Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against outpatient illness during widespread circulation of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, US Flu VE network.

BACKGROUND: We estimated combined protection conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19-associated acute respiratory illness (ARI). METHODS: During SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant circulation between October 2021 and April 2022, prospectively enrolled adult patients with outpatient ARI had respiratory and filter paper blood specimens collected for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing and serology. Dried blood spots were tested for immunoglobulin-G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (NP) and spike protein receptor binding domain antigen using a validated multiplex bead assay. Evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection also included documented or self-reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We used documented COVID-19 vaccination status to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) by multivariable logistic regression by prior infection status. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-five (29%) of 1577 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection at enrollment; 209 (46%) case-patients and 637 (57%) test-negative patients were NP seropositive, had documented previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, or self-reported prior infection. Among previously uninfected patients, three-dose VE was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60%-99%) against Delta, but not statistically significant against Omicron. Among previously infected patients, three-dose VE was 57% (CI, 20%-76%) against Omicron; VE against Delta could not be estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-associated illness among previously infected participants.

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A(H3N2)-Related Illness in the United States During the 2021-2022 Influenza Season.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, influenza activity during the 2021-2022 season was modest and sufficient enough to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) for the first time since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We estimated influenza VE against laboratory-confirmed outpatient acute illness caused by predominant A(H3N2) viruses. METHODS: Between October 2021 and April 2022, research staff across 7 sites enrolled patients aged ≥6 months seeking outpatient care for acute respiratory illness with cough. Using a test-negative design, we assessed VE against influenza A(H3N2). Due to strong correlation between influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination, participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from VE estimations. Estimates were adjusted for site, age, month of illness, race/ethnicity, and general health status. RESULTS: Among 6260 participants, 468 (7%) tested positive for influenza only, including 440 (94%) for A(H3N2). All 206 sequenced A(H3N2) viruses were characterized as belonging to genetic group 3C.2a1b subclade 2a.2, which has antigenic differences from the 2021-2022 season A(H3N2) vaccine component that belongs to clade 3C.2a1b subclade 2a.1. After excluding 1948 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 4312 patients were included in analyses of influenza VE; 2463 (57%) were vaccinated against influenza. Effectiveness against A(H3N2) for all ages was 36% (95% confidence interval, 20%-49%) overall. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination in 2021-2022 provided protection against influenza A(H3N2)-related outpatient visits among young persons.

Relationship between Telework Experience and Presenteeism during COVID-19 Pandemic, United States, March-November 2020.

Persons with COVID-19-like illnesses are advised to stay home to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We assessed relationships between telework experience and COVID-19 illness with work attendance when ill. Adults experiencing fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell who sought healthcare or COVID-19 testing in the United States during March-November 2020 were enrolled. Adults with telework experience before illness were more likely to work at all (onsite or remotely) during illness (87.8%) than those with no telework experience (49.9%) (adjusted odds ratio 5.48, 95% CI 3.40-8.83). COVID-19 case-patients were less likely to work onsite (22.1%) than were persons with other acute respiratory illnesses (37.3%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.24-0.53). Among COVID-19 case-patients with telework experience, only 6.5% worked onsite during illness. Telework experience before illness gave mildly ill workers the option to work and improved compliance with public health recommendations to stay home during illness.

Effectiveness of two and three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses against Omicron- and Delta-Related outpatient illness among adults, October 2021-February 2022.

Background: We estimated SARS-CoV-2 Delta- and Omicron-specific effectiveness of two and three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses in adults against symptomatic illness in US outpatient settings. Methods: Between October 1, 2021, and February 12, 2022, research staff consented and enrolled eligible participants who had fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell and sought outpatient medical care or clinical SARS-CoV-2 testing within 10 days of illness onset. Using the test-negative design, we compared the odds of receiving two or three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses among SARS-CoV-2 cases versus controls using logistic regression. Regression models were adjusted for study site, age, onset week, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated as (1 - adjusted odds ratio) × 100%. Results: Among 3847 participants included for analysis, 574 (32%) of 1775 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta predominant period and 1006 (56%) of 1794 participants tested positive during the Omicron predominant period. When Delta predominated, VE against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings was 63% (95% CI: 51% to 72%) among mRNA two-dose recipients and 96% (95% CI: 93% to 98%) for three-dose recipients. When Omicron predominated, VE was 21% (95% CI: -6% to 41%) among two-dose recipients and 62% (95% CI: 48% to 72%) among three-dose recipients. Conclusions: In this adult population, three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided substantial protection against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings when the Omicron variant became the predominant cause of COVID-19 in the United States. These findings support the recommendation for a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose.

Breast Biopsy Recommendations and Breast Cancers Diagnosed during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic reduced mammography use, potentially delaying breast cancer diagnoses. Purpose To examine breast biopsy recommendations and breast cancers diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by mode of detection (screen detected vs symptomatic) and women's characteristics. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of prospectively collected data, monthly breast biopsy recommendations after mammography, US, or both with subsequent biopsy performed were examined from 66 facilities of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between January 2019 and September 2020. The number of monthly and cumulative biopsies recommended and performed and the number of subsequent cancers diagnosed during the pandemic period (March 2020 to September 2020) were compared with data from the prepandemic period using Wald χ2 tests. Analyses were stratified by mode of detection and race or ethnicity. Results From January 2019 to September 2020, 17 728 biopsies were recommended and performed, with 6009 cancers diagnosed. From March to September 2020, there were substantially fewer breast biopsy recommendations with cancer diagnoses when compared with the same period in 2019 (1650 recommendations in 2020 vs 2171 recommendations in 2019 [24% fewer], P < .001), predominantly due to fewer screen-detected cancers (722 cancers in 2020 vs 1169 cancers in 2019 [38% fewer], P < .001) versus symptomatic cancers (895 cancers in 2020 vs 965 cancers in 2019 [7% fewer], P = .27). The decrease in cancer diagnoses was largest in Asian (67 diagnoses in 2020 vs 142 diagnoses in 2019 [53% fewer], P = .06) and Hispanic (82 diagnoses in 2020 vs 145 diagnoses in 2019 [43% fewer], P = .13) women, followed by Black women (210 diagnoses in 2020 vs 287 diagnoses in 2019 [27% fewer], P = .21). The decrease was smallest in non-Hispanic White women (1128 diagnoses in 2020 vs 1357 diagnoses in 2019 [17% fewer], P = .09). Conclusion There were substantially fewer breast biopsies with cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic from March to September 2020 compared with the same period in 2019, with Asian and Hispanic women experiencing the largest declines, followed by Black women. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Heller in this issue.

Cancer Informatics for Cancer Centers: Scientific Drivers for Informatics, Data Science, and Care in Pediatric, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer.

Cancer Informatics for Cancer Centers (CI4CC) is a grassroots, nonprofit 501c3 organization intended to provide a focused national forum for engagement of senior cancer informatics leaders, primarily aimed at academic cancer centers anywhere in the world but with a special emphasis on the 70 National Cancer Institute-funded cancer centers. This consortium has regularly held topic-focused biannual face-to-face symposiums. These meetings are a place to review cancer informatics and data science priorities and initiatives, providing a forum for discussion of the strategic and pragmatic issues that we faced at our respective institutions and cancer centers. Here, we provide meeting highlights from the latest CI4CC Symposium, which was delayed from its original April 2020 schedule because of the COVID-19 pandemic and held virtually over three days (September 24, October 1, and October 8) in the fall of 2020. In addition to the content presented, we found that holding this event virtually once a week for 6 hours was a great way to keep the kind of deep engagement that a face-to-face meeting engenders. This is the second such publication of CI4CC Symposium highlights, the first covering the meeting that took place in Napa, California, from October 14-16, 2019. We conclude with some thoughts about using data science to learn from every child with cancer, focusing on emerging activities of the National Cancer Institute's Childhood Cancer Data Initiative.

Women's considerations and experiences for breast cancer screening and surveillance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: A focus group study.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in numerous changes in delivery of healthcare services, including breast cancer screening and surveillance. Although facilities have implemented a number of strategies to provide services, women's thoughts and experiences related to breast cancer screening and surveillance during a pandemic are not well known. This focus group study with women across seven states recruited through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium aims to remedy this gap in information. Thirty women ranging in age from 31 to 69 participated in five virtual focus groups, eight of whom had prior breast cancer. The first three focus groups covered a range of topics related to screening and surveillance during the pandemic while the last two groups covered experiences and then a review of sample communications to women about screening and surveillance during the pandemic to obtain reactions and recommendations. More than half of the women had screening or surveillance during the pandemic. Coding and analyses resulted in nine themes in three topic areas: decision factors, screening experiences, and preferred communications. Themes included weighing the risks of COVID-19 versus cancer; feelings that screening and surveillance were mostly safe but barriers may be heightened; feeling safe when undergoing screening but receiving a range of pandemic-specific communications from none to a lot; and wanting communications that are personalized, clear and concise. Based on these findings, providers and facilities should assure women of pandemic safety measures, review methods and content of communications, and assess for barriers to screening that may be amplified during the pandemic, including anxiety and access.

Assessment of a Risk-Based Approach for Triaging Mammography Examinations During Periods of Reduced Capacity.

Importance: Breast cancer screening, surveillance, and diagnostic imaging services were profoundly limited during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To develop a risk-based strategy for triaging mammograms during periods of decreased capacity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used data collected prospectively from mammography examinations performed in 2014 to 2019 at 92 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants included individuals undergoing mammography. Data were analyzed from August 10 to November 3, 2020. Exposures: Clinical indication for screening, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, age, time since last mammogram/screening interval, family history of breast cancer, breast density, and history of high-risk breast lesion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Combinations of clinical indication, clinical history, and breast cancer risk factors that subdivided mammograms into risk groups according to their cancer detection rate were identified using classification and regression trees. Results: The cohort included 898 415 individuals contributing 1 878 924 mammograms (mean [SD] age at mammogram, 58.6 [11.2] years) interpreted by 448 radiologists, with 1 722 820 mammograms in individuals without a personal history of breast cancer and 156 104 mammograms in individuals with a history of breast cancer. Most individuals were aged 50 to 69 years at imaging (1 113 174 mammograms [59.2%]), and 204 305 (11.2%) were Black, 206 087 (11.3%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 126 677 (7.0%) were Hispanic or Latina, and 40 021 (2.2%) were another race/ethnicity or mixed race/ethnicity. Cancer detection rates varied widely based on clinical indication, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, and age. The 12% of mammograms with very high (89.6 [95% CI, 82.3-97.5] to 122.3 [95% CI, 108.1-138.0] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) or high (36.1 [95% CI, 33.1-39.3] to 47.5 [95% CI, 42.4-53.3] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) cancer detection rates accounted for 55% of all detected cancers and included mammograms to evaluate an abnormal mammogram or breast lump in individuals of all ages regardless of breast cancer history, to evaluate breast symptoms other than lump in individuals with a breast cancer history or without a history but aged 60 years or older, and for short-interval follow-up in individuals aged 60 years or older without a breast cancer history. The 44.2% of mammograms with very low cancer detection rates accounted for 13.1% of detected cancers and included annual screening mammograms in individuals aged 50 to 69 years (3.8 [95% CI, 3.5-4.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) and all screening mammograms in individuals younger than 50 years regardless of screening interval (2.8 [95% CI, 2.6-3.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms). Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, clinical indication and individual risk factors were associated with cancer detection and may be useful for prioritizing mammography in times and settings of decreased capacity.