Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
J Clin Oncol ; 41(15): 2800-2814, 2023 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2224335

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Middle Aged , Female , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , COVID-19 Testing , Pandemics
2.
Front Oncol ; 12: 1032166, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2199074

ABSTRACT

The use of an aromatase inhibitor (AI) in combination with ovarian function suppression (OFS) has become the mainstay of adjuvant endocrine therapy in high-risk premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Although five years of such therapy effectively reduces recurrence rates, a substantial risk of late recurrence remains in this setting. Multiple trials have shown that extending AI treatment beyond five years could offer further protection. However, as these studies comprised only postmenopausal patients, no direct evidence currently exists to inform about the potential benefits and/or side effects of extended AI + OFS therapies in premenopausal women. Given these grey areas, we conducted a Delphi survey to report on the opinion of experts in breast cancer treatment and summarize a consensus on the discussed topics. A total of 44 items were identified, all centred around two main themes: 1) defining reliable prognostic factors to pinpoint premenopausal patients eligible for endocrine therapy extension; 2) designing how such therapy should optimally be administered in terms of treatment combinations and duration based on patients' menopausal status. Each item was separately discussed and anonymously voted by 12 experts representing oncological institutes spread across Italy. The consensus threshold was reached in 36 out of 44 items (82%). Herein, we discuss the levels of agreement/disagreement achieved by each item in relation to the current body of literature. In the absence of randomized trials to guide the tailoring of extended AI treatment in premenopausal women, conclusions from our study provide a framework to assist routine clinical practice.

3.
Ther Adv Med Oncol ; 13: 17588359211053416, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1511684

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are at higher risk of COVID-19 complications and mortality than the rest of the population. Breast cancer patients seem to have better prognosis when infected by SARS-CoV-2 than other cancer patients. METHODS: We report a subanalysis of the OnCovid study providing more detailed information in the breast cancer population. RESULTS: We included 495 breast cancer patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mean age was 62.6 years; 31.5% presented more than one comorbidity. The most frequent breast cancer subtype was luminal-like (n = 245, 49.5%) and 177 (35.8%) had metastatic disease. A total of 332 (67.1%) patients were receiving active treatment, with radical intent in 232 (47.6%) of them. Hospitalization rate was 58.2% and all-cause mortality rate was 20.3%. One hundred twenty-nine (26.1%) patients developed one COVID-19 complication, being acute respiratory failure the most common (n = 74, 15.0%). In the multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years, presence of COVID-19 complications, and metastatic disease were factors correlated with worse outcomes, while ongoing anticancer therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis appeared to be a protective factor. No particular oncological treatment was related to higher risk of complications. In the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 73 (18.3%) patients had some kind of modification on their oncologic treatment. At the first oncological reassessment (median time: 46.9 days ± 36.7), 255 (51.6%) patients reported to be fully recovered from the infection. There were 39 patients (7.9%) with long-term SARS-CoV-2-related complications. CONCLUSION: In the context of COVID-19, our data confirm that breast cancer patients appear to have lower complications and mortality rate than expected in other cancer populations. Most breast cancer patients can be safely treated for their neoplasm during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Oncological treatment has no impact on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 complications, and, especially in the curative setting, the treatment should be modified as little as possible.

4.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol ; 163: 103365, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275249

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to estimate mortality in adult patients with solid or hematological malignancies and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, up to 31 January 2021, identified publications reporting the case-fatality rate (CFR) among adult patients with solid or hematological malignancies and SARS-CoV-2 infection. The CFR, defined as the rate of death in this population, was assessed with a random effect model; 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Among 135 selected studies (N = 33,879 patients), the CFR was 25.4% (95% CI 22.9%-28.2%). At a sensitivity analysis including studies with at least 100 patients, the CFR was 21.9% (95% CI 19.1%-25.1%). Among COVID-19 patients with lung (N = 1,135) and breast (N = 1,296) cancers, CFR were 32.4% (95% CI 26.5%-39.6%) and 14.2% (95% CI 9.3%-21.8%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with solid or hematological malignancies and SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high probability of mortality, with comparatively higher and lower CFRs in patients with lung and breast cancers, respectively.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , COVID-19 , Hematologic Neoplasms , Adult , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Hematologic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Humans , Lung , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Eur J Surg Oncol ; 47(8): 1913-1919, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1213212

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: On October 15th, 2020, the first Surgical National Consensus Conference on neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) was promoted by the Italian Association of Breast Surgeons (ANISC). METHOD: The Consensus Conference was entirely held online due to anti-Covid-19 restrictions and after an introductory four lectures held by national and international experts in the field, a total of nine questions were presented and a digital "real-time" voting system was obtained. A consensus was reached if 75% or more of all panelists agreed on a given question. RESULTS: A total of 202 physicians, from 76 different Italian Breast Centers homogeneously distributed throughout the Italian country, participated to the Conference. Most participants were surgeons (75%). Consensus was reached for seven out of the nine considered topics, including management of margins and lymph nodes at surgery, and there was good correspondence between the 32 "Expert Panelists" and the "Participants" to the Conference. Consensus was not achieved regarding the indications to NACT for high-grade luminal-like breast tumors, and the need to perform an axillary lymph node dissection in case of micrometastases in the sentinel lymph node after NACT. CONCLUSIONS: NACT is a topic of major interest among surgeons, and there is need to develop shared guidelines. While a Consensus was obtained for most issues presented at this Conference, controversies still exist regarding indications to NACT in luminal B-like tumors and management of lymph node micrometastases. There is need for clinical studies and analysis of large databases to improve our knowledge on this subject.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Clinical Trials as Topic , Female , Humans , Italy , Lymph Node Excision , Lymphatic Metastasis , Margins of Excision , Mastectomy , Neoplasm Grading , Neoplasm Micrometastasis/therapy , Neoplasm Staging , Patient Selection , Receptor, ErbB-2/metabolism , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/metabolism , Tumor Burden
6.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 16(11): e1304-e1314, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1119446

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists toward breast cancer care and related research activities. METHODS: A 29-question anonymous online survey was sent by e-mail to members of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology and the Italian Breast Cancer Study Group on April 3, 2020. Only medical oncologists (both those in training and specialists) were invited to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: Out of 165 responding oncologists, 121 (73.3.%) worked in breast units. In the (neo)adjuvant setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted weekly paclitaxel (68.5% v 93.9%) and a dose-dense schedule for anthracycline-based chemotherapy (43% v 58.8%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. In the metastatic setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted first-line weekly paclitaxel for HER2-positive disease (41.8% v 53.9%) or CDK4/6 inhibitors for luminal tumors with less-aggressive characteristics (55.8% v 80.0%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. A significant change was also observed in delaying the timing for monitoring therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors, assessing treatment response with imaging tests, and flushing central venous devices. Clinical research and scientific activities were reduced in 80.3% and 80.1% of respondents previously implicated in these activities, respectively. CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists face many challenges in providing cancer care during the COVID-19 outbreak. Although most of the changes in their attitudes and practice were reasonable responses to the current health care emergency without expected major negative impact on patient outcomes, some potentially alarming signals of undertreatment were observed.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics , Telemedicine/trends , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Breast/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/complications , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/virology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Medical Oncology/trends , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
Eur J Clin Invest ; 50(9): e13315, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-597270

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 outbreak, oncological care has been reorganized. Patients with cancer have been reported to experience a more severe COVID-19 syndrome; moreover, there are concerns of a potential interference between immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 6 and 16 May 2020, a 22-item survey was sent to Italian physicians involved in administering ICIs. It aimed at exploring the perception about SARS-CoV-2-related risks in cancer patients receiving ICIs, and the attitudes towards their management. RESULTS: The 104 respondents had a median age of 35.5 years, 58.7% were females and 71.2% worked in Northern Italy. 47.1% of respondents argued a synergism between ICIs and SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis leading to worse outcomes, but 97.1% would not deny an ICI only for the risk of infection. During COVID-19 outbreak, to reduce hospital visits, 55.8% and 30.8% opted for the highest labelled dose of each ICI and/or, among different ICIs for the same indication, for the one with the longer interval between cycles, respectively. 53.8% of respondents suggested testing for SARS-CoV-2 every cancer patient candidate to ICIs. 71.2% declared to manage patients with onset of dyspnoea and cough as infected by SARS-CoV-2 until otherwise proven; however, 96.2% did not reduce the use of steroids to manage immune-related toxicities. The administration of ICIs in specific situations for different cancer types has not been drastically conditioned. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the uncertainties around the perception of a potential interference between ICIs and COVID-19, supporting the need of focused studies on this topic.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Immunologic Factors/administration & dosage , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Italy , Male , Medical Oncology/methods , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/immunology , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Risk Assessment , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL