Search

PURPOSE Patients with cancer are at increased risk for unfavorable outcomes from COVID-19. Knowledge about the outcome determinants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in this population is essential for risk stratification and definition of appropriate management. Our objective was to evaluate prognostic factors for all-cause mortality in patients diagnosed with both cancer and COVID-19. METHODS All consecutive patients with cancer hospitalized at our institution with COVID-19 were included. Electronic medical records were reviewed for clinical and laboratory characteristics potentially associated with outcomes. RESULTS Five hundred seventy-six consecutive patients with cancer and COVID-19 were included in the present study. An overall in-hospital mortality rate of 49.3% was demonstrated. Clinical factors associated with increased risk of death because of COVID-19 were age over 65 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status > 0 zero, best supportive care, primary lung cancer, and the presence of lung metastases. Laboratory findings associated with a higher risk of unfavorable outcomes were neutrophilia, lymphopenia, and elevated levels of D-dimer, creatinine, C-reactive protein, or AST. CONCLUSION A high mortality rate in patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 was demonstrated in the present study, emphasizing the need for close surveillance in this group of patients, especially in those with unfavorable prognostic characteristics.

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted cancer care in Africa, further exposing major health disparities. This paper compares and contrasts the experiences of 15 clinicians in six different African cancer centers to highlight the positive aspects (silver linings) in an otherwise negative situation. METHODS Data are from personal experience of the clinicians working at the six cancer centers blended with what is available in the literature. RESULTS The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care appeared to vary not only across the continent but also over cancer centers. Different factors such as clinic location, services offered, available resources, and level of restrictions imposed because of COVID-19 were associated with these variations. Collectively, delays in treatment and limited access to cancer care were commonly reported in the different regions. CONCLUSION There is a lack of data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and online COVID-19 and cancer registries for Africa. Analysis of the available data, however, suggests a higher mortality rate for cancer patients with COVID-19 compared with those without cancer. Positive or silver linings coming out of the pandemic include the adoption of hypofractionated radiation therapy and teleoncology to enhance access to care while protecting patients and staff members. Increasing collaborations using online technology with oncology health professionals across the world are also being seen as a silver lining, with valuable sharing of experiences and expertise to improve care, enhance learning, and reduce disparities. Advanced information and communication technologies are seen as vital for such collaborations and could avail efforts in dealing with the ongoing pandemic and potential future crises.

PURPOSE Evaluate the effectiveness of compression while receiving chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in the treatment of HIV-associated Kaposi sarcoma (KS) lymphedema. METHODS A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a single oncology clinic in western Kenya (NCT03404297). A computer-generated randomization schedule was used to allocate treatment arms. Randomized block design was used for stratification by lymphedema stage. Participants were HIV positive adults age ≥ 18 years on antiretroviral therapy with biopsy-proven KS associated with leg lymphedema and being initiated on chemotherapy. The intervention was 10 weeks of weekly clinic-based application of two-component paste compression bandages. The primary outcome was change in the Lower Extremity Lymphedema Index (LELI) score from week 0 to week 14. The secondary outcomes were change in the Lymphedema Quality of Life measure (LYMQOL) and change in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 score from week 0 to week 14. Blinded outcome assessments were conducted. RESULTS Of 30 participants randomly assigned, 25 eligible patients (chemotherapy [control], n = 13; compression plus chemotherapy [intervention], n = 12) returned at week 14. Change in LELI, LYMQOL, and EORTC QLQ-C30 scores between week 14 and week 0 did not significantly differ by arm. The mean (standard deviation) change in LELI score was –25.9 (34.6) for the control arm compared with –13.3 (29.5) for the intervention arm, P = .340. The difference (95% CI) in the change in LELI score was –12.6 (–39.3 to 14.1). CONCLUSION Future studies evaluating a 14-week change in LELI for KS lymphedema should assume a standard deviation of approximately 30. Lessons learned from this pilot trial should inform the development of a larger, multicenter trial to evaluate the effectiveness of compression for KS lymphedema., Larger studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of compression in HIV-associated Kaposi sarcoma

PURPOSE The number of cancer survivors is increasing globally although the status of cancer survivorship care provision and research in developing countries is limited. This study aimed to review published literature and available guidelines and/or recommendations to inform cancer survivorship care in Latin America. METHODS Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and SciELO were systematically searched for articles and guidelines and/or recommendations published through December 31, 2020. Our search terms included cancer, survivors, neoplasm, cancer, survivorship, survivor, follow-up studies, and the name of the countries. We categorized the articles by country, year, cancer type(s), language, and domain of cancer survivorship care. We also searched governmental health agencies websites in all Latin American countries. RESULTS Our literature review found 664 articles for inclusion. The number of publications increased over time. Brazil had most of the survivorship research (n = 483, 72.7%). The most common topics included surveillance and management of psychosocial effects (n = 237, 35.7%) and physical effects (n = 230, 34.6%). Prevention and surveillance for recurrences and health promotion and disease prevention were each addressed by about 10% (n = 71) of the publications. Although close to half of the publications included more than one cancer, 28.9% (n = 192) focused solely on breast cancer. We found no guidelines and/or recommendations explicitly focusing on Latin America in the reviews of the literature or the national governmental institutions' websites. CONCLUSION We found a growing body of cancer survivorship publications, mainly focusing on psychosocial and physical effects, although no cancer survivorship guidance and/or recommendations focused on Latin America were identified. Expanding research across Latin American countries and covering a broader spectrum of cancer survivorship care is needed. Development of guidelines may further promote provision of quality care for this growing population of cancer survivors., There is a steady growth in papers focusing on cancer survivorship care published in Latin America

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed a unique challenge to oncology patients. Outcome data on COVID-19 in patients with cancer from the Indian subcontinent are scarce in the literature. We aimed to evaluate the outcome of patients with COVID-19 on active systemic anticancer therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a retrospective study of patients with solid organ malignancies undergoing systemic therapy with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. COVID-19 was diagnosed if a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay from oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab was positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The objectives were to evaluate the outcome of COVID-19 and factors predicting the outcome. RESULTS A total of 145 patients were included with a median age of 58 years (range, 20-81 years). Treatment was curative in 60 (42%) patients. Of all symptomatic cases (n = 88, 61%), 50 had mild, 27 had moderate and 19 had severe COVID-19–related symptoms as per WHO criteria. Fifty (34%) patients required hospitalization with a median duration of hospital stay of 12 days (range, 4-25 days); five patients required intensive care unit admission. The rest were treated with home isolation and did not require further hospitalization. Twenty-two (15%) patients died, and the risk of death was significantly associated with severity of symptoms (odds ratio, 91.3; 95% CI, 9.1 to 919.5, P = .0001) but not with any other clinical factors. Drug holiday was given to 63 (44%) patients with a median duration of 25 days (range, 7-88 days). The median duration to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction–negative was 16 days (range, 7-62 days). CONCLUSION COVD-19–related death rate was 15% among patients with solid organ malignancies. The severity of the symptoms was related to mortality. The majority of patients with mild symptoms were treated at home isolation.

PURPOSE There are scarce data to aid in prognostication of the outcome of critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the mortality of critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS We searched online databases and manually searched for studies in English that reported on outcomes of adult cancer patients with COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) or those with severe COVID-19 between December 2019 and October 2020. Risk of bias was assessed by the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We also determined the odds of death for cancer patients versus noncancer patients, as also outcomes by cancer subtypes, presence of recent anticancer therapy, and presence of one or more comorbidities. Random-effects modeling was used. RESULTS In 28 studies (1,276 patients), pooled mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19 admitted to an ICU was 60.2% (95% CI, 53.6 to 6.7; I2 = 80.27%), with four studies (7,259 patients) showing higher odds of dying in cancer versus noncancer patients (odds ratio 1.924; 95% CI, 1.596 to 2.320). In four studies (106 patients) of patients with cancer and severe COVID-19, pooled mortality was 59.4% (95% CI, –39.4 to 77.5; I2 = 72.28%); in one study, presence of hematologic malignancy was associated with significantly higher mortality compared with nonhematologic cancers (odds ratio 1.878; 95% CI, 1.171 to 3.012). Risk of bias was low. CONCLUSION Most studies were reported before the results of trials suggesting the benefit of dexamethasone and tocilizumab, potentially overestimating mortality. The observed mortality of 60% in cancer patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU is not prohibitively high, and admission to the ICU should be considered for selected patients (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020207209)., In 28 studies, pooled mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19 admitted to an ICU was not prohibitively high (60%)

PURPOSE As frontline workers facing the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers should be well-prepared to fight the disease and prevent harm to their patients and themselves. Our study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practice of oncologists in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on them. METHODS A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated questionnaire disseminated to oncologists by SurveyMonkey. The tool had 42 questions that captured participants’ knowledge, attitude, and practice; their experiences; and the pandemic’s impact on various aspects of their lives. Participants from Middle East and North African countries, Brazil, and the Philippines completed the electronic survey between April 24 and May 15, 2020. RESULTS Of the 1,010 physicians who participated in the study, 54.75% were male and 64.95% were medical or clinical oncologists. The level of knowledge regarding the prevention and transmission of the virus was good in 52% of participants. The majority (92%) were worried about contracting the virus either extremely (30%) or mildly (62%), and 84.85% were worried about transmitting the virus to their families. Approximately 76.93% reported they would take the COVID 19 vaccine once available, with oncologists practicing in Brazil having the highest odds ratio of intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio, 11.8, 95% CI, 5.96 to 23.38, P < .001). Participants reported a negative impact of the pandemic on relations with coworkers (15.84%), relations with family (27.84%), their emotional and mental well-being (48.51%), research productivity (34.26%), and financial income (52.28%). CONCLUSION The COVID-19 pandemic has adverse effects on various personal and professional aspects of oncologists’ lives. Interventions should be implemented to mitigate the negative impact and prepare oncologists to manage future crises with more efficiency and resilience.

PURPOSEThe COVID-19 pandemic remains a public health emergency of global concern. Determinants of mortality in the general population are now clear, but specific data on patients with cancer remain limited, particularly in Latin America.MATERIALS AND METHODSA longitudinal multicenter cohort study of patients with cancer and confirmed COVID-19 from Oncoclínicas community oncology practice in Brazil was conducted. The primary end point was all-cause mortality after isolation of the SARS-CoV-2 by Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in patients initially diagnosed in an outpatient environment. We performed univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis and recursive partitioning modeling to define the baseline clinical determinants of death in the overall population.RESULTSFrom March 29 to July 4, 2020, 198 patients with COVID-19 were prospectively registered in the database, of which 167 (84%) had solid tumors and 31 (16%) had hematologic malignancies. Most patients were on active systemic therapy or radiotherapy (77%), largely for advanced or metastatic disease (64%). The overall mortality rate was 16.7% (95% CI, 11.9 to 22.7). In univariate models, factors associated with death after COVID-19 diagnosis were age ≥ 60 years, current or former smoking, coexisting comorbidities, respiratory tract cancer, and management in a noncurative setting ( P < .05). In multivariable logistic regression and recursive partitioning modeling, only age, smoking history, and noncurative disease setting remained significant determinants of mortality, ranging from 1% in cancer survivors under surveillance or (neo)adjuvant therapy to 60% in elderly smokers with advanced or metastatic disease.CONCLUSIONMortality after COVID-19 in patients with cancer is influenced by prognostic factors that also affect outcomes of the general population. Fragile patients and smokers are entitled to active preventive measures to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and close monitoring in the case of exposure or COVID-19-related symptoms.

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic affected health care systems globally and resulted in the interruption of usual care in many health care facilities, exposing vulnerable patients with cancer to significant risks. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of this pandemic on cancer care worldwide. METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional study using a validated web-based questionnaire of 51 items. The questionnaire obtained information on the capacity and services offered at these centers, magnitude of disruption of care, reasons for disruption, challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimation of patient harm during the pandemic. RESULTS A total of 356 centers from 54 countries across six continents participated between April 21 and May 8, 2020. These centers serve 716,979 new patients with cancer a year. Most of them (88.2%) reported facing challenges in delivering care during the pandemic. Although 55.34% reduced services as part of a preemptive strategy, other common reasons included an overwhelmed system (19.94%), lack of personal protective equipment (19.10%), staff shortage (17.98%), and restricted access to medications (9.83%). Missing at least one cycle of therapy by > 10% of patients was reported in 46.31% of the centers. Participants reported patient exposure to harm from interruption of cancer-specific care (36.52%) and noncancer-related care (39.04%), with some centers estimating that up to 80% of their patients were exposed to harm. CONCLUSION The detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care is widespread, with varying magnitude among centers worldwide. Additional research to assess this impact at the patient level is required.