Clinical Validation of an Alternative Specimen Collection Kit for SARS-CoV-2 Testing at Fox Chase Cancer Center

Background: Supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic have affected the availability of components for specimen collection kits to detect SARS-CoV-2. Plastic injection molding offers a rapid and cheap method for mass production of swabs for upper respiratory tract sampling. Local production of virus transport medium increases flexibility to assemble sample collection kits if the medium provides appropriate stability for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Methods: A locally produced virus transport medium and a novel injection molded plastic swab were validated for SARS-CoV-2 detection by reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Both components were compared to standard counterparts using viral reference material and representative patient samples. Results: Clinical testing showed no significant differences between molded and flocked swabs. Commercial and in-house virus transport media provided stable test results for over 40 days of specimen storage and showed no differences in test results using patient samples. Conclusions: This collection kit provides new supply chain options for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Clinical Validation of an Alternative Specimen Collection Kit for SARS-CoV-2 Testing at Fox Chase Cancer Center.

Background: Supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic have affected the availability of components for specimen collection kits to detect SARS-CoV-2. Plastic injection molding offers a rapid and cheap method for mass production of swabs for upper respiratory tract sampling. Local production of virus transport medium increases flexibility to assemble sample collection kits if the medium provides appropriate stability for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Methods: A locally produced virus transport medium and a novel injection molded plastic swab were validated for SARS-CoV-2 detection by reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Both components were compared to standard counterparts using viral reference material and representative patient samples. Results: Clinical testing showed no significant differences between molded and flocked swabs. Commercial and in-house virus transport media provided stable test results for over 40 days of specimen storage and showed no differences in test results using patient samples. Conclusions: This collection kit provides new supply chain options for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Adverse Events Reported by Patients With Cancer After Administration of a 2-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.

Cytokine ranking via mutual information algorithm correlates cytokine profiles with presenting disease severity in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Although the range of immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is variable, cytokine storm is observed in a subset of symptomatic individuals. To further understand the disease pathogenesis and, consequently, to develop an additional tool for clinicians to evaluate patients for presumptive intervention, we sought to compare plasma cytokine levels between a range of donor and patient samples grouped by a COVID-19 Severity Score (CSS) based on the need for hospitalization and oxygen requirement. Here we utilize a mutual information algorithm that classifies the information gain for CSS prediction provided by cytokine expression levels and clinical variables. Using this methodology, we found that a small number of clinical and cytokine expression variables are predictive of presenting COVID-19 disease severity, raising questions about the mechanism by which COVID-19 creates severe illness. The variables that were the most predictive of CSS included clinical variables such as age and abnormal chest x-ray as well as cytokines such as macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-inducible protein 10, and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist. Our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection causes a plethora of changes in cytokine profiles and that particularly in severely ill patients, these changes are consistent with the presence of macrophage activation syndrome and could furthermore be used as a biomarker to predict disease severity.

Cytokine ranking via mutual information algorithm correlates cytokine profiles with presenting disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

Although the range of immune responses to COVID-19 infection is variable, cytokine storm is observed in many affected individuals. To further understand the disease pathogenesis and, consequently, to develop an additional tool for clinicians to evaluate patients for presumptive intervention we sought to compare plasma cytokine levels between a range of donor and patient samples grouped by a COVID-19 Severity Score (CSS) based on need for hospitalization and oxygen requirement. Here we utilize a mutual information algorithm that classifies the information gain for CSS prediction provided by cytokine expression levels and clinical variables. Using this methodology, we found that a small number of clinical and cytokine expression variables are predictive of presenting COVID-19 disease severity, raising questions about the mechanism by which COVID-19 creates severe illness. The variables that were the most predictive of CSS included clinical variables such as age and abnormal chest x-ray as well as cytokines such as macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), interferon-inducible protein 10 (IP-10) and Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonist (IL-1RA). Our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection causes a plethora of changes in cytokine profiles and that particularly in severely ill patients, these changes are consistent with the presence of Macrophage Activation Syndrome and could furthermore be used as a biomarker to predict disease severity.

Program and candidate experience with virtual interviews for the 2020 Complex General Surgical Oncology interview season during the COVID pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID crisis hit during the interview season for the Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowship. With minimal time to adapt, all programs transitioned to virtual interviews. Here we describe the experience of both program directors (PDs) and candidates with virtual interviews, and provide guidelines for implementation based on the results. METHODS: Surveys regarding interview day specifics and perceptions were created for CGSO fellowship PDs and candidates. They were distributed at the conclusion of the season, prior to match. RESULTS: Thirty (94%) PDs and 64 (79%) candidates responded. Eighty-three% of PDs and 79% of candidates agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable creating a rank list. If given the choice, 60% of PDs and 45% of candidates would choose virtual interviews over in-person interviews. The majority of candidates found PD overviews, fellows only sessions and pre-interview materials helpful. CONCLUSION: Overall, the majority of PDs and candidates felt comfortable creating a rank list; however, more PDs preferred virtual interviews for the future. Our results also confirm key components of a virtual interview day.