Impact of COVID-19 in patients on active melanoma therapy and with history of melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors. RESULTS: Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors.

Pandemic Phase-Adjusted Analysis of COVID-19 Outcomes Reveals Reduced Intrinsic Vulnerability and Substantial Vaccine Protection From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice. METHODS: We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented ≥ 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Patients Recently Treated for B-lymphoid Malignancies Show Increased Risk of Severe COVID-19.

Patients with B-lymphoid malignancies have been consistently identified as a population at high risk of severe COVID-19. Whether this is exclusively due to cancer-related deficits in humoral and cellular immunity, or whether risk of severe COVID-19 is increased by anticancer therapy, is uncertain. Using data derived from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19), we show that patients treated for B-lymphoid malignancies have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 compared with control populations of patients with non-B-lymphoid malignancies. Among patients with B-lymphoid malignancies, those who received anticancer therapy within 12 months of COVID-19 diagnosis experienced increased COVID-19 severity compared with patients with non-recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies, after adjustment for cancer status and several other prognostic factors. Our findings suggest that patients recently treated for a B-lymphoid malignancy are at uniquely high risk for severe COVID-19. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study suggests that recent therapy for a B-lymphoid malignancy is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity. These findings provide rationale to develop mitigation strategies targeted at the uniquely high-risk population of patients with recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 171.

Coinfections in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. METHODS: We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28-3.76) coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19 from a Specialized Cancer Care Emergency Room.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to identify discrete clinical characteristics associated with safe discharge from an emergency department/urgent care for patients with a history of cancer and concurrent COVID-19 infection during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and prior to widespread vaccination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 255 adult patients with a history of cancer who presented to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) urgent care center (UCC) from March 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020 with concurrent COVID-19 infection. We evaluated associations between patient characteristics and 30-day mortality from initial emergency department (ED) or urgent care center (UCC) visit and the absence of a severe event within 30 days. External validation was performed on a retrospective data from 29 patients followed at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center that presented to the local emergency department. A late cohort of 108 additional patients at MSKCC from June 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021 was utilized for further validation. RESULTS: In the MSKCC cohort, 30-day mortality and severe event rate was 15% and 32% respectively. Using stepwise regression analysis, elevated BUN and glucose, anemia, and tachypnea were selected as the main predictors of 30-day mortality. Conversely, normal albumin, BUN, calcium, and glucose, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio <3, lack of (severe) hypoxia, lack of bradycardia or tachypnea, and negative imaging were selected as the main predictors of an uneventful course as defined as a Lack Of a Severe Event within Thirty Days (LOSETD). Utilizing this information, we devised a tool to predict 30-day mortality and LOSETD which achieved an area under the operating curve (AUC) of 79% and 74% respectively. Similar estimates of AUC were obtained in an external validation cohort. A late cohort at MSKCC was consistent with the prior, albeit with a lower AUC. CONCLUSION: We identified easily obtainable variables that predict 30-day mortality and the absence of a severe event for patients with a history of cancer and concurrent COVID-19. This has been translated into a bedside tool that the clinician may utilize to assist disposition of this group of patients from the emergency department or urgent care setting.

Multicenter Study of Antibody Seroprevalence against COVID-19 in Patients Presenting to Iranian Cancer Centers after One Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Patients with cancer are at significantly greater risk of COVID-19 and its complications than the general population. Since IgG antibodies remain detectable well after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, seroprevalence can be used to estimate the proportion of the cancer population previously infected and potentially immune to SARS-CoV-2. The current study is a multi-center, prospective observational study to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody in a cancer population referred for vaccination between April and June 2021. Of a total of 270 adult patients with cancer accrued, 16% reported a history of COVID-19 more than four weeks previously confirmed by PCR. At the same time, serologic positivity for SARSCoV2 IgG was found in 29% of patients prior to vaccination including nearly 20% of patients without a history of confirmed COVID-19. Seropositivity was significantly greater in females consistent with higher rates in patients with breast cancer and gynecologic cancers. A seroconversion rate of 79.5% was observed in cancer patients with a history of PCR confirmed COVID-19, less than observed in the general population. In multivariable analysis, gender and prior history of COVID-19 were both independently associated with seropositivity prior to vaccination. Follow-up is continuing of this cohort of patients with cancer following vaccination to assess antibody and clinical outcomes.

Sargramostim (rhu GM-CSF) as Cancer Therapy (Systematic Review) and An Immunomodulator. A Drug Before Its Time?

BACKGROUND: Sargramostim [recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhu GM-CSF)] was approved by US FDA in 1991 to accelerate bone marrow recovery in diverse settings of bone marrow failure and is designated on the list of FDA Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs. Other important biological activities including accelerating tissue repair and modulating host immunity to infection and cancer via the innate and adaptive immune systems are reported in pre-clinical models but incompletely studied in humans. OBJECTIVE: Assess safety and efficacy of sargramostim in cancer and other diverse experimental and clinical settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically reviewed PubMed, Cochrane and TRIP databases for clinical data on sargramostim in cancer. In a variety of settings, sargramostim after exposure to bone marrow-suppressing agents accelerated hematologic recovery resulting in fewer infections, less therapy-related toxicity and sometimes improved survival. As an immune modulator, sargramostim also enhanced anti-cancer responses in solid cancers when combined with conventional therapies, for example with immune checkpoint inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Sargramostim accelerates hematologic recovery in diverse clinical settings and enhances anti-cancer responses with a favorable safety profile. Uses other than in hematologic recovery are less-well studied; more data are needed on immune-enhancing benefits. We envision significantly expanded use of sargramostim in varied immune settings. Sargramostim has the potential to reverse the immune suppression associated with sepsis, trauma, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and COVID-19. Further, sargramostim therapy has been promising in the adjuvant setting with vaccines and for anti-microbial-resistant infections and treating autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis and gastrointestinal, peripheral arterial and neuro-inflammatory diseases. It also may be useful as an adjuvant in anti-cancer immunotherapy.

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.

Improving Outcomes of Chemotherapy: Established and Novel Options for Myeloprotection in the COVID-19 Era.

Chemotherapy-induced damage of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HPSCs) often results in myelosuppression that adversely affects patient health and quality of life. Currently, chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression is managed with chemotherapy dose delays/reductions and lineage-specific supportive care interventions, such as hematopoietic growth factors and blood transfusions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created additional challenges for the optimal management of myelosuppression. In this review, we discuss the impact of this side effect on patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a focus on the prevention of myelosuppression in the COVID-19 era. During the COVID-19 pandemic, short-term recommendations on the use of supportive care interventions have been issued with the aim of minimizing the risk of infection, reducing the need for hospitalization, and preserving limited blood supplies. Recently, trilaciclib, an intravenous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, was approved to decrease the incidence of myelosuppression in adult patients when administered prior to platinum/etoposide-containing or topotecan-containing chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Approval was based on data from three phase 2 placebo-controlled clinical studies in patients with ES-SCLC, showing that administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy significantly reduced multilineage myelosuppression, with patients receiving trilaciclib having fewer chemotherapy dose delays/reductions and myelosuppression/sepsis-related hospitalizations, and less need for supportive care interventions, compared with patients receiving placebo. Several other novel agents are currently in clinical development for the prevention or treatment of multilineage or single-lineage myelosuppression in patients with various tumor types. The availability of treatments that could enable patients to maintain standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens without the need for additional interventions would be valuable to physicians, patients, and health systems.

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.

Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: Temporary COVID-19 guideline recommendations have recently been issued to expand the use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer with intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz in patients with intermediate risk of FN compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) over three different cancer types. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds for incremental cost per FN avoided, life year gained, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared with SP, PP provided an additional 0.102-0.144 LYs and 0.065-0.130 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ranged from $5,660 in US dollars (USD) to $20,806 USD per FN event avoided, $5,123 to $31,077 USD per life year gained, and $7,213 to $35,563 USD per QALY gained. Over 1,000 iterations, there were 73.6%, 99.4%, and 91.8% probabilities that PP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per QALY gained for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively. CONCLUSION: PP with a biosimilar filgrastim (specifically filgrastim-sndz) is cost-effective in patients with intermediate risk for FN receiving curative chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL. Expanding the use of colony-stimulating factors for patients may be valuable in reducing unnecessary health care visits for patients with cancer at risk of complications because of COVID-19 and should be considered for the indefinite future.

Outcomes of Patients with Sarcoma and COVID-19 Infection: A Single Institution Cohort Analysis.

Outcomes for patients (pts) with sarcoma and COVID-19 are unknown. This is a single institution retrospective study of adults with sarcoma and COVID-19. Ten pts [median age 60 (range 24-69)] were identified. Five were hospitalized; two died from COVID-19 complications; another died from sarcoma. Time between last systemic treatment dose and COVID-19 diagnosis was 6-41 days in pts who died. 5 underwent prior radiation (RT); time between RT and COVID-19 diagnosis was 20-62 days for pts who died. All three pts with WBC differential data (two died) were lymphopenic. Efforts to capture outcomes for a larger cohort are urgently needed.

Challenges and Opportunities for COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Cancer.

Given the rapidly expanding global spread of the SARS-Co-V-2 virus and the expanding number of individuals with the serious and potentially fatal illness, COVID-19, there is an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines. Based on compelling evidence that patients with cancer are at increased risk for greater morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, several professional organizations have provided early guidance on the role of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with malignant disease. In this commentary we review the available data on the efficacy and safety of the approved and forthcoming vaccines in patients with cancer. Based on a review of the totality of available evidence, we recommend that most patients with cancer should receive the recommended dose and schedule of one of the COVID-19 vaccines when available. We encourage industry, regulators and professional research organizations to carefully track the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer in the real world setting and routinely report unanticipated adverse events and signs of loss of efficacy. Particular attention is needed for patients on active cancer therapy to carefully evaluate efficacy and safety in relationship to the timing of vaccination relative to that of active cancer treatment and immunosuppression.

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.

Utilization of COVID-19 Treatments and Clinical Outcomes among Patients with Cancer: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study.

Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. SIGNIFICANCE: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426.