Search

Background & purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic posed a large challenge for healthcare systems across the world. Comprehensive data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and mortality in lymphoma are lacking. Patients/methods: Using data from the Swedish lymphoma register, we compare incidence and 1-year survival of lymphoma patients in Sweden before (2017-2019) and during the pandemic (2020 and 2021). Results: Fewer patients were diagnosed with lymphomas during March-June 2020, but the annual incidence rates for 2020 and 2021 were similar to those of 2017-2019. A larger proportion of patients presented with stage IV disease during 2021. There were no differences in other base-line characteristics nor application of active treatment in pre-pandemic and pandemic years. One-year overall survival was not inferior among lymphoma patients during the pandemic years compared to pre-pandemic years i.e., 2017-2019. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic had limited impact on the incidence and mortality of lymphoma in Sweden.

Background & purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic posed a large challenge for healthcare systems across the world. Comprehensive data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and mortality in lymphoma are lacking. Patients/methods: Using data from the Swedish lymphoma register, we compare incidence and 1-year survival of lymphoma patients in Sweden before (2017-2019) and during the pandemic (2020 and 2021). Results: Fewer patients were diagnosed with lymphomas during March-June 2020, but the annual incidence rates for 2020 and 2021 were similar to those of 2017-2019. A larger proportion of patients presented with stage IV disease during 2021. There were no differences in other base-line characteristics nor application of active treatment in pre-pandemic and pandemic years. One-year overall survival was not inferior among lymphoma patients during the pandemic years compared to pre-pandemic years i.e., 2017-2019. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic had limited impact on the incidence and mortality of lymphoma in Sweden.

Background & purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic posed a large challenge for healthcare systems across the world. Comprehensive data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and mortality in lymphoma are lacking. Patients/methods: Using data from the Swedish lymphoma register, we compare incidence and 1-year survival of lymphoma patients in Sweden before (2017-2019) and during the pandemic (2020 and 2021). Results: Fewer patients were diagnosed with lymphomas during March-June 2020, but the annual incidence rates for 2020 and 2021 were similar to those of 2017-2019. A larger proportion of patients presented with stage IV disease during 2021. There were no differences in other base-line characteristics nor application of active treatment in pre-pandemic and pandemic years. One-year overall survival was not inferior among lymphoma patients during the pandemic years compared to pre-pandemic years i.e., 2017-2019. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic had limited impact on the incidence and mortality of lymphoma in Sweden.

Background & purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic posed a large challenge for healthcare systems across the world. Comprehensive data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and mortality in lymphoma are lacking. Patients/methods: Using data from the Swedish lymphoma register, we compare incidence and 1-year survival of lymphoma patients in Sweden before (2017-2019) and during the pandemic (2020 and 2021). Results: Fewer patients were diagnosed with lymphomas during March-June 2020, but the annual incidence rates for 2020 and 2021 were similar to those of 2017-2019. A larger proportion of patients presented with stage IV disease during 2021. There were no differences in other base-line characteristics nor application of active treatment in pre-pandemic and pandemic years. One-year overall survival was not inferior among lymphoma patients during the pandemic years compared to pre-pandemic years i.e., 2017-2019. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic had limited impact on the incidence and mortality of lymphoma in Sweden.

Background & purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic posed a large challenge for healthcare systems across the world. Comprehensive data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and mortality in lymphoma are lacking. Patients/methods: Using data from the Swedish lymphoma register, we compare incidence and 1-year survival of lymphoma patients in Sweden before (2017-2019) and during the pandemic (2020 and 2021). Results: Fewer patients were diagnosed with lymphomas during March-June 2020, but the annual incidence rates for 2020 and 2021 were similar to those of 2017-2019. A larger proportion of patients presented with stage IV disease during 2021. There were no differences in other base-line characteristics nor application of active treatment in pre-pandemic and pandemic years. One-year overall survival was not inferior among lymphoma patients during the pandemic years compared to pre-pandemic years i.e., 2017-2019. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic had limited impact on the incidence and mortality of lymphoma in Sweden.

Background Swedish recommendations to reduce the risk of COVID-19 relied on each citizen’s own sense of responsibility rather than mandatory lockdowns. We studied how COVID-19-related self-isolation and anxiety correlated to SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and PCR-positivity in patients with active cancer treatment. Methods In a longitudinal cohort study at Uppsala University Hospital patients and cancer personnel were included between April 1st 2020 to August 1st 2020. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 was done every 8–12-weeks until 30 March 2021. Patients completed a survey at inclusion regarding self-reported COVID-19-related anxiety and self-isolation. Results A total of 622 patients [n = 475 with solid malignancies (SM), n = 147 with haematological malignancies (HM)], and 358 healthcare personnel were included. The seropositivity rate was lower for patients than for personnel; 10.5% for SM patients, 6.8% for HM patients, and 16.2% for personnel (p = 0.005). Strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines was reported by 54% of patients but was not associated with a lower risk of becoming seropositive [OR = 1.4 (0.8–2.5), p = 0.2]. High anxiety was expressed by 32% of patients, more often by SM patients than HM patients (34% vs 25% [OR = 1.6 (1.1–2.5, p = 0.03)]). Female gender [OR = 3.5 (2.4–5.2), p < 0.001] and being born outside of Europe [OR = 2.9 (1.4–6.4), p = 0.007] were both associated with high anxiety. Patients reporting high anxiety became seropositive to a similar degree as those with low anxiety [OR = 0.7 (0.3–1.2), p = 0.2]. HM patients with PCR-positive COVID-19 were more likely than SM patients to require oxygen therapy, including non-invasive ventilation/intubation (69% vs. 26%, p = 0.005). Conclusion For Swedish patients on active cancer treatment, high self-assessed COVID-19-related anxiety or strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines were not associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. Patients with HM were less likely to develop serological a

Background Swedish recommendations to reduce the risk of COVID-19 relied on each citizen’s own sense of responsibility rather than mandatory lockdowns. We studied how COVID-19-related self-isolation and anxiety correlated to SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and PCR-positivity in patients with active cancer treatment. Methods In a longitudinal cohort study at Uppsala University Hospital patients and cancer personnel were included between April 1st 2020 to August 1st 2020. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 was done every 8–12-weeks until 30 March 2021. Patients completed a survey at inclusion regarding self-reported COVID-19-related anxiety and self-isolation. Results A total of 622 patients [n = 475 with solid malignancies (SM), n = 147 with haematological malignancies (HM)], and 358 healthcare personnel were included. The seropositivity rate was lower for patients than for personnel; 10.5% for SM patients, 6.8% for HM patients, and 16.2% for personnel (p = 0.005). Strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines was reported by 54% of patients but was not associated with a lower risk of becoming seropositive [OR = 1.4 (0.8–2.5), p = 0.2]. High anxiety was expressed by 32% of patients, more often by SM patients than HM patients (34% vs 25% [OR = 1.6 (1.1–2.5, p = 0.03)]). Female gender [OR = 3.5 (2.4–5.2), p < 0.001] and being born outside of Europe [OR = 2.9 (1.4–6.4), p = 0.007] were both associated with high anxiety. Patients reporting high anxiety became seropositive to a similar degree as those with low anxiety [OR = 0.7 (0.3–1.2), p = 0.2]. HM patients with PCR-positive COVID-19 were more likely than SM patients to require oxygen therapy, including non-invasive ventilation/intubation (69% vs. 26%, p = 0.005). Conclusion For Swedish patients on active cancer treatment, high self-assessed COVID-19-related anxiety or strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines were not associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. Patients with HM were less likely to develop serological a

Background Swedish recommendations to reduce the risk of COVID-19 relied on each citizen’s own sense of responsibility rather than mandatory lockdowns. We studied how COVID-19-related self-isolation and anxiety correlated to SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and PCR-positivity in patients with active cancer treatment. Methods In a longitudinal cohort study at Uppsala University Hospital patients and cancer personnel were included between April 1st 2020 to August 1st 2020. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 was done every 8–12-weeks until 30 March 2021. Patients completed a survey at inclusion regarding self-reported COVID-19-related anxiety and self-isolation. Results A total of 622 patients [n = 475 with solid malignancies (SM), n = 147 with haematological malignancies (HM)], and 358 healthcare personnel were included. The seropositivity rate was lower for patients than for personnel; 10.5% for SM patients, 6.8% for HM patients, and 16.2% for personnel (p = 0.005). Strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines was reported by 54% of patients but was not associated with a lower risk of becoming seropositive [OR = 1.4 (0.8–2.5), p = 0.2]. High anxiety was expressed by 32% of patients, more often by SM patients than HM patients (34% vs 25% [OR = 1.6 (1.1–2.5, p = 0.03)]). Female gender [OR = 3.5 (2.4–5.2), p < 0.001] and being born outside of Europe [OR = 2.9 (1.4–6.4), p = 0.007] were both associated with high anxiety. Patients reporting high anxiety became seropositive to a similar degree as those with low anxiety [OR = 0.7 (0.3–1.2), p = 0.2]. HM patients with PCR-positive COVID-19 were more likely than SM patients to require oxygen therapy, including non-invasive ventilation/intubation (69% vs. 26%, p = 0.005). Conclusion For Swedish patients on active cancer treatment, high self-assessed COVID-19-related anxiety or strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines were not associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. Patients with HM were less likely to develop serological a

Background Swedish recommendations to reduce the risk of COVID-19 relied on each citizen’s own sense of responsibility rather than mandatory lockdowns. We studied how COVID-19-related self-isolation and anxiety correlated to SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and PCR-positivity in patients with active cancer treatment. Methods In a longitudinal cohort study at Uppsala University Hospital patients and cancer personnel were included between April 1st 2020 to August 1st 2020. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 was done every 8–12-weeks until 30 March 2021. Patients completed a survey at inclusion regarding self-reported COVID-19-related anxiety and self-isolation. Results A total of 622 patients [n = 475 with solid malignancies (SM), n = 147 with haematological malignancies (HM)], and 358 healthcare personnel were included. The seropositivity rate was lower for patients than for personnel; 10.5% for SM patients, 6.8% for HM patients, and 16.2% for personnel (p = 0.005). Strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines was reported by 54% of patients but was not associated with a lower risk of becoming seropositive [OR = 1.4 (0.8–2.5), p = 0.2]. High anxiety was expressed by 32% of patients, more often by SM patients than HM patients (34% vs 25% [OR = 1.6 (1.1–2.5, p = 0.03)]). Female gender [OR = 3.5 (2.4–5.2), p < 0.001] and being born outside of Europe [OR = 2.9 (1.4–6.4), p = 0.007] were both associated with high anxiety. Patients reporting high anxiety became seropositive to a similar degree as those with low anxiety [OR = 0.7 (0.3–1.2), p = 0.2]. HM patients with PCR-positive COVID-19 were more likely than SM patients to require oxygen therapy, including non-invasive ventilation/intubation (69% vs. 26%, p = 0.005). Conclusion For Swedish patients on active cancer treatment, high self-assessed COVID-19-related anxiety or strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines were not associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. Patients with HM were less likely to develop serological a

Background Swedish recommendations to reduce the risk of COVID-19 relied on each citizen’s own sense of responsibility rather than mandatory lockdowns. We studied how COVID-19-related self-isolation and anxiety correlated to SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and PCR-positivity in patients with active cancer treatment. Methods In a longitudinal cohort study at Uppsala University Hospital patients and cancer personnel were included between April 1st 2020 to August 1st 2020. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 was done every 8–12-weeks until 30 March 2021. Patients completed a survey at inclusion regarding self-reported COVID-19-related anxiety and self-isolation. Results A total of 622 patients [n = 475 with solid malignancies (SM), n = 147 with haematological malignancies (HM)], and 358 healthcare personnel were included. The seropositivity rate was lower for patients than for personnel; 10.5% for SM patients, 6.8% for HM patients, and 16.2% for personnel (p = 0.005). Strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines was reported by 54% of patients but was not associated with a lower risk of becoming seropositive [OR = 1.4 (0.8–2.5), p = 0.2]. High anxiety was expressed by 32% of patients, more often by SM patients than HM patients (34% vs 25% [OR = 1.6 (1.1–2.5, p = 0.03)]). Female gender [OR = 3.5 (2.4–5.2), p < 0.001] and being born outside of Europe [OR = 2.9 (1.4–6.4), p = 0.007] were both associated with high anxiety. Patients reporting high anxiety became seropositive to a similar degree as those with low anxiety [OR = 0.7 (0.3–1.2), p = 0.2]. HM patients with PCR-positive COVID-19 were more likely than SM patients to require oxygen therapy, including non-invasive ventilation/intubation (69% vs. 26%, p = 0.005). Conclusion For Swedish patients on active cancer treatment, high self-assessed COVID-19-related anxiety or strict adherence to self-isolation guidelines were not associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. Patients with HM were less likely to develop serological a