ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for life-threatening conditions; however, its impact on treatment patterns for patients with metastatic cancer is unknown. We assessed the COVID-19 pandemics impact on time to treatment initiation (TTI) and treatment selection for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer. MethodsWe used an electronic health record-derived longitudinal database curated via technology-enabled abstraction to identify 14,136 US patients newly diagnosed with de novo or recurrent metastatic solid cancer between January 1 and July 31 in 2019 or 2020. Patients received care at [~]280 predominantly community-based oncology practices. Controlled interrupted time series analyses assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period (April-July 2020) on TTI, defined as the number of days from metastatic diagnosis to receipt of first-line systemic therapy, and use of myelosuppressive therapy. ResultsThe adjusted probability of treatment within 30 days of diagnosis [95% confidence interval] was similar across periods: January-March 2019 41.7% [32.2%, 51.1%]; April-July 2019 42.6% [32.4%, 52.7%]; January-March 2020 44.5% [30.4%, 58.6%]; April-July 2020 46.8% [34.6%, 59.0%]; adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 1.4% [-2.7%, 5.5%]. Among 5,962 patients who received first-line systemic therapy, there was no association between the pandemic period and use of myelosuppressive therapy (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 1.6% [-2.6%, 5.8%]). There was no meaningful effect modification by cancer type, race, or age. ConclusionsDespite known pandemic-related delays in surveillance and diagnosis, the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact time to treatment initiation or treatment selection for patients with metastatic solid cancers.
ABSTRACT
Multiple studies have demonstrated the negative impact of cancer care delays during the COVID-19 pandemic, and transmission mitigation techniques are imperative for continued cancer care delivery. To gauge the effectiveness of these measures at the University of Pennsylvania, we conducted a longitudinal study of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity and seroconversion in patients presenting to infusion centers for cancer-directed therapy between 5/21/2020 and 10/8/2020. Participants completed questionnaires and had up to five serial blood collections. Of 124 enrolled patients, only two (1.6%) had detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on initial blood draw, and no initially seronegative patients developed newly detectable antibodies on subsequent blood draw(s), corresponding to a seroconversion rate of 0% (95%CI 0.0-4.1%) over 14.8 person-years of follow up, with a median of 13 healthcare visits per patient. These results suggest that cancer patients receiving in-person care at a facility with aggressive mitigation efforts have an extremely low likelihood of COVID-19 infection.
ABSTRACT
Cancer patients are a vulnerable population postulated to be at higher risk for severe COVID-19 infection. Increased COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in cancer patients may be attributable to age, comorbidities, smoking, healthcare exposure, and cancer treatments, and partially to the cancer itself. Most studies to date have focused on hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, thereby limiting the generalizability and interpretability of the association between cancer and COVID-19 severity. We compared outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 323 patients enrolled prior to the pandemic in a large academic biobank (n=67 cancer patients and n=256 non-cancer patients). After adjusting for demographics, smoking status, and comorbidities, a diagnosis of cancer was independently associated with higher odds of hospitalization (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.12-4.18) and 30-day mortality (OR 5.67, CI 1.49-21.59). These associations were primarily driven by patients with active cancer. These results emphasize the critical importance of preventing SARS-CoV-2 exposure and mitigating infection in cancer patients.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and lapatinib (GCL) as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) planned for radical cystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four cycles of GCL were administered as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with MIBC. Although initially designed as a phase II efficacy study with a primary endpoint of pathologic complete response at the time of radical cystectomy, the dose selected for investigation proved excessively toxic. A total of six patients were enrolled. RESULTS: The initial four patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 70 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day treatment cycle. Lapatinib was administered as 1,000 mg orally daily starting one week prior to the initiation of cycle 1 of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) and continuing until the completion of cycle 4 of GC. These initial doses were poorly tolerated, and the final two enrolled patients received a reduced lapatinib dose of 750 mg orally daily. However, reduction of the lapatinib dose did not result in improved tolerance or drug-delivery, and the trial was terminated early due to excessive toxicity. Grade 3/4 toxicities included diarrhea (33%), nausea/vomiting (33%), and thrombocytopenia (33%). CONCLUSION: The addition of lapatinib to GC as neoadjuvant therapy for MIBC was limited by excessive treatment-related toxicity. These findings highlight the importance of thorough dose-escalation investigation of combination therapies prior to evaluation in the neoadjuvant setting, as well as the limitations of determination of maximum tolerated dose for novel targeted combination regimens.
