RESUMEN
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has significantly improved outcomes across a range of malignancies. While infections are a well-known contributor to morbidity and mortality amongst patients receiving systemic chemotherapy regimens, little is known about the impact of infections on patients receiving ICI therapy. This study aims to assess incidence, risk factors, and outcomes in patients who develop infections while on pembrolizumab-based therapies for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Patients receiving pembrolizumab for stage III/IV NSCLC from 1/1/2017-8/1/2021 across seven hospitals were identified. Incidence and type of infection were characterized. Covariates including baseline demographics, treatment information, treatment toxicities, and immunosuppressive use were collected and compared between infected and non-infected patients. Outcomes included the rate of infections, all-cause hospital admissions, median number of treatment cycles, overall survival (OS), and progression free survival (PFS). Univariable and multivariable analysis with reported odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were utilized to evaluate infection risks. OS and PFS were analyzed by Kaplan−Meier analysis and tested by log-rank test. p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were 243 NSCLC patients that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (45.7%) had one documented infection, and 36 (14.8%) had two or more. Compared to non-infected patients, infected patients had significantly more all-cause Emergency Department (ED) [37 (33.3%) vs. 26 (19.7%), p = 0.016], hospital [87 (78.4%) vs. 53 (40.1%), p < 0.001], and ICU visits [26 (23.4%) vs. 5 (3.8%), p < 0.001], and had poorer median OS (11.53 [95% CI 6.4−16.7] vs. 21.03 [95% CI: 14.7−24.2] months, p = 0.033). On multivariable analysis, anti-infective therapy (OR 3.32, [95% CI: 1.26−8.76], p = 0.015) and ECOG of >1 (OR 5.79, [95% CI 1.72−19.47], p = 0.005) at ICI initiation conferred an increased risk for infections. At last evaluation, 74 (66.7%) infected and 70 (53.0%) non-infected patients died (p = 0.041). Conclusion: Infections occurred in nearly half of patients receiving pembrolizumab-based therapies for NSCLC. Infected patients had frequent hospitalizations, treatment delays, and poorer survival. ECOG status and anti-infective use at ICI initiation conferred a higher infection risk. Infection prevention and control strategies are needed to ameliorate the risk for infections in patients receiving ICIs.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of telemedicine amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in patients with cancer and assess barriers to its implementation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Telehealth video visits, using the Houston Methodist MyChart platform, were offered to patients with cancer as an alternative to in-person visits. Reasons given by patients who declined to use video visits were documented, and demographic information was collected from all patients. Surveys were used to assess the levels of satisfaction of treating physicians and patients who agreed to video visits. RESULTS: Of 1,762 patients with cancer who were offered telehealth video visits, 1,477 (83.8%) participated. The patients who declined participation were older (67.7 v 60.2 years; P < .0001), lived in significantly lower-income areas (P = .0021), and were less likely to have commercial insurance (P < .0001) than patients who participated. Most participating patients (92.6%) were satisfied with telehealth video visits. A majority of physicians (65.2%) were also satisfied with its use, and 74% indicated that they would likely use telemedicine in the future. Primary concerns that physicians had in using this technology were inadequate patient interactions and acquisition of medical data, increased potential for missing significant clinical findings, decreased quality of care, and potential medical liability. CONCLUSION: Oncology/hematology patients and their physicians expressed high levels of satisfaction with the use of telehealth video visits. Despite recent advances in technology, there are still opportunities to improve the equal implementation of telemedicine for the medical care of vulnerable older, low-income, and underinsured patient populations.