection and other biases. At the same time, both observational studies and small RCTS are at risk for publication bias due to investigator, reviewer and editorial bias toward positive studies. In this commentary we discuss the advantages and limitations of these methodologic approaches when addressing urgently needed evidence on the effectiveness and safety of therapies in a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Association of a Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) Program With Reduced Hospitalizations in Cancer Patients With COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccine guidance for patients with cancer participating in oncology clinical trials.

Emerging efficacy data have led to the emergency use authorization or approval of COVID-19 vaccines in several countries worldwide. Most trials of COVID-19 vaccines excluded patients with active malignancies, and thus data on the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the vaccines in patients with cancer are currently limited. Given the risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, decisions regarding the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in patients participating in trials of investigational anticancer therapies need to be addressed promptly. Patients should not have to choose between enrolling on oncology clinical trials and receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical trial sponsors, investigators and treating physicians need operational guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer who are currently enrolled or might seek to enrol in clinical trials. Considering the high morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer, the benefits of vaccination are likely to far outweigh the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. Herein, we provide operational COVID-19 vaccine guidance for patients participating in oncology clinical trials. In our perspective, continued quality oncological care requires that patients with cancer, including those involved in trials, be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, which should not affect trial eligibility.

Immunological alternation in COVID-19 patients with cancer and its implications on mortality.

Patients with malignancy were reportedly more susceptible and vulnerable to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and witnessed a greater mortality risk in COVID-19 infection than noncancerous patients. But the role of immune dysregulation of malignant patients on poor prognosis of COVID-19 has remained insufficiently investigated. Here we conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 2,052 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (Cancer, n = 93; Non-cancer, n = 1,959), and compared the immunological characteristics of both cohorts. We used stratification analysis, multivariate regressions, and propensity-score matching to evaluate the effect of immunological indices. In result, COVID-19 patients with cancer had ongoing and significantly elevated inflammatory factors and cytokines (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin (IL)-2 receptor, IL-6, IL-8), as well as decreased immune cells (CD8 + T cells, CD4 + T cells, B cells, NK cells, Th and Ts cells) than those without cancer. The mortality rate was significantly higher in cancer cohort (24.7%) than non-cancer cohort (10.8%). By stratification analysis, COVID-19 patients with immune dysregulation had poorer prognosis than those with the relatively normal immune system both in cancer and non-cancer cohort. By logistic regression, Cox regression, and propensity-score matching, we found that prior to adjustment for immunological indices, cancer history was associated with an increased mortality risk of COVID-19 (p < .05); after adjustment for immunological indices, cancer history was no longer an independent risk factor for poor prognosis of COVID-19 (p > .30). In conclusion, COVID-19 patients with cancer had more severely dysregulated immune responses than noncancerous patients, which might account for their poorer prognosis. Clinical Trial: This study has been registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2000032161).

Mortality in hospitalized patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneous evidence exists on the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the clinical outcomes of patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases and the World Health Organization Novel Coronavirus website to identify studies that reported mortality and characteristics of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19. The primary study outcome was mortality, defined as all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality within 30 days of initial COVID-19 diagnosis. The pooled proportion of mortality was estimated using a random-effects model, and study-level moderators of heterogeneity were assessed through subgroup analysis and metaregression. RESULTS: Among 2922 patients from 13 primarily inpatient studies of individuals with COVID-19 and cancer, the pooled 30-day mortality rate was 30% (95% CI, 25%-35%). The overall pooled 30-day mortality rate among 624 patients from 5 studies that included a mixture of inpatient and outpatient populations was 15% (95% CI, 9%-22%). Among the hospitalized studies, the heterogeneity (I2 statistic) of the meta-analysis remained high (I2 , 82%). Cancer subtype (hematologic vs solid), older age, male sex, and recent active cancer therapy each partially explained the heterogeneity of mortality reporting. In multivariable metaregression, male sex, along with an interaction between the median patient age and recent active cancer therapy, explained most of the between-study heterogeneity (R2 , 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled mortality estimates for hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19 remain high at 30%, with significant heterogeneity across studies. Dedicated community-based studies are needed in the future to help assess overall COVID-19 mortality among the broader population of patients with cancer.

COVID-19 in Older Individuals with Cancer: Problem and Potential Solutions.

The ongoing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has radically affected medical practice and healthcare delivery in the United States and beyond. Its impact on vulnerable populations especially older adults battling cancer is striking. Older adults with baseline immunosenescence compounded with multimorbidity and reduced physiological reserves are at even higher risk of succumbing to infection. When it comes to older adults with cancer mortality, it often multifactorial with modifiable risk factors. A specific approach with attention to advance care planning and how cancer care is delivered coupled with a comprehensive geriatric assessment may ultimately be the key to improve overall survival.