Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
J Natl Compr Canc Netw ; 20(2): 160-166, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1675165


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.

COVID-19 , Neoplasms , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Prospective Studies , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2
JAMA Oncol ; 7(10): 1467-1473, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1320053


Importance: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, racial/ethnic minority communities disproportionately experienced poor outcomes; however, the association of the pandemic with prostate cancer (PCa) care is unknown. Objective: To assess the association between race and PCa care delivery for Black and White patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, regional, collaborative, retrospective cohort study compared prostatectomy rates between Black and White patients with untreated nonmetastatic PCa during the COVID-19 pandemic (269 patients from March 16 to May 15, 2020) and prior (378 patients from March 11 to May 10, 2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostatectomy rates. Results: Of the 647 men with nonmetastatic PCa, 172 (26.6%) were non-Hispanic Black men, and 475 (73.4%) were non-Hispanic White men. Black men were significantly less likely to undergo prostatectomy during the pandemic compared with White patients (1 of 76 [1.3%] vs 50 of 193 [25.9%]; P < .001), despite similar COVID-19 risk factors, biopsy Gleason grade groups, and comparable prostatectomy rates prior to the pandemic (17 of 96 [17.7%] vs 54 of 282 [19.1%]; P = .75). Black men had higher median prostate-specific antigen levels prior to biopsy (8.8 ng/mL [interquartile range, 5.3-15.2 ng/mL] vs 7.2 ng/mL [interquartile range, 5.1-11.1 ng/mL]; P = .04). A linear combination of regression coefficients with an interaction term for year demonstrated an odds ratio for likelihood of surgery of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01-0.35; P = .002) for Black patients and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.81-2.44; P = .23) for White patients during the pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic. Changes in surgical volume varied by site (from a 33% increase to complete shutdown), with sites that experienced the largest reduction in cancer surgery caring for a greater proportion of Black patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large multi-institutional regional collaborative cohort study, the odds of PCa surgery were lower among Black patients compared with White patients during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although localized PCa does not require immediate treatment, the lessons from this study suggest systemic inequities within health care and are likely applicable across medical specialties. Public health efforts are needed to fully recognize the unintended consequence of diversion of cancer resources to the COVID-19 pandemic to develop balanced mitigation strategies as viral rates continue to fluctuate.

African Americans/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Prostatectomy/statistics & numerical data , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , /statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Grading , Pandemics , Prostatic Neoplasms/ethnology , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies , United States/ethnology
J Urol ; 205(1): 241-247, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-889617


PURPOSE: Resumption of elective urology cases postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic requires a systematic approach to case prioritization, which may be based on detailed cross-specialty questionnaires, specialty specific published expert opinion or by individual (operating) surgeon review. We evaluated whether each of these systems effectively stratifies cases and for agreement between approaches in order to inform departmental policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated triage of elective cases postponed within our department due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 9, 2020 to May 22, 2020) using questionnaire based surgical prioritization (American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures [MeNTS] instrument), consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization (based on published urological recommendations) and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scoring (developed and managed within our department). Lower scores represented greater urgency. MeNTS scores were compared across consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores. RESULTS: A total of 204 cases were evaluated. Median MeNTS score was 50 (IQR 44, 55), and mean consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores were 2.6±0.6 and 2.2±0.8, respectively. Median MeNTS scores were 52 (46.5, 57.5), 50 (44.5, 54.5) and 48 (43.5, 54) for individual surgeon based surgical prioritization priority 1, 2 and 3 cases (p=0.129), and 55 (51.5, 57), 47.5 (42, 56) and 49 (44, 54) for consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization priority scores 1, 2, and 3 (p=0.002). There was none to slight agreement between consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores (Kappa 0.131, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Questionnaire based, expert opinion based and individual surgeon based approaches to case prioritization result in significantly different case prioritization. Questionnaire based surgical prioritization did not meaningfully stratify urological cases, and consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization frequently disagreed. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems should be considered in future disaster planning scenarios.

COVID-19/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Urologic Diseases/surgery , Urologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Urology/standards , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Decision-Making , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Consensus , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Selection , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Assessment/standards , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Time Factors , Triage/standards , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult