The Impact of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on COVID-19 Illness in Men With Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: TMPRSS2, a cell surface protease regulated by androgens and commonly upregulated in prostate cancer (PCa), is a necessary component for SARS-CoV-2 viral entry into respiratory epithelial cells. Previous reports suggested a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 among PCa patients on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, the impact of ADT on severe COVID-19 illness is poorly understood. METHODS: We performed a multicenter study across 7 US medical centers and evaluated patients with PCa and SARS-CoV-2 detected by polymerase-chain-reaction between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020. PCa patients were considered on ADT if they had received appropriate ADT treatment within 6 months of COVID-19 diagnosis. We used multivariable logistic and Cox proportional-hazard regression models for analysis. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: We identified 465 PCa patients (median age = 71 years) with a median follow-up of 60 days. Age, body mass index, cardiovascular comorbidity, and PCa clinical disease state adjusted overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 1.98, P = .59), hospitalization status (HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.52 to 1.77, P = .90), supplemental oxygenation (HR 1.14, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.99, P = .64), and use of mechanical ventilation (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.25 to 2.66, P = .73) were similar between ADT and non-ADT cohorts. Similarly, the addition of androgen receptor-directed therapy within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis to ADT vs ADT alone did not statistically significantly affect overall survival (androgen receptor-directed therapy: HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.69 to 2.32, P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort of PCa patients, the use of ADT was not demonstrated to influence severe COVID-19 outcomes, as defined by hospitalization, supplemental oxygen use, or death. Age 70 years and older was statistically significantly associated with a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease.

COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer: Findings from the University of California health system database.

BACKGROUND: The interaction between cancer diagnoses and COVID-19 infection and outcomes is unclear. We leveraged a state-wide, multi-institutional database to assess cancer-related risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the University of California Health COVID Research Dataset, which includes electronic health data of patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at 17 California medical centers. We identified adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 from 2/1/2020-12/31/2020 and selected a cohort of patients with cancer. We obtained demographic, clinical, cancer type, and antineoplastic therapy data. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 30d after the first positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Secondary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 positivity and severe COVID-19 (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or death within 30d after the first positive test). We used multivariable logistic regression to identify cancer-related factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 409,462 patients undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing. Of 49,918 patients with cancer, 1781 (3.6%) tested positive. Patients with cancer were less likely to test positive (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.67-0.74, p < 0.001). Among the 1781 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with cancer, BCR/ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (RR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.25-3.41, p = 0.007), venetoclax (RR 2.96, 95% CI: 1.14-5.66, p = 0.028), and methotrexate (RR 2.72, 95% CI: 1.10-5.19, p = 0.032) were associated with greater hospitalization risk. Cancer and therapy types were not associated with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, diverse cohort, cancer was associated with a decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Patients with BCR/ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm or receiving methotrexate or venetoclax may be at increased risk of hospitalization following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mechanistic and comparative studies are needed to validate findings.