Impact of hematologic malignancy and type of cancer therapy on COVID-19 severity and mortality: lessons from a large population-based registry study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer have been shown to have a higher risk of clinical severity and mortality compared to non-cancer patients with COVID-19. Patients with hematologic malignancies typically are known to have higher levels of immunosuppression and may develop more severe respiratory viral infections than patients with solid tumors. Data on COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancies are limited. Here we characterize disease severity and mortality and evaluate potential prognostic factors for mortality. METHODS: In this population-based registry study, we collected de-identified data on clinical characteristics, treatment and outcomes in adult patients with hematologic malignancies and confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection within the Madrid region of Spain. Our case series included all patients admitted to 22 regional health service hospitals and 5 private healthcare centers between February 28 and May 25, 2020. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. We assessed the association between mortality and potential prognostic factors using Cox regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, hematologic malignancy and recent active cancer therapy. RESULTS: Of 833 patients reported, 697 were included in the analyses. Median age was 72 years (IQR 60-79), 413 (60%) patients were male and 479 (69%) and 218 (31%) had lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, respectively. Clinical severity of COVID-19 was severe/critical in 429 (62%) patients. At data cutoff, 230 (33%) patients had died. Age ≥ 60 years (hazard ratios 3.17-10.1 vs < 50 years), > 2 comorbidities (1.41 vs ≤ 2), acute myeloid leukemia (2.22 vs non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and active antineoplastic treatment with monoclonal antibodies (2·02) were associated with increased mortality; conventional chemotherapy showed borderline significance (1.50 vs no active therapy). Conversely, Ph-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (0.33) and active treatment with hypomethylating agents (0.47) were associated with lower mortality. Overall, 574 (82%) patients received antiviral therapy. Mortality with severe/critical COVID-19 was higher with no therapy vs any antiviral combination therapy (2.20). CONCLUSIONS: In this series of patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19, mortality was associated with higher age, more comorbidities, type of hematological malignancy and type of antineoplastic therapy. Further studies and long-term follow-up are required to validate these criteria for risk stratification.

GFET Asymmetric Transfer Response Analysis through Access Region Resistances.

Graphene-based devices are planned to augment the functionality of Si and III-V based technology in radio-frequency (RF) electronics. The expectations in designing graphene field-effect transistors (GFETs) with enhanced RF performance have attracted significant experimental efforts, mainly concentrated on achieving high mobility samples. However, little attention has been paid, so far, to the role of the access regions in these devices. Here, we analyse in detail, via numerical simulations, how the GFET transfer response is severely impacted by these regions, showing that they play a significant role in the asymmetric saturated behaviour commonly observed in GFETs. We also investigate how the modulation of the access region conductivity (i.e., by the influence of a back gate) and the presence of imperfections in the graphene layer (e.g., charge puddles) affects the transfer response. The analysis is extended to assess the application of GFETs for RF applications, by evaluating their cut-off frequency.

Role of urine immunofixation in the complete response assessment of MM patients other than light-chain-only disease.

Response criteria for multiple myeloma (MM) require monoclonal protein (M-protein)-negative status on both serum immunofixation electrophoresis (sIFE) and urine (uIFE) immunofixation electrophoresis for classification of complete response (CR). However, uIFE is not always performed for sIFE-negative patients. We analyzed M-protein evaluations from 384 MM patients (excluding those with light-chain-only disease) treated in the GEM2012MENOS65 (NCT01916252) trial to determine the uIFE-positive rate in patients who became sIFE-negative posttreatment and evaluate rates of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status and progression-free survival (PFS) among patients achieving CR, CR but without uIFE available (uncertain CR; uCR), or very good partial response (VGPR). Among 107 patients with M-protein exclusively in serum at diagnosis who became sIFE-negative posttreatment and who had uIFE available, the uIFE-positive rate was 0%. Among 161 patients with M-protein in both serum and urine at diagnosis who became sIFE-negative posttreatment, 3 (1.8%) were uIFE positive. Among patients achieving CR vs uCR, there were no significant differences in postconsolidation MRD-negative (<10-6; 76% vs 75%; P = .9) and 2-year PFS (85% vs 88%; P = .4) rates; rates were significantly lower among patients achieving VGPR. Our results suggest that uIFE is not necessary for defining CR in MM patients other than those with light-chain-only disease.