Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 1.159
Filter
1.
Theranostics ; 12(14): 6422-6436, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2203053

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine outperforms other kinds of cancer immunotherapy due to its high response rates, easy preparation, and wide applicability, which is considered as one of the most promising forms of next-generation cancer therapies. However, the inherent instability and insufficient protein expression duration of mRNA limit the efficacy and widespread application of the vaccine. Methods: Here, we first tested the possibility of a novel circular RNA (circRNA) platform for protein expression and compare its duration with linear RNA. Then, we developed a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) system for circRNA delivery in vitro and in vivo. Next, the innate and adaptive immune response of circRNA-LNP complex was evaluated in vivo. The anti-tumor efficacy of circRNA-LNP was further confirmed in three tumor models. Finally, the possibility of combination therapy with circRNA-LNP and adoptive cell transfer therapy was further investigated in a late-stage tumor model. Results: We successfully increased the stability of the RNA vaccine by circularizing the linear RNA molecules to form highly stable circRNA molecules which exhibited durable protein expression ability. By encapsulating the antigen-coding circRNA in LNP enabling in vivo expression, we established a novel circRNA vaccine platform, which was capable of triggering robust innate and adaptive immune activation and showed superior anti-tumor efficacy in multiple mouse tumor models. Conclusions: Overall, our circRNA vaccine platform provides a novel prospect for the development of cancer RNA vaccines in a wide range of hard-to-treat malignancies.


Subject(s)
Cancer Vaccines , Nanoparticles , Neoplasms , Animals , Liposomes , Mice , Neoplasms/therapy , RNA/genetics , RNA, Circular/genetics , RNA, Messenger/genetics , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
2.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 18(10): 691-693, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2196631
3.
JCO Clin Cancer Inform ; 6: e2100177, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2196620

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease, but have heterogeneous presentations and outcomes. Decision-making tools for hospital admission, severity prediction, and increased monitoring for early intervention are critical. We sought to identify features of COVID-19 disease in patients with cancer predicting severe disease and build a decision support online tool, COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET). METHODS: Patients with active cancer (stage I-IV) and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 disease presenting to hospitals worldwide were included. Discharge (within 24 hours), admission (≥ 24 hours inpatient), oxygen (O2) requirement, and death were combined in a 0-3 point severity scale. Association of features with outcomes were investigated using Lasso regression and Random Forest combined with Shapley Additive Explanations. The CORONET model was then examined in the entire cohort to build an online CORONET decision support tool. Admission and severe disease thresholds were established through pragmatically defined cost functions. Finally, the CORONET model was validated on an external cohort. RESULTS: The model development data set comprised 920 patients, with median age 70 (range 5-99) years, 56% males, 44% females, and 81% solid versus 19% hematologic cancers. In derivation, Random Forest demonstrated superior performance over Lasso with lower mean squared error (0.801 v 0.807) and was selected for development. During validation (n = 282 patients), the performance of CORONET varied depending on the country cohort. CORONET cutoffs for admission and mortality of 1.0 and 2.3 were established. The CORONET decision support tool recommended admission for 95% of patients eventually requiring oxygen and 97% of those who died (94% and 98% in validation, respectively). The specificity for mortality prediction was 92% and 83% in derivation and validation, respectively. Shapley Additive Explanations revealed that National Early Warning Score 2, C-reactive protein, and albumin were the most important features contributing to COVID-19 severity prediction in patients with cancer at time of hospital presentation. CONCLUSION: CORONET, a decision support tool validated in health care systems worldwide, can aid admission decisions and predict COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/therapy , Oxygen , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
4.
Eur J Cancer ; 171: 143-149, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2178267

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The protective role against SARS-CoV-2 infection by the third booster dose of mRNA vaccines in cancer patients with solid malignancies is presently unknown. We prospectively investigated the occurrence of COVID-19 in cancer patients on active therapy after the booster vaccine dose. METHODS: Cancer patients on treatment at the Center for Immuno-Oncology (CIO) of the University Hospital of Siena, Italy, and health care workers at CIO who had received a booster third dose of mRNA vaccine entered a systematic follow-up monitoring period to prospectively assess their potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serological and microneutralization assay were utilized to assess levels of anti-spike IgG, and of neutralizing antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 Wild Type, Delta and Omicron variants, respectively, after the booster dose and after negativization of the nasopharyngeal swab for those who had developed COVID-19. RESULTS: Ninety cancer patients with solid tumors on active treatment (Cohort 1) and 30 health care workers (Cohort 2) underwent a booster third dose of mRNA vaccine. After the booster dose, the median value of anti-spike IgG was higher (p = 0.009) in patients than in healthy subjects. Remarkably, 11/90 (12%) patients and 11/30 (37%) healthy subjects tested positive to SARS-CoV-2 infection during the monitoring period. Similar levels of anti-spike IgG and of neutralizing antibodies against all the investigated variants, with geometric mean titers of neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron being the lowest were detected after the booster dose and after COVID-19 in both Cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection we observed in a sizable proportion of booster-dosed cancer patients and in healthy subjects during the Omicron outbreak indicates that highly specific vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants are urgently required.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Neoplasms/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccines, Synthetic , Viral Envelope Proteins/genetics , mRNA Vaccines
5.
Eur J Cancer ; 171: 64-74, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2178266

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccines immunogenicity in patients with cancer has been investigated, whether they can significantly improve the severity of COVID-19 in this specific population is undefined. METHODS: Capitalizing on OnCovid (NCT04393974) registry data we reported COVID-19 mortality and proxies of COVID-19 morbidity, including post-COVID-19 outcomes, according to the vaccination status of the included patients. RESULTS: 2090 eligible patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 02/2020 and 11/2021 were included, of whom 1930 (92.3%) unvaccinated, 91 (4.4%) fully vaccinated and 69 (3.3%) partially vaccinated. With the exception of a higher prevalence of patients from the UK (p = 0.0003) and receiving systemic anticancer therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (p = 0.0082) among fully vaccinated patients, no demographics/oncological features were associated with vaccination status. The 14-days case fatality rate (CFR) (5.5% vs 20.7%, p = 0.0004) and the 28-days CFR (13.2% vs 27.4%, p = 0.0028) demonstrated a significant improvement for fully vaccinated patients in comparison with unvaccinated patients. The receipt of prior full vaccination was also associated with reduced symptomatic COVID-19 (79.1% vs 88.5%, p = 0.0070), need of COVID-19 oriented therapy (34.9% vs 63.2%, p < 0.0001), complications from COVID-19 (28.6% vs 39.4%, p = 0.0379), hospitalizations due to COVID-19 (42.2% vs 52.5%, p = 0.0007) and oxygen therapy requirement (35.7% vs 52%, p = 0.0036). Following Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) procedure no statistically significant difference according to the vaccination status was confirmed; however, all COVID-19 related outcomes were concordantly in favour of full vaccination. Among the 1228 (58.8%) patients who underwent a formal reassessment at participating centres after COVID-19 resolution, fully vaccinated patients experienced less sequelae than unvaccinated patients (6.7% vs 17.2%, p = 0.0320). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides initial evidence in support of the beneficial effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Morbidity , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
7.
Cancer Cell ; 38(2): 161-163, 2020 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2130226

ABSTRACT

Two recent Lancet and Lancet Oncology papers report that cancer patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have higher mortality rates. Common independent factors associated with increased risk of death were older age, history of smoking status, number of comorbidities, more advanced performance status, and active cancer.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Neoplasms/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Age Factors , Aged , Betacoronavirus/immunology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Neoplasms/immunology , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Colomb Med (Cali) ; 53(1): e2065115, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2146197

ABSTRACT

Aim: We analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology service demand in a middle-income country with universal health coverage. Methods: We collected data from January 1st-2017 to December 31th-2021 at a reference center in Bogotá-Colombia regarding first-time consultations of cross-cutting services (clinical oncology, hematology, palliative care, radiation oncology); specialized multidisciplinary units (breast, prostate, lung, stomach); inpatient and outpatient systemic therapy; radiotherapy; oncology surgery; and bone marrow transplant. A descriptive time series analysis was performed, estimating monthly percent change and endemic channels. Results: Starting the confinement (April 2020), a general decrease in service demand was observed (R: -14.9% to -90.0%), with an additional but lower decrease in August 2020 coinciding with the first pandemic wave (R: -11.3% to -70.0%). Follow-up visits and ambulatory treatment showed no consistent reductions. New patients' consultations for cross-cutting services had a speedy recovery (1 month), but clinical oncology, specialized units, and in-hospital treatment resumed more slowly. Only breast and stomach cancer showed a sustained reduction in early-stage disease. Women and older patients had a more significant reductionin service demand. Conclusion: Despite no changes in service supply, the confinement induced a significant reduction in service demand. Variations by cancer type, service type, and population demographics deserve careful consideration for a suitable response to the emergency. The speedy recovery and the absence of a significant decrease during subsequent waves of the pandemic suggest patient resiliency and a lower impact than expected in middle-income settings in the presence of universal health insurance.


Objetivo: Analizar el impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 sobre la demanda de servicios oncológicos. Metodos: Se recolectaron datos de enero 1/2017 hasta diciembre 31/2021 de consulta de primera vez en servicios transversales (oncología clinica, hematología, cuidados paliativos, oncología radioterápica) y servicios especializados multidisciplinarios (mama, próstata, pulmón, estómago), así como de suministro de tratamiento (terapia sistémica ambulatoria y hospitalaria, radioterapia, cirugía oncológica, trasplante de médula ósea), en un centro de referencia en Bogotá-Colombia. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo de series de tiempo estimando el cambio porcentual mensual y los canales endémicos. Resultados: Al inicio del confinamiento obligatorio (abril/2020) hubo una disminución general en la demanda de servicios transversales (R: -14.9% a -90.0%), con nuevo descenso de menor grado en agosto/2020 durante la primera ola de infecciones (R: -11.3% a -70.0%). Las consultas de seguimiento y tratamientos ambulatorios no mostraron reducciones consistentes. Exceptuando oncología clínica, las consultas de primera vez para servicios transversales tuvieron rápida recuperación hasta cifras basales (1 mes), pero las unidades especializadas y los tratamientos intrahospitalarios tuvieron recuperación mas lenta. Únicamente los cánceres de mama y estómago mostraron una reduccion sostenida de estadios tempranos de la enfermedad. La reducción de la demanda fue mas marcada en mujeres y adultos mayores. Conclusión: A pesar de no tener cambios en la oferta, el confinamiento indujo una reducción significativa en la demanda de servicios oncológicos con variación diferencial por tipo de cáncer, servicio y características demográficas de la población. Esto merece consideración especial para generar respuestas adecuadas a las emergencias sanitarias. La rápida recuperación de la demanda y la ausencia de caídas en olas de infección subsiguientes sugieren resiliencia de los pacientes e impacto menor del esperado en países con cobertura de salud universal.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Female , Universal Health Insurance , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Palliative Care , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy
9.
Front Immunol ; 13: 908108, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141924

ABSTRACT

Cancer patients (CPs) have been identified as particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore are a priority group for receiving COVID-19 vaccination. From the patients with advanced solid tumors, about 20% respond very efficiently to immunotherapy with anti-PD1/PD-L1 antibodies and achieve long lasting cancer responses. It is unclear whether an efficient cancer-specific immune response may also correlate with an efficient response upon COVID-19 vaccination. Here, we explored the antiviral immune response to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 in a group of 11 long-lasting cancer immunotherapy responders. We analysed the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG serum antibodies, virus neutralizing capacities and T cell responses. Control groups included patients treated with adjuvant cancer immunotherapy (IMT, cohort B), CPs not treated with immunotherapy (no-IMT, cohort C) and healthy controls (cohort A). The median ELISA IgG titers significantly increased after the prime-boost COVID vaccine regimen in all cohorts (Cohort A: pre-vaccine = 900 (100-2700), 3 weeks (w) post-boost = 24300 (2700-72900); Cohort B: pre-vaccine = 300 (100-2700), 3 w post-boost = 8100 (300-72900); Cohort C: pre-vaccine = 500 (100-2700), 3 w post-boost = 24300 (300-72900)). However, at the 3 w post-prime time-point, only the healthy control group showed a statistically significant increase in antibody levels (Cohort A = 8100 (900-8100); Cohort B = 900 (300-8100); Cohort C = 900 (300-8100)) (P < 0.05). Strikingly, while all healthy controls generated high-level antibody responses after the complete prime-boost regimen (Cohort A = 15/15 (100%), not all CPs behaved alike [Cohort B= 12/14 (84'6%); Cohort C= 5/6 (83%)]. Their responses, including those of the long-lasting immunotherapy responders, were more variable (Cohort A: 3 w post-boost (median nAb titers = 95.32 (84.09-96.93), median Spike-specific IFN-γ response = 64 (24-150); Cohort B: 3 w post-boost (median nAb titers = 85.62 (8.22-97.19), median Spike-specific IFN-γ response (28 (1-372); Cohort C: 3 w post-boost (median nAb titers = 95.87 (11.8-97.3), median Spike-specific IFN-γ response = 67 (20-84)). Two long-lasting cancer responders did not respond properly to the prime-boost vaccination and did not generate S-specific IgGs, neutralizing antibodies or virus-specific T cells, although their cancer immune control persisted for years. Thus, although mRNA-based vaccines can induce both antibody and T cell responses in CPs, the immune response to COVID vaccination is independent of the capacity to develop an efficient anti-cancer immune response to anti PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Vaccines , B7-H1 Antigen , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Immunotherapy , Neoplasms/therapy , Research Report , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination , mRNA Vaccines/immunology
10.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 18(10): e1603-e1610, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140247

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Many cancer centers engage in multidisciplinary tumor board meetings to determine the optimal approach to complex cancer care. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions changed the format of these meetings from in-person to virtual. The aim of this study was to determine if the change to a virtual meeting format had an impact on attendance and cases presented. METHODS: Tumor board records were analyzed to obtain attendance and case presentation information at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Twelve-month in-person tumor board data were compared with 12-month virtual tumor board data to assess for difference in attendance and case presentation patterns. RESULTS: Seven separate weekly tumor board meetings at the beginning of the study (breast, GI, gynecology, liver, lung, melanoma, and urology) were expanded to nine meetings on the virtual platform (+endocrine and pancreas). Overall attendance increased by 46% on the virtual platform compared with in-person meetings (4,030 virtual attendances v 2,753 in-person, P < .001). Increased attendance was present across all specialties on the virtual platform. In addition, the number of patient cases discussed increased from 2,127 in in-person meeting to 2,656 on the virtual platform (a 20% increase, P < .001). CONCLUSION: A significant increase was observed in overall tumor board attendance and in case presentations per meeting, requiring the expansion of additional weekly meetings. Furthermore, in a major cancer center with multiple community affiliates, virtual tumor boards may encourage increased participation from remote sites with the benefit of obtaining expert specialist advice as compared with geographically challenging in-person meetings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics
11.
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book ; 42: 1-10, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140235

ABSTRACT

The conduct of clinical cancer research has faced considerable challenges in recent years, and the situation has only been exacerbated by the global pandemic. The growing complexity of clinical trials and rising administrative burdens had been causing greater expense and difficulty in recruiting and retaining an appropriately trained workforce even before the well-publicized increase in turnover caused by the pandemic. Longstanding issues such as restrictive inclusion criteria and complicated trial designs have negatively affected already low clinical trial accrual rates, limited sites capable of opening studies and enrolling patients, and worsened disparities in trial participation. Opposing these elements are efforts by ASCO and other organizations to increase affordability, access, and equity in clinical trial enrollment. To provide diverse perspectives on how these challenges are affecting cancer research as we emerge from the pandemic, we asked a panel of experienced clinical research leaders from both academic and community cancer centers to answer questions they felt most pressing about the business of conducting clinical research today and where they felt the field was moving in the near future.


Subject(s)
Financial Management , Neoplasms , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Workforce
12.
JCO Glob Oncol ; 8: e2200043, 2022 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2121518

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: With successive infection waves and the spread of more infectious variants, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to have major impacts on health care. To achieve best outcomes for patients with cancer during a pandemic, efforts to minimize the increased risk of severe pandemic infection must be carefully balanced against unintended adverse impacts of the pandemic on cancer care, with consideration to available health system capacity. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework for cancer care during a pandemic provides a planning resource for health services and policy-makers that can be broadly applied globally and to similar pandemics. METHODS: Evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care and health system capacity to June 2021 was reviewed, and the conceptual framework was developed and updated. RESULTS: Components of health system capacity vary during a pandemic, and capacity relative to pandemic numbers and severity affects resources available for cancer care delivery. The challenges of successive pandemic waves and high numbers of pandemic cases necessitate consideration of changing health system capacity in decision making about cancer care. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework provides guidance on continuation of care across the cancer pathway, in the face of challenges to health systems, while minimizing infection risk for patients with cancer and unintended consequences of delays in screening, diagnosis, and cancer treatment and backlogs because of service interruption. CONCLUSION: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic supports continuation of cancer care wherever possible during similar pandemics. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework, underpinned by principles for optimal cancer care, informs decision making across the cancer care continuum. It incorporates consideration of changes in health system capacity and capacity for cancer care, in relation to pandemic progression, enabling broad applicability to different global settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Delivery of Health Care , Government Programs , Humans , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Curr Oncol ; 29(11): 8917-8936, 2022 Nov 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2116235

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus that has triggered the present COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread globally, resulting in widespread morbidity and mortality. Patients with cancer remain one of the most vulnerable subsets of the population to the disease. This study examined the effects of the pandemic on cancer patients' treatment, psychology, knowledge, attitudes, and practices. METHODS: A survey was emailed to 9861 patients at a cancer centre in Toronto, Canada. Descriptive results were summarized. Qualitative feedback was coded and summarized. Regression modelling was used to explore factors associated with patient psychological well-being, knowledge, attitudes, and practices. RESULTS: A total of 1760 surveys were completed, with a response rate of 17.8%. Most participants did not experience any pandemic-related treatment delays, and vaccination rates were high. Participants who identified themselves as non-white (OR 3.30, CI: 1.30-5.30; p ≤ 0.001), and those who referred to journal articles for information (p = 0.002) reported higher psychological impact scores. There were no significant predictors of whether participants would use personal protective equipment when leaving their homes or whether they would go to crowded places. DISCUSSION: This study provides another snapshot of cancer patients perceptions and needs during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , SARS-CoV-2 , Neoplasms/therapy
15.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(10)2022 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2113990

ABSTRACT

Assuming the multidimensionality of health literacy, new complex and comprehensive approaches are more adequate to specific disease contexts, such as cancer. Assessing cancer literacy levels is a priority, since it entails potential serious implications for disease outcomes and patient's quality of life. This article reports on the translation and cultural adaptation of the Cancer Health Literacy Test to measure cancer literacy in Portuguese cancer patients. A multidisciplinary team of experts ensured the translation and cultural adaptation of the CHLT-30. A pre-test was conducted in two stages to evaluate the Portuguese version (CHLT-30 PT) in a sample of cancer patients (n = 71). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample. Reliability (test-retest and internal consistency) and construct validity of CHLT-30 PT were assessed. The results obtained show a good internal consistency of the tool, respectively (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86 in the test and 0.80 in the retest). Patients' raw score mean in both test (23.96) and retest (25.97) and the distribution of scores categories are not statistically different. A suggestive association between higher education level and better total score was found compared to the results reported in CHLT-30-DKspa. The results obtained in the pre-test are favorable, and the instrument is now suitable for the next steps of the validation process. A Portuguese version of this tool will allow outlining patients' cancer literacy along the cancer care continuum, enabling the identification and implementation of adequate socio-educational strategies with highly positive impacts on health outcomes.


Subject(s)
Health Literacy , Neoplasms , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Humans , Neoplasms/therapy , Portugal , Quality of Life , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires
16.
Lancet Oncol ; 23(7): 865-875, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2117574

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 [47·4%] were women and 1822 [52·6%] were men, with a median age of 68 years [IQR 57-77]). 2033 (58·5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31·0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10·5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33·3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48·7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16·6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2·3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·61) and 28 days (0·34 [0·16-0·79]), complications due to COVID-19 (0·26 [0·17-0·46]), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0·17 [0·09-0·32]), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0·22 [0·15-0·34]) and oxygen therapy (0·24 [0·14-0·43]) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten [25%] of 40 patients vs 114 [17%] of 656) and at 28 days (11 [27%] of 40 vs 184 [28%] of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 [43%] of 42 vs 266 [41%] of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 [31%] of 42 vs 237 [36%] of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. INTERPRETATION: Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing , Disease Outbreaks , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Oxygen , Registries , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
17.
BMC Cancer ; 22(1): 1133, 2022 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2108750

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic greatly impacted primary care and cancer care. We studied how primary care utilization in Ontario, Canada changed for patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic compared to those diagnosed in non-pandemic years. METHODS: This population-based, retrospective cohort study used linked healthcare databases to compare outcomes for patients with a new malignancy diagnosed within the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, between July 1 and September 30, 2019 (COVID-19 cohort) to those diagnosed in the same months in 2018 and 2017 (pre-pandemic cohort). We used Poisson regression models to compare rates of in-person and virtual visits to patients' usual primary care physician (PCP), emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations, all reported per person-year of follow-up. RESULTS: In-person visits to usual PCPs decreased from 4.07/person-year in the pre-pandemic cohort to 2.58 in the COVID-19 cohort (p < 0.0001). Virtual visits to usual PCPs increased from 0.00 to 1.53 (p < 0.0001). Combined in-person and virtual visits to patients' usual PCPs was unchanged from 4.07 to 4.12 (p = 0.89). The rate of ED visits decreased from 0.99/person-year to 0.88 (p < 0.0001). Non-elective hospitalizations remained unchanged, from 0.49/person-year to 0.47 (p = 0.1675). CONCLUSION: There was a sizeable shift in primary care visits for cancer patients from in-person to virtual during the pandemic, although there was no resultant increase in hospitalizations. This suggests that early in the pandemic, virtual care allowed for continuity in utilization of primary care, though further studies are required to confirm this persisted later in the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Primary Health Care , Ontario/epidemiology
18.
J Telemed Telecare ; 28(10): 733-739, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2108475

ABSTRACT

In Australia, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the exponential growth in the delivery of telehealth services. Medicare data indicates that the majority of telehealth consultations have used the telephone, despite the known benefits of using video. The aim of this study was to understand the perceived quality and effectiveness of in-person, telephone and videoconsultations for cancer care. Data was collected via online surveys with consumers (n = 1162) and health professionals (n = 59), followed by semi-structured interviews with telehealth experienced health professionals (n = 22) and consumers (n = 18). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and significance was tested using the chi-square test. A framework analysis and thematic analysis were used for qualitative data. Results indicate telehealth is suitable for use across the cancer care pathway. However, consumers and health professionals perceived videoconsultations facilitated visual communication and improved patients' quality of care. The telephone was appropriate for short transactional consultations such as repeat prescriptions. Consumers were rarely given the choice of consultation modality. The choice of modality depended on a range of factors such as the type of consultation and stage of cancer care. Hybrid models of care utilising in-person, video and telephone should be developed and requires further guidance to promote the adoption of telehealth in cancer care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Telemedicine , Aged , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics , Referral and Consultation , Telephone , National Health Programs , Telemedicine/methods , Neoplasms/therapy
19.
J Med Internet Res ; 24(11): e39728, 2022 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2109564

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Virtual care (VC) visits (telephone or video) and email-based patient communication have been rapidly adopted to facilitate cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inequities in access and patient experience may arise as these digital health tools become prevalent. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize inequities in access and patient-reported experience following adoption of digital health tools at a tertiary cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional study of outpatients with visits from September to December 2020. Patient characteristics and responses to an email-based patient-experience survey were collated. Inequities in access were assessed across three pairs of comparison groups: (1) patients with VC and in-person visits, (2) patients with and without documented email addresses, and (3) responders and nonresponders to the survey. Inequities in patient-reported experience were assessed among survey responders. Demographics were mapped to area-level averages from national census data. Socioeconomic status was mapped to area-level dimensions of the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation. Covariate balance between comparison groups was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs), with SMD≥0.2 indicating differences between groups. Associations between patient experience satisfaction scores and covariates were assessed using multivariable analyses, with P<.05 indicating statistical significance. RESULTS: Among the 42,194 patients who had outpatient visits, 62.65% (n=26,435) had at least one VC visit and 31.15% (n=13,144) were emailable. Access to VC and email was similar across demographic and socioeconomic indices (SMD<0.2). Among emailable patients, 21.84% (2870/13,144) responded to the survey. Survey responsiveness was similar across indices, aside from a small difference by age (SMD=0.24). Among responders, 24.4% received VC and were similar to in-person responders across indices (SMD<0.2). VC and in-person responders had similar satisfaction levels with all care domains surveyed (all P>.05). Regardless of visit type, patients had variable satisfaction with care domains across demographic and socioeconomic indices. Patients with higher ethnocultural composition scores were less satisfied with the cultural appropriateness of their care (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.86). Patients with higher situational vulnerability scores were less satisfied with discussion of physical symptoms (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93). Patients with higher residential instability scores were less satisfied with discussion of both physical (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97) and emotional (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96) symptoms, and also with the duration of their visit (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98; P=.02). Male patients were more satisfied with how their health care provider had listened to them (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.11-2.44; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of VC and email can equitably maintain access and patient-reported experience in cancer care across demographics and socioeconomic indices. Existing health inequities among structurally marginalized patients must continue to be addressed to improve their care experience.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Telemedicine , Humans , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Patient Satisfaction , Canada , Communication , Electronics , Neoplasms/therapy
20.
Trials ; 23(1): 927, 2022 Nov 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2108880

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in severe interruptions to clinical research worldwide. This global public health crisis required investigators and researchers to rapidly develop and implement new strategies and solutions to mitigate its negative impact on the progress of clinical trials. In this paper, we describe the challenges, strategies, and lessons learned regarding the continuation of a supportive oncology clinical trial during the pandemic. We hope to provide insight into the implementation of clinical trials during a public health emergency to be better prepared for future instances.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the US National Institute of Health (NCT03030859). Registered on 22 January 2017.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Medical Oncology , Neoplasms/therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL