Qualitative Classification of Late Systemic Symptoms in Head and Neck Cancer Survivors.

Improved rates of cancer control have increased the head and neck cancer survivor population. Cancer survivorship clinics are not widely available in the USA, and longitudinal supportive care for patients undergoing multimodal therapy has not advanced at a pace commensurate with improvements in cancer control. Consequently, a large head and neck cancer survivor population whose quality of life may be chronically and/or permanently diminished presently exists. This lack of awareness perpetuates under-recognition and under-investigation, leaving survivors' (mostly detrimental) experiences largely uncharted. We conducted a qualitative exploration of survivors' experiences, aiming to unpack the profound impact of late systemic symptoms on daily life, encompassing work, relationships, and self-identity in the head and neck cancer survivor community. The study included 15 remitted head and neck survivors, ≥12 months from their final treatment, who participated in semi-structured interviews conducted by a medical oncologist. Data analysis comprised qualitative thematic analysis, specifically inductive hierarchical linear modeling, enriched by a deductive approach of anecdotal clinical reporting. Results highlighted that 43.36% of all quotation material discussed in the interviews pertained to chronic emotion disturbance with significant implications for other domains of life. A central symptom cluster comprised impairments in mood/emotions, daily activity, and significant fatigue. Dysfunction in sleep, other medical conditions, and cognitive deficits comprised a secondary cluster. Physical dysfunctionality, encompassing pain, appetite, and eating, and alterations in experienced body temperature, constituted a tertiary cluster, and perhaps were surprisingly the least discussed symptom burden among head and neck cancer survivors. Symptoms causing heightened long-term survivor burden may be considered epiphenomenal to central physical dysfunctionality, albeit being presently the least represented in cancer survivor care programs. Moving forward, the development of targeted and multi-dimensional treatment programs that encompass physical, psychosocial, and spiritual domains are needed to increase clinical specificity and effective holistic long-term solutions that will foster a more compassionate and informed future of care for the cancer survivorship community.

Predictors of high-intensity care at the end of life among older adults with solid tumors: A population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: High-intensity end-of-life (EoL) care can be burdensome for patients, caregivers, and health systems and does not confer any meaningful clinical benefit. Yet, there are significant knowledge gaps regarding the predictors of high-intensity EoL care. In this study, we identify risk factors associated with high-intensity EoL care among older adults with the four most common malignancies, including breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data, we conducted a retrospective analysis of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who died of breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer between 2011 and 2015. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify clinical, demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic predictors of high-intensity EoL care, which we defined as death in an acute care hospital, receipt of any oral or parenteral chemotherapy within 14 days of death, one or more admissions to the intensive care unit within 30 days of death, two or more emergency department visits within 30 days of death, or two or more inpatient admissions within 30 days of death. RESULTS: Among 59,355 decedents, factors associated with increased likelihood of receiving high-intensity EoL care were increased comorbidity burden (odds ratio [OR]:1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.28-1.30), female sex (OR:1.05; 95% CI:1.01-1.09), Black race (OR:1.14; 95% CI:1.07-1.23), Other race/ethnicity (OR:1.20; 95% CI:1.10-1.30), stage III disease (OR:1.11; 95% CI:1.05-1.18), living in a county with >1,000,000 people (OR:1.23; 95% CI:1.16-1.31), living in a census tract with 10%-<20% poverty (OR:1.09; 95% CI:1.03-1.16) or 20%-100% poverty (OR:1.12; 95% CI:1.04-1.19), and having state-subsidized Medicare premiums (OR:1.18; 95% CI:1.12-1.24). The risk of high-intensity EoL care was lower among patients who were older (OR:0.98; 95% CI:0.98-0.99), lived in the Midwest (OR:0.69; 95% CI:0.65-0.75), South (OR:0.70; 95% CI:0.65-0.74), or West (OR:0.81; 95% CI:0.77-0.86), lived in mostly rural areas (OR:0.92; 95% CI:0.86-1.00), and had poor performance status (OR:0.26; 95% CI:0.25-0.28). Results were largely consistent across cancer types. DISCUSSION: The risk factors identified in our study can inform the development of new interventions for patients with cancer who are likely to receive high-intensity EoL care. Health systems should consider incorporating these risk factors into decision-support tools to assist clinicians in identifying which patients should be referred to hospice and palliative care.

The impact of cancer metastases on COVID-19 outcomes: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can have a particularly detrimental effect on patients with cancer, but no studies to date have examined if the presence, or site, of metastatic cancer is related to COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, the authors identified 10,065 patients with COVID-19 and cancer (2325 with and 7740 without metastasis at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis). The primary ordinal outcome was COVID-19 severity: not hospitalized, hospitalized but did not receive supplemental O2, hospitalized and received supplemental O2, admitted to an intensive care unit, received mechanical ventilation, or died from any cause. The authors used ordinal logistic regression models to compare COVID-19 severity by presence and specific site of metastatic cancer. They used logistic regression models to assess 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Compared to patients without metastasis, patients with metastases have increased hospitalization rates (59% vs. 49%) and higher 30 day mortality (18% vs. 9%). Patients with metastasis to bone, lung, liver, lymph nodes, and brain have significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted odds ratios [ORs], 1.38, 1.59, 1.38, 1.00, and 2.21) compared to patients without metastases at those sites. Patients with metastasis to the lung have significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.00) when adjusting for COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic cancer, especially with metastasis to the brain, are more likely to have severe outcomes after COVID-19 whereas patients with metastasis to the lung, compared to patients with cancer metastasis to other sites, have the highest 30-day mortality after COVID-19.

Evaluation of sarcopenia in patients receiving intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is associated with adverse outcomes for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but less is known about its impact in the setting of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Sarcopenia, skeletal muscle density, and adipose tissue area have been studied as markers of malnutrition and can be determined radiographically. The purpose of this study is to characterize the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with NMIBC receiving intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG). METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, patients with NMIBC having received intravesical BCG were identified using institutional pharmacy records. Patients having undergone computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis within 90 days of treatment were included in the analysis. Using sliceOmatic 5.0 software, skeletal muscle area (cm2) was measured at the L3 level to calculate skeletal muscle index (SMI), a marker of sarcopenia. Subcutaneous, visceral, and intramuscular adipose tissue areas in addition to skeletal muscle density were also measured. Frailty was evaluated as a secondary aim using the 5-Item Modified Frailty Index (mFI-5). Using predefined cutoffs, the prevalence of sarcopenia was determined. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize frailty and secondary body composition characteristics. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of sarcopenia on recurrence rate and progression. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients having received BCG between 2015 and 2020 were identified, of which 90 met criteria for analysis. Nearly all (94%) patients completed at least 5 out of 6 BCG induction instillations. Median body mass index (kg/m2) was 27.64 (IQR 24.9, 30.5) for females and 27.7 (IQR 24.9, 30.66) for males. Median SMI (cm2/m2) was 49.44 (IQR 39.39, 55.17) for females and 49.58 (IQR 40.25, 55.58) for males. A majority (61%) of patients were found to be sarcopenic. High-risk frailty was identified 36% of patients. There was no association between sarcopenia and recurrence rate or progression. CONCLUSIONS: Sarcopenia and frailty are highly prevalent amongst patients with NMIBC. A diagnosis of NMIBC represents a window of opportunity to identify and intervene on modifiable risk factors such as sarcopenia and frailty, which are associated with adverse outcomes in more advanced disease states.

Determinants of targeted cancer therapy use in community oncology practice: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Rummler-Brache process mapping.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine holds enormous potential to improve outcomes for cancer patients, offering improved rates of cancer control and quality of life. Not all patients who could benefit from targeted cancer therapy receive it, and some who may not benefit do receive targeted therapy. We sought to comprehensively identify determinants of targeted therapy use among community oncology programs, where most cancer patients receive their care. METHODS: Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 community cancer care providers and mapped targeted therapy delivery across 11 cancer care delivery teams using a Rummler-Brache diagram. Transcripts were coded to the framework using template analysis, and inductive coding was used to identify key behaviors. Coding was revised until a consensus was reached. RESULTS: Intention to deliver precision medicine was high across all participants interviewed, who also reported untenable knowledge demands. We identified distinctly different teams, processes, and determinants for (1) genomic test ordering and (2) delivery of targeted therapies. A key determinant of molecular testing was role alignment. The dominant expectation for oncologists to order and interpret genomic tests is at odds with their role as treatment decision-makers' and pathologists' typical role to stage tumors. Programs in which pathologists considered genomic test ordering as part of their staging responsibilities reported high and timely testing rates. Determinants of treatment delivery were contingent on resources and ability to offset delivery costs, which low- volume programs could not do. Rural programs faced additional treatment delivery challenges. CONCLUSIONS: We identified novel determinants of targeted therapy delivery that potentially could be addressed through role re-alignment. Standardized, pathology-initiated genomic testing may prove fruitful in ensuring patients eligible for targeted therapy are identified, even if the care they need cannot be delivered at small and rural sites which may have distinct challenges in treatment delivery. Incorporating behavior specification and Rummler-Brache process mapping with determinant analysis may extend its usefulness beyond the identification of the need for contextual adaptation.

COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Background: Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. Objectives: To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated. Results: Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31-1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], pinteraction <0.001). Conclusions: Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).

Understanding the Cures Act Information Blocking Rule in cancer care: a mixed methods exploration of patient and clinician perspectives and recommendations for policy makers.

BACKGROUND: The 21st Century Cures Act Interoperability and Information Blocking Rule was created to increase patient access to health information. This federally mandated policy has been met with praise and concern. However, little is known about patient and clinician opinions of this policy within cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods study to understand patient and clinician reactions to the Information Blocking Rule in cancer care and what they would like policy makers to consider. Twenty-nine patients and 29 clinicians completed interviews and surveys. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Interview and survey data were analyzed separately, then linked to generate a full interpretation of the results. RESULTS: Overall, patients felt more positive about the policy than clinicians. Patients wanted policy makers to understand that patients are unique, and they want to individualize their preferences for receiving health information with their clinicians. Clinicians highlighted the uniqueness of cancer care, due to the highly sensitive information that is shared. Both patients and clinicians were concerned about the impact on clinician workload and stress. Both expressed an urgent need for tailoring implementation of the policy to avoid unintended harm and distress for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide suggestions for optimizing the implementation of this policy in cancer care. Dissemination strategies to better inform the public about the policy and improve clinician understanding and support are recommended. Patients who have serious illness or diagnoses such as cancer and their clinicians should be included when developing and enacting policies that could have a significant impact on their well-being. Patients with cancer and their cancer care teams want the ability to tailor information release based on individual preferences and goals. Understanding how to tailor implementation of the Information Blocking Rule is essential for retaining its benefits and minimizing unintended harm for patients with cancer.

Impact of COVID-19 in patients on active melanoma therapy and with history of melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors. RESULTS: Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors.

New Mental Health Diagnosis as a Prognostic Factor for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: To examine differences in survival outcomes for muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients stratified by new mental health diagnosis. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified patients diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer between 2008 and 2014. Our primary outcome was cancer-specific and overall hazards of mortality. As a secondary outcome, we reported predictors of developing a new mental health diagnosis after bladder cancer diagnosis. We used Cox proportional hazards models to determine the impact of palliative care and mental health diagnoses on survival outcomes after adjusting for grade, stage, comorbidity index, and baseline demographics. RESULTS: Of the 3794 patients who met inclusion criteria, 1193 (31%) were diagnosed with a mental health illness after their bladder cancer diagnosis during the 6 years in the study period. The most common diagnoses were depression (13%), alcohol and drug abuse (12%), and anxiety (11%). Patients with a post-bladder cancer mental health diagnosis had a 57% higher hazard of overall mortality (HR 1.57, P = .048) and an 80% higher hazard of bladder cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.81, P = .037) CONCLUSIONS: New mental health diagnoses are associated with worse survival in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. This suggests that a multimodal approach to bladder cancer treatment should include addressing the non-oncologic needs of the patient to optimize survival outcomes.

Demographics, Outcomes, and Risk Factors for Patients with Sarcoma and COVID-19: A CCC19-Registry Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with sarcoma often require individualized treatment strategies and are likely to receive aggressive immunosuppressive therapies, which may place them at higher risk for severe COVID-19. We aimed to describe demographics, risk factors, and outcomes for patients with sarcoma and COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with sarcoma and COVID-19 reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry (NCT04354701) from 17 March 2020 to 30 September 2021. Demographics, sarcoma histologic type, treatments, and COVID-19 outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: of 281 patients, 49% (n = 139) were hospitalized, 33% (n = 93) received supplemental oxygen, 11% (n = 31) were admitted to the ICU, and 6% (n = 16) received mechanical ventilation. A total of 23 (8%) died within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis and 44 (16%) died overall at the time of analysis. When evaluated by sarcoma subtype, patients with bone sarcoma and COVID-19 had a higher mortality rate than patients from a matched SEER cohort (13.5% vs 4.4%). Older age, poor performance status, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy, and lung metastases all contributed to higher COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sarcoma have high rates of severe COVID-19 and those with bone sarcoma may have the greatest risk of death.

Is There a Role for Palliative Services and Supportive Care in Managing Advanced Penile Cancer?

OBJECTIVES: We aim to review the benefits of palliative care, describe why a palliative approach to care is needed for patients with advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma and propose ways in which oncology nurses can improve access to and provision of palliative care. DATA SOURCES: A review of the literature was performed and identified a range of randomized trials and systematic reviews regarding the benefits of palliative care in this patient group. Cohort studies of patients with penile cancer were used to describe the psychosocial and physical disease burden of penile cancer. CONCLUSION: Throughout each phase of penile cancer and its treatment, oncology nurses can engage in care that goes beyond cancer-directed treatments to address the whole person, thereby improving quality of life by delivering person-centered palliative care in line with individual needs. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nurses are in key positions to explore many concerns that patients with penile cancer have for themselves or their caregivers. Through speaking directly with patients and caregivers, oncology nurses can uncover sources of distress, assess for unmet needs, and advocate for improved primary palliative care or early referral to specialty palliative care teams.

Geographic differences in community oncology provider and practice location characteristics in the central United States.

PURPOSE: How care delivery influences urban-rural disparities in cancer outcomes is unclear. We sought to understand community oncologists' practice settings to inform cancer care delivery interventions. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of a national dataset of providers billing Medicare from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020 in 13 states in the central United States. We used Kruskal-Wallis rank and Fisher's exact tests to compare physician characteristics and practice settings among rural and urban community oncologists. FINDINGS: We identified 1,963 oncologists practicing in 1,492 community locations; 67.5% practiced in exclusively urban locations, 11.3% in exclusively rural locations, and 21.1% in both rural and urban locations. Rural-only, urban-only, and urban-rural spanning oncologists practice in an average of 1.6, 2.4, and 5.1 different locations, respectively. A higher proportion of rural community sites were solo practices (11.7% vs 4.0%, P<.001) or single specialty practices (16.4% vs 9.4%, P<.001); and had less diversity in training environments (86.5% vs 67.8% with <2 medical schools represented, P<.001) than urban community sites. Rural multispecialty group sites were less likely to include other cancer specialists. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 2 potentially distinct styles of care delivery in rural communities, which may require distinct interventions: (1) innovation-isolated rural oncologists, who are more likely to be solo providers, provide care at few locations, and practice with doctors with similar training experiences; and (2) urban-rural spanning oncologists who provide care at a high number of locations and have potential to spread innovation, but may face high complexity and limited opportunity for care standardization.

Functional Status and Survival in Older Nursing Home Residents With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

PURPOSE: Many older patients with advanced lung cancer have functional limitations and require skilled nursing home care. Function, assessed using activities of daily living (ADL) scores, may help prognostication. We investigated the relationship between ADL impairment and overall survival among older patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving care in nursing homes. METHODS: Using the SEER-Medicare database linked with Minimum Data Set assessments, we identified patients age 65 years and older with NSCLC who received care in nursing homes from 2011 to 2015. We used Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves to examine the relationship between ADL scores and overall survival among all patients; among patients who received systemic cancer chemotherapy or immunotherapy within 3 months of NSCLC diagnosis; and among patients who did not receive any treatment. RESULTS: We included 3,174 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 77 [7.4] years [range, 65-102 years]; 1,664 [52.4%] of female sex; 394 [12.4%] of non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity), 415 (13.1%) of whom received systemic therapy, most commonly with carboplatin-based regimens (n = 357 [86%] patients). The median overall survival was 3.1 months for patients with ADL score < 14, 2.8 months for patients with ADL score between 14 and 17, 2.3 months for patients with ADL score between 18-19, and 1.8 months for patients with ADL score 20+ (log-rank P < .001). The ADL score was associated with increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.25 per standard deviation). One standard deviation increase in the ADL score was associated with lower overall survival rate among treated (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.27) and untreated (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.26) patients. CONCLUSION: ADL assessment stratified mortality outcomes among older nursing home adults with NSCLC, and may be a useful clinical consideration in this population.

Geriatric risk factors for serious COVID-19 outcomes among older adults with cancer: a cohort study from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Older age is associated with poorer outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the heterogeneity of ageing results in some older adults being at greater risk than others. The objective of this study was to quantify the association of a novel geriatric risk index, comprising age, modified Charlson comorbidity index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality among older adults with cancer. METHODS: In this cohort study, we enrolled patients aged 60 years and older with a current or previous cancer diagnosis (excluding those with non-invasive cancers and premalignant or non-malignant conditions) and a current or previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) multinational, multicentre, registry between March 17, 2020, and June 6, 2021. Patients were also excluded for unknown age, missing data resulting in unknown geriatric risk measure, inadequate data quality, or incomplete follow-up resulting in unknown COVID-19 severity. The exposure of interest was the CCC19 geriatric risk index. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity and the secondary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; both were assessed in the full dataset. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated from ordinal and binary logistic regression models. FINDINGS: 5671 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were included in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 56 days (IQR 22-120), and median age was 72 years (IQR 66-79). The CCC19 geriatric risk index identified 2365 (41·7%) patients as standard risk, 2217 (39·1%) patients as intermediate risk, and 1089 (19·2%) as high risk. 36 (0·6%) patients were excluded due to non-calculable geriatric risk index. Compared with standard-risk patients, high-risk patients had significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR 7·24; 95% CI 6·20-8·45). 920 (16·2%) of 5671 patients died within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis, including 161 (6·8%) of 2365 standard-risk patients, 409 (18·5%) of 2217 intermediate-risk patients, and 350 (32·1%) of 1089 high-risk patients. High-risk patients had higher adjusted odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 10·7; 95% CI 8·54-13·5) than standard-risk patients. INTERPRETATION: The CCC19 geriatric risk index was strongly associated with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality. Our CCC19 geriatric risk index, based on readily available clinical factors, might provide clinicians with an easy-to-use risk stratification method to identify older adults most at risk for severe COVID-19 as well as mortality. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Assessment of Regional Variability in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer in the United States.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a distinct spatiotemporal pattern in the United States. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, but it is not well known whether COVID-19 outcomes in this patient population were associated with geography. Objective: To quantify spatiotemporal variation in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients with a historical diagnosis of invasive malignant neoplasm and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and November 2020. Data were collected from cancer care delivery centers in the United States. Exposures: Patient residence was categorized into 9 US census divisions. Cancer center characteristics included academic or community classification, rural-urban continuum code (RUCC), and social vulnerability index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary composite outcome consisted of receipt of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated associations of center-level and census division-level exposures with outcomes after adjustment for patient-level risk factors and quantified variation in adjusted outcomes across centers, census divisions, and calendar time. Results: Data for 4749 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-76] years; 2439 [51.4%] female individuals, 1079 [22.7%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 690 [14.5%] Hispanic individuals) were reported from 83 centers in the Northeast (1564 patients [32.9%]), Midwest (1638 [34.5%]), South (894 [18.8%]), and West (653 [13.8%]). After adjustment for patient characteristics, including month of COVID-19 diagnosis, estimated 30-day mortality rates ranged from 5.2% to 26.6% across centers. Patients from centers located in metropolitan areas with population less than 250 000 (RUCC 3) had lower odds of 30-day mortality compared with patients from centers in metropolitan areas with population at least 1 million (RUCC 1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.84). The type of center was not significantly associated with primary or secondary outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome rates across the 9 census divisions, but adjusted mortality rates significantly improved over time (eg, September to November vs March to May: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based cohort study, significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes across US census divisions were not observed. However, substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes across cancer care delivery centers was found. Attention to implementing standardized guidelines for the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 could improve outcomes for these vulnerable patients.

Intensive preoperative ostomy education for the radical cystectomy patient.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing radical cystectomy with ileal conduit formation usually receive training on the use of their stoma during their initial hospitalization - while actively recovering from surgery - often with little follow-up or reinforcement. Many of these patients are not equipped to deal with these significant body changes, which can lead to additional clinic visits, stoma-related complications, and decreased patient satisfaction/health-related quality of life (HRQOL). In an effort to improve patient education, we sought to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a preoperative comprehensive stoma education session termed the "stoma bootcamp" for patients scheduled for a radical cystectomy and ileal conduit (RCIC). We tracked patient related outcomes to determine its impact. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal, quality-improvement feasibility study at the University of Kansas Health System. All patients who were scheduled to undergo a RCIC for bladder cancer were offered enrollment into the study at their preoperative clinic visit. The "stoma boot camp" consisted of a 3-hour group session within 2 weeks of the surgery date. Patients were given a short presentation by residents and advanced practice providers regarding the operation, recovery, and expectations for their post-operative care. Ostomy nurses then demonstrated basic urostomy care - pouching, sizing, emptying - along with trouble-shooting tips for common ostomy problems. Measurements of HRQOL questionnaires were completed at the initial visit, after "boot camp," and at defined time points after surgery for 12 weeks. This included using an ostomy adjustment score. Length of stay, unplanned stoma-related interventions, and re-admissions within 30 days were also tracked. RESULTS: In this initial pilot program, 51 patients participated in the stoma bootcamp. The patients had an average ostomy adjustment score (OAS) of 150.4 (95% CI 142.0, 158.8) at discharge from the hospital, and these high OAS levels persisted throughout the 12 weeks of follow-up data without any significant decline. Short-form 36 (SF-36) scores demonstrated numerical improvements in each individual category at the 6-week mark above baseline. These improvements persisted at the 12-week mark. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we were able to establish the feasibility of implementing a preoperative comprehensive stoma education session for patients scheduled for a RCIC. Additionally, we were able to document favorable HRQOL data and improved ostomy adjustment scores surrounding the education session.

Association Between Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Mortality Among Patients With Prostate Cancer and COVID-19.

Importance: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been theorized to decrease the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with prostate cancer owing to a potential decrease in the tissue-based expression of the SARS-CoV-2 coreceptor transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2). Objective: To examine whether ADT is associated with a decreased rate of 30-day mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed patient data recorded in the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry between March 17, 2020, and February 11, 2021. The consortium maintains a centralized multi-institution registry of patients with a current or past diagnosis of cancer who developed COVID-19. Data were collected and managed using REDCap software hosted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Initially, 1228 patients aged 18 years or older with prostate cancer listed as their primary malignant neoplasm were included; 122 patients with a second malignant neoplasm, insufficient follow-up, or low-quality data were excluded. Propensity matching was performed using the nearest-neighbor method with a 1:3 ratio of treated units to control units, adjusted for age, body mass index, race and ethnicity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, smoking status, comorbidities (cardiovascular, pulmonary, kidney disease, and diabetes), cancer status, baseline steroid use, COVID-19 treatment, and presence of metastatic disease. Exposures: Androgen deprivation therapy use was defined as prior bilateral orchiectomy or pharmacologic ADT administered within the prior 3 months of presentation with COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality after COVID-19 diagnosis for patients receiving ADT compared with patients not receiving ADT after propensity matching. Results: After exclusions, 1106 patients with prostate cancer (before propensity score matching: median age, 73 years [IQR, 65-79 years]; 561 (51%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White) were included for analysis. Of these patients, 477 were included for propensity score matching (169 who received ADT and 308 who did not receive ADT). After propensity matching, there was no significant difference in the primary end point of the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.42-1.42). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this cohort study suggest that ADT use was not associated with decreased mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, large ongoing clinical trials will provide further evidence on the role of ADT or other androgen-targeted therapies in reducing COVID-19 infection severity.

Incorporating palliative care principles to improve patient care and quality of life in urologic oncology.

Palliative care - specialized healthcare focused on improving quality of life for patients with serious illnesses - can help urologists to care for patients with unmet symptom, coping and communication needs. Society guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend incorporating palliative care into standard oncological care, based on multiple randomized trials demonstrating that it significantly improves physical well-being, patient satisfaction and goal concordant care. Misconceptions regarding the objective and ideal timing of palliative care are common; a key concept is that palliative care and treatments seeking to cure or prolong life are not mutually exclusive. Urologists are well positioned to champion the integration of palliative care into surgical urologic oncology and should be aware of palliative care guidelines, indications for palliative care use and how the field of urologic oncology can adopt best practices.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Therapy With Survival in Patients With Hematologic Cancers and COVID-19.

Importance: COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness for many patients. Prior studies have established hematologic cancers as a risk factor associated with particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To our knowledge, no studies have established a beneficial role for anti-COVID-19 interventions in this at-risk population. Convalescent plasma therapy may benefit immunocompromised individuals with COVID-19, including those with hematologic cancers. Objective: To evaluate the association of convalescent plasma treatment with 30-day mortality in hospitalized adults with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 from a multi-institutional cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry with propensity score matching evaluated patients with hematologic cancers who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Data were collected between March 17, 2020, and January 21, 2021. Exposures: Convalescent plasma treatment at any time during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders was performed. Hazard ratios (HRs) are reported with 95% CIs. Secondary subgroup analyses were conducted on patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilatory support and/or intensive care unit admission. Results: A total of 966 individuals (mean [SD] age, 65 [15] years; 539 [55.8%] male) were evaluated in this study; 143 convalescent plasma recipients were compared with 823 untreated control patients. After adjustment for potential confounding factors, convalescent plasma treatment was associated with improved 30-day mortality (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). This association remained significant after propensity score matching (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.92). Among the 338 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score-matched comparison, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.80). Among the 227 patients who required mechanical ventilatory support, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score-matched comparison, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.72). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest a potential survival benefit in the administration of convalescent plasma to patients with hematologic cancers and COVID-19.