Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence in 860 cancer patients with a combined screening procedure including triage, molecular nasopharyngeal swabs and rapid serological test. A report from the first epidemic wave.

INTRODUCTION: Even if now we have available the weapon of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, the patients with cancer remains a very frail population in which frequently the immunologic response to vaccination may be impaired. In this setting, the SARS-CoV-2 infection screening retains a great value. However, there are still limited data on the feasibility and efficacy of combined screening procedures to assess the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (including asymptomatic cases) in cancer outpatients undergoing antineoplastic therapy. PATIENTS AND RESULTS: From May 1, 2020, to June 15, 2020, during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, 860 consecutive patients, undergoing active anticancer therapy, were evaluated and tested for SARS-CoV-2 with a combined screening procedure, including a self-report questionnaire, a molecular nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and a rapid serological immunoassay (for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM antibodies). The primary endpoint of the study was to estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (including asymptomatic cases) in consecutive and unselected cancer outpatients by a combined screening modality. A total of 2955 SARS-CoV-2 NPS and 860 serological tests, in 475 patients with hematologic cancers and in 386 with solid tumors, were performed. A total of 112 (13%) patients self-reported symptoms potentially COVID-19 related. In 1/860 cases (< 1%) SARS-CoV-2 NPS was positive and in 14 cases (1.62%) the specific serological test was positive (overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection 1.62%). Of the 112 cases who declared symptoms potentially COVID-19-related, only 2.7% (3/112) were found SARS-CoV-2 positive. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study reporting the feasibility of a combined screening procedure (including triage, NPS and serologic test) to evaluate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients receiving active therapy, during the first epidemic wave and under the restrictive lockdown measures, in one of the active areas of the SARS-CoV-2 circulation. Lacking specific recommendations for the detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases, a combined diagnostic screening might be more effective to detect the exact prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in neoplastic patient population. The prevalence can obviously change according to the territorial context, the entity of the restrictive measures adopted and the phase of the epidemic curve. However, its exact and real-time knowledge could be important to balance risks/benefits of oncologic treatments, avoiding (if the prevalence is low) the reduction of dose intensity or the selection of less intensive (but also less effective) anti-cancer therapies.

Feasibility and Predictive Performance of a Triage System for Patients with Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Triage procedures have been implemented to limit hospital access and minimize infection risk among patients with cancer during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. In the absence of prospective evidence, we aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of a triage system in the oncological setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzes hospital admissions to the oncology and hematology department of Udine, Italy, during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 30 to April 30, 2020). A total of 3,923 triage procedures were performed, and data of 1,363 individual patients were reviewed. RESULTS: A self-report triage questionnaire identified 6% of triage-positive procedures, with a sensitivity of 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.0%-85.4%), a specificity of 94.3% (95% CI, 93.5%-95.0%), and a positive predictive value of 5.9% (95% CI, 4.3%-8.0%) for the identification of patients who were not admitted to the hospital after medical review. Patients with thoracic cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53, p = .01), younger age (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15-2.01, p < .01), and body temperature at admission ≥37°C (OR, 9.52; 95% CI, 5.44-16.6, p < .0001) had increased risk of positive triage. Direct hospital access was warranted to 93.5% of cases, a further 6% was accepted after medical evaluation, whereas 0.5% was refused at admission. CONCLUSION: A self-report questionnaire has a low positive predictive value to triage patients with cancer and suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) symptoms. Differential diagnosis with tumor- or treatment-related symptoms is always required to avoid unnecessary treatment delays. Body temperature measurement improves the triage process's overall sensitivity, and widespread SARS-CoV-2 testing should be implemented to identify asymptomatic carriers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first study to provide data on the predictive performance of a triage system in the oncological setting during the coronavirus disease outbreak. A questionnaire-based triage has a low positive predictive value to triage patients with cancer and suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) symptoms, and a differential diagnosis with tumor- or treatment-related symptoms is mandatory to avoid unnecessary treatment delays. Consequently, adequate recourses should be reallocated for a triage implementation in the oncological setting. Of note, body temperature measurement improves the overall sensitivity of the triage process, and widespread testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection should be implemented to identify asymptomatic carriers.

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on cancer immunotherapy in Italy: a survey of young oncologists.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed the health systems worldwide. Data regarding the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients (CPs) undergoing or candidate for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. We depicted the practice and adaptations in the management of patients with solid tumors eligible or receiving ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on Campania region. METHODS: This survey (25 questions), promoted by the young section of SCITO (Società Campana di ImmunoTerapia Oncologica) Group, was circulated among Italian young oncologists practicing in regions variously affected by the pandemic: high (group 1), medium (group 2) and low (group 3) prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. For Campania region, the physician responders were split into those working in cancer centers (CC), university hospitals (UH) and general hospitals (GH). Percentages of agreement, among High (H) versus Medium (M) and versus Low (L) group for Italy and among CC, UH and GH for Campania region, were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and χ2 test for trends relative to the questions with 3 or more options. RESULTS: This is the first Italian study to investigate the COVID-19 impact on cancer immunotherapy, unique in its type and very clear in the results. The COVID-19 pandemic seemed not to affect the standard practice in the prescription and delivery of ICIs in Italy. Telemedicine was widely used. There was high consensus to interrupt immunotherapy in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and to adopt ICIs with longer schedule interval. The majority of the responders tended not to delay the start of ICIs; there were no changes in supportive treatments, but some of the physicians opted for delaying surgeries (if part of patients' planned treatment approach). The results from responders in Campania did not differ significantly from the national ones. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the efforts of Italian oncologists to maintain high standards of care for CPs treated with ICIs, regardless the regional prevalence of COVID-19, suggesting the adoption of similar solutions. Research on patients treated with ICIs and experiencing COVID-19 will clarify the safety profile to continue the treatments, thus informing on the most appropriate clinical conducts.