Search

Background and Aims: Minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum is associated with intense postoperative pain. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous intercostal cryoanalgesia according to the different timing of its preoperative application. Outcome variables included pain, drug consumption, time to mobilization, and hospital length of stay., Methods: Retrospective data analyzed from a single pediatric institution, involving a series of consecutive patients who underwent pectus surgery. Group 1: 18 patients received thoracic epidural analgesia. Group 2: 11 patients underwent cryoanalgesia on the same day of surgery and epidural analgesia as a bridge to cryoanalgesia onset. Group 3: 13 patients underwent earlier preoperative intercostal cryoanalgesia with a median of 6 days (IQR 3-6) before surgery. All groups received rescue systemic analgesia., Results: Pain scores were similar among groups. The incidence of severe pain decreased in Group 3 versus Group 1 (38% vs 78%) (p<0.05). Ropivacaine epidural cumulative dose (mg/kg) decreased in Group 2 versus Group 1: 16 (IQR 12-23) versus 27 (IQR 22-35) (p<0.01). Cumulative oral morphine equivalent dose (mg/kg) decreased among groups: 12 (IQR 9.3-17), 8 (IQR 4.2-12), and 0.2 (IQR 0.0-0.3) (p<0.001) for Groups 1-3, respectively. Length of stay (days) also decreased among Groups 1-3, respectively: 7 (IQR 6-7), 6 (IQR 5-7), and 4 (IQR 4-5) (p<0.001)., Conclusions: This exploratory observational study suggests that the timing of cryoanalgesia may play a crucial role in its efficacy, with earlier placement being associated with improvements in pain, opioid utilization, and length of stay., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Few studies examining the patient outcomes of concurrent neurological manifestations during acute COVID-19 leveraged multinational cohorts of adults and children or distinguished between central and peripheral nervous system (CNS vs. PNS) involvement. Using a federated multinational network in which local clinicians and informatics experts curated the electronic health records data, we evaluated the risk of prolonged hospitalization and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients from 21 healthcare systems across 7 countries. For adults, we used a federated learning approach whereby we ran Cox proportional hazard models locally at each healthcare system and performed a meta-analysis on the aggregated results to estimate the overall risk of adverse outcomes across our geographically diverse populations. For children, we reported descriptive statistics separately due to their low frequency of neurological involvement and poor outcomes. Among the 106,229 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (104,031 patients ≥18 years; 2,198 patients <18 years, January 2020-October 2021), 15,101 (14%) had at least one CNS diagnosis, while 2,788 (3%) had at least one PNS diagnosis. After controlling for demographics and pre-existing conditions, adults with CNS involvement had longer hospital stay (11 versus 6 days) and greater risk of (Hazard Ratio = 1.78) and faster time to death (12 versus 24 days) than patients with no neurological condition (NNC) during acute COVID-19 hospitalization. Adults with PNS involvement also had longer hospital stay but lower risk of mortality than the NNC group. Although children had a low frequency of neurological involvement during COVID-19 hospitalization, a substantially higher proportion of children with CNS involvement died compared to those with NNC (6% vs 1%). Overall, patients with concurrent CNS manifestation during acute COVID-19 hospitalization faced greater risks for adverse clinical outcomes than patients without any neurological diagnosis. Our global informatics framework using a federated approach (versus a centralized data collection approach) has utility for clinical discovery beyond COVID-19., Competing Interests: All authors report no competing interests or conflicts of interest. JGK reports a consulting relationship with the i2b2-tranSMART Foundation through Invocate, Inc. RB reports being a shareholder of Biomeris s.r.l. and Engenome s.r.l. DAH reports entitled to royalties from the University of Michigan for licensing of the EMERSE "synonyms". AM’s work is being funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in Germany in the framework of the MIRACUM Consortium. AM reports being a shareholder of Biomeris s.r.l. BM reports being co-founder and equity owner from DESKI. DLM has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the University of Pittsburgh/Pittsburgh Health Data Alliance outside of this work. PA reports consulting for CCHMC and BCH. NG is a co-founder and equity owner of Datavisyn. ZX has served as a Consultant for Genentech/Roche. The institution of ZX has received research support from the National Institute of Health, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Food and Drug Administration, the Pittsburgh Foundation, the PNC Charitable Trust, the Ethel Vincent Trust, and Genentech / Roche., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Objective: To address the diagnostic performances of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) free light chains (FLC) measurements compared to oligoclonal bands (OCB) to support multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis., Results: kFLC index showed the highest diagnostic accuracy to detect MS patients with the highest AUC compared to OCB, IgG index, IF kFLC R, kFLC H, λFLC index and IF λFLC., Conclusions: FLC indices are biomarkers of intrathecal Immunoglobulin synthesis and central nervous system (CNS) inflammation. kFLC index can discriminate between MS and other CNS inflammatory disorders, while λFLC index is less informative for MS but can play a role to support the diagnosis of other inflammatory CNS disorders., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In electronic health records, patterns of missing laboratory test results could capture patients' course of disease as well as ​​reflect clinician's concerns or worries for possible conditions. These patterns are often understudied and overlooked. This study aims to identify informative patterns of missingness among laboratory data collected across 15 healthcare system sites in three countries for COVID-19 inpatients., Methods: We collected and analyzed demographic, diagnosis, and laboratory data for 69,939 patients with positive COVID-19 PCR tests across three countries from 1 January 2020 through 30 September 2021. We analyzed missing laboratory measurements across sites, missingness stratification by demographic variables, temporal trends of missingness, correlations between labs based on missingness indicators over time, and clustering of groups of labs based on their missingness/ordering pattern., Results: With these analyses, we identified mapping issues faced in seven out of 15 sites. We also identified nuances in data collection and variable definition for the various sites. Temporal trend analyses may support the use of laboratory test result missingness patterns in identifying severe COVID-19 patients. Lastly, using missingness patterns, we determined relationships between various labs that reflect clinical behaviors., Conclusion: In this work, we use computational approaches to relate missingness patterns to hospital treatment capacity and highlight the heterogeneity of looking at COVID-19 over time and at multiple sites, where there might be different phases, policies, etc. Changes in missingness could suggest a change in a patient's condition, and patterns of missingness among laboratory measurements could potentially identify clinical outcomes. This allows sites to consider missing data as informative to analyses and help researchers identify which sites are better poised to study particular questions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in COVID-19, data on post-AKI kidney function recovery and the clinical factors associated with poor kidney function recovery is lacking., Methods: A retrospective multi-centre observational cohort study comprising 12,891 hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction from 1 January 2020 to 10 September 2020, and with at least one serum creatinine value 1-365 days prior to admission. Mortality and serum creatinine values were obtained up to 10 September 2021., Findings: Advanced age (HR 2.77, 95%CI 2.53-3.04, p < 0.0001), severe COVID-19 (HR 2.91, 95%CI 2.03-4.17, p < 0.0001), severe AKI (KDIGO stage 3: HR 4.22, 95%CI 3.55-5.00, p < 0.0001), and ischemic heart disease (HR 1.26, 95%CI 1.14-1.39, p < 0.0001) were associated with worse mortality outcomes. AKI severity (KDIGO stage 3: HR 0.41, 95%CI 0.37-0.46, p < 0.0001) was associated with worse kidney function recovery, whereas remdesivir use (HR 1.34, 95%CI 1.17-1.54, p < 0.0001) was associated with better kidney function recovery. In a subset of patients without chronic kidney disease, advanced age (HR 1.38, 95%CI 1.20-1.58, p < 0.0001), male sex (HR 1.67, 95%CI 1.45-1.93, p < 0.0001), severe AKI (KDIGO stage 3: HR 11.68, 95%CI 9.80-13.91, p < 0.0001), and hypertension (HR 1.22, 95%CI 1.10-1.36, p = 0.0002) were associated with post-AKI kidney function impairment. Furthermore, patients with COVID-19-associated AKI had significant and persistent elevations of baseline serum creatinine 125% or more at 180 days (RR 1.49, 95%CI 1.32-1.67) and 365 days (RR 1.54, 95%CI 1.21-1.96) compared to COVID-19 patients with no AKI., Interpretation: COVID-19-associated AKI was associated with higher mortality, and severe COVID-19-associated AKI was associated with worse long-term post-AKI kidney function recovery., Funding: Authors are supported by various funders, with full details stated in the acknowledgement section., Competing Interests: Dr Hanauer reported having developed an electronic resource of clinical synonyms, EMERSE, that is licensed by the University of Michigan and receiving a portion of the licensing fees for this resource outside the submitted work. Dr Omenn reported being an early investor and serving on the board of Angion Biomedica Corporation, New York, which has conducted clinical trials of drug candidates for overcoming acute kidney injury following cardiopulmonary surgery or kidney transplantation. The former was terminated early based on unsatisfactory efficacy/adverse effects assessment; the latter had insufficient benefit to warrant proposing a Phase III trial. The company is moving in other directions, to be determined. No further work on kidney is anticipated. Dr Holmes disclosed participation as an NIH/NIDDK T2 Coach R01DK113189. Dr Malovini disclosed being a shareholder of Biomeris s.r.l. Dr Bellazzi reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, and disclosed being a shareholder of University of Pavia spin-off Biomeris. Dr Klann reports consulting fees from i2b2 tranSMART foundation, for work to enhance open-source data warehouse platform. He reports no direct relationship to this work, except that the data model for analysis in this manuscript was inspired by this platform., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Importance: Whether the severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with cancer have improved in terms of disease management and capacity is yet to be defined., Objective: To test whether severity and mortality from COVID-19 among patients with cancer have improved during the course of the pandemic., Design, Setting, and Participants: OnCovid is a European registry that collects data on consecutive patients with solid or hematologic cancer and COVID-19. This multicenter case series study included real-world data from 35 institutions across 6 countries (UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany). This update included patients diagnosed between February 27, 2020, and February, 14, 2021. Inclusion criteria were confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a history of solid or hematologic cancer., Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection., Main Outcomes and Measures: Deaths were differentiated at 14 days and 3 months as the 2 landmark end points. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared by stratifying patients across 5 phases (February to March 2020, April to June 2020, July to September 2020, October to December 2020, and January to February 2021) and across 2 major outbreaks (February to June 2020 and July 2020 to February 2021)., Results: At data cutoff, 2795 consecutive patients were included, with 2634 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age, 68 [18-77] years ; 52.8% men). Eligible patients demonstrated significant time-dependent improvement in 14-day case-fatality rate (CFR) with estimates of 29.8% (95% CI, 0.26-0.33) for February to March 2020; 20.3% (95% CI, 0.17-0.23) for April to June 2020; 12.5% (95% CI, 0.06-22.90) for July to September 2020; 17.2% (95% CI, 0.15-0.21) for October to December 2020; and 14.5% (95% CI, 0.09-0.21) for January to February 2021 (all P < .001) across the predefined phases. Compared with the second major outbreak, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak were more likely to be 65 years or older (974 of 1626 [60.3%] vs 564 of 1008 [56.1%]; P = .03), have at least 2 comorbidities (793 of 1626 [48.8%] vs 427 of 1008 [42.4%]; P = .001), and have advanced tumors (708 of 1626 [46.4%] vs 536 of 1008 [56.1%]; P < .001). Complications of COVID-19 were more likely to be seen (738 of 1626 [45.4%] vs 342 of 1008 [33.9%]; P < .001) and require hospitalization (969 of 1626 [59.8%] vs 418 of 1008 [42.1%]; P < .001) and anti-COVID-19 therapy (1004 of 1626 [61.7%] vs 501 of 1008 [49.7%]; P < .001) during the first major outbreak. The 14-day CFRs for the first and second major outbreaks were 25.6% (95% CI, 0.23-0.28) vs 16.2% (95% CI, 0.13-0.19; P < .001), respectively. After adjusting for country, sex, age, comorbidities, tumor stage and status, anti-COVID-19 and anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 complications, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak had an increased risk of death at 14 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.32) and 3 months (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51) compared with those diagnosed in the second outbreak., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this registry-based study suggest that mortality in patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 has improved in Europe; this improvement may be associated with earlier diagnosis, improved management, and dynamic changes in community transmission over time.

Background: The medium-term and long-term impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is not yet known. In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and their impact on the survival of patients with cancer. We also aimed to describe patterns of resumption and modifications of systemic anti-cancer therapy following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection., Methods: OnCovid is an active European registry study enrolling consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with a history of solid or haematological malignancy and who had a diagnosis of RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this retrospective study, patients were enrolled from 35 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Patients who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, and entered into the registry at the point of data lock (March 1, 2021), were eligible for analysis. The present analysis was focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent clinical reassessment at each participating institution. We documented prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and described factors associated with their development and their association with post-COVID-19 survival, which was defined as the interval from post-COVID-19 reassessment to the patients' death or last follow-up. We also evaluated resumption of systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients treated within 4 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis. The OnCovid study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974., Findings: 2795 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, were entered into the study by the time of the data lock on March 1, 2021. After the exclusion of ineligible patients, the final study population consisted of 2634 patients. 1557 COVID-19 survivors underwent a formal clinical reassessment after a median of 22·1 months (IQR 8·4-57·8) from cancer diagnosis and 44 days (28-329) from COVID-19 diagnosis. 234 (15·0%) patients reported COVID-19 sequelae, including respiratory symptoms (116 [49·6%]) and residual fatigue (96 [41·0%]). Sequelae were more common in men (vs women; p=0·041), patients aged 65 years or older (vs other age groups; p=0·048), patients with two or more comorbidities (vs one or none; p=0·0006), and patients with a history of smoking (vs no smoking history; p=0·0004). Sequelae were associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 (p<0·0001), complicated COVID-19 (p<0·0001), and COVID-19 therapy (p=0·0002). With a median post-COVID-19 follow-up of 128 days (95% CI 113-148), COVID-19 sequelae were associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·80 [95% CI 1·18-2·75]) after adjusting for time to post-COVID-19 reassessment, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumour characteristics, anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 severity. Among 466 patients on systemic anti-cancer therapy, 70 (15·0%) permanently discontinued therapy, and 178 (38·2%) resumed treatment with a dose or regimen adjustment. Permanent treatment discontinuations were independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 3·53 [95% CI 1·45-8·59]), but dose or regimen adjustments were not (0·84 [0·35-2·02])., Interpretation: Sequelae post-COVID-19 affect up to 15% of patients with cancer and adversely affect survival and oncological outcomes after recovery. Adjustments to systemic anti-cancer therapy can be safely pursued in treatment-eligible patients., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DJP reports lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eisai, and Falk Foundation; travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees from Mina Therapeutics, Eisai, Roche, DaVolterra, and Astra Zeneca; and research funding (to institution) from Merck Sharp and Dohme and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside of the submitted work. MLa acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work, and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, and Sandoz, outside of the submitted work. EF reports research funding to institution from Pfizer, outside of the submitted work, and travel expenses from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Esai, outside of the submitted work. TN-D reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; speakers fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; and travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZenca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work. JB reports consulting fees for Merck Sharp and Dohme and Astra Zeneca, outside of the submitted work. APr reports personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work; travel, accommodations, and expenses by Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work; research funding (to institution) from Roche and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and consulting fees from NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside of the submitted work. APar reports consulting fees from Takeda and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. MT reports travel grants from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; and honoraria as a medical writer from Novartis and Amgen, outside the submitted work. AG reports consulting fees from Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, and Daichii Sankyo, outside the submitted work; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo, outside the submitted work; research funds (to institution) from Eisai, Eli Lilly, and Roche, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Roche, outside the submitted work; and personal research funding from Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation UPO aging project, outside the submitted work. GG reports personal research funding outside of the submitted work from Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Janssen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from Janssen and Abbvie, outside the submitted work. LR reports consulting fees from Servier, Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zymeworks, outside the submitted work; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; travel expenses from Ipsen, outside the submitted work; and institutional research funding (to institution) from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, and Zymeworks, outside the submitted work. JT reports having a scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, and TheraMyc, outside of the submitted work; educational collaboration with Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource, outside of the submitted work; and institutional financial interest in form of financial support for clinical trials or contracted research for Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen-Cilag, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Healt, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merus, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation, and Cancer Research UK, outside the submitted work. ACo reports consulting fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Roche, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Astellas, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer patients are at higher risk of COVID-19 complications and mortality than the rest of the population. Breast cancer patients seem to have better prognosis when infected by SARS-CoV-2 than other cancer patients., Methods: We report a subanalysis of the OnCovid study providing more detailed information in the breast cancer population., Results: We included 495 breast cancer patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mean age was 62.6 years; 31.5% presented more than one comorbidity. The most frequent breast cancer subtype was luminal-like ( n  = 245, 49.5%) and 177 (35.8%) had metastatic disease. A total of 332 (67.1%) patients were receiving active treatment, with radical intent in 232 (47.6%) of them. Hospitalization rate was 58.2% and all-cause mortality rate was 20.3%. One hundred twenty-nine (26.1%) patients developed one COVID-19 complication, being acute respiratory failure the most common ( n  = 74, 15.0%). In the multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years, presence of COVID-19 complications, and metastatic disease were factors correlated with worse outcomes, while ongoing anticancer therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis appeared to be a protective factor. No particular oncological treatment was related to higher risk of complications. In the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 73 (18.3%) patients had some kind of modification on their oncologic treatment. At the first oncological reassessment (median time: 46.9 days ± 36.7), 255 (51.6%) patients reported to be fully recovered from the infection. There were 39 patients (7.9%) with long-term SARS-CoV-2-related complications., Conclusion: In the context of COVID-19, our data confirm that breast cancer patients appear to have lower complications and mortality rate than expected in other cancer populations. Most breast cancer patients can be safely treated for their neoplasm during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Oncological treatment has no impact on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 complications, and, especially in the curative setting, the treatment should be modified as little as possible., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: D.J. Pinato reports personal fees from BMS (travel fees, grant to institution, and lecture fees), Eisai (consultancy, lecture fees, and occasional advisory board), H3B (consultancy and occasional advisory board), Astrazeneca (consultancy and occasional advisory board), MiNa therapeutics (consultancy), Roche (lecture fees), Viiv Healthcare (lecture fees), Bayer Healthcare (lecture fees), and Falk Foundation (lecture fees). A. Zambelli reports personal fees from Lilly (occasional advisory board and travel fees), Novartis (occasional advisory board and travel fees), Pfizer (occasional advisory board), Astrazeneca (occasional advisory board), and Roche (occasional advisory board). M. Bower reports personal fees from Gilead (lecture fees), ViiV (lecture fees), BMS (lecture fees), MSD (lecture fees), and Janssen (lecture fees). M. Lambertini reports personal fees from Roche (consultancy and travel fees), Novartis (consultancy and travel fees), Lilly (consultancy and travel fees), Astrazeneca (consultancy), Pfizer (travel fees), Sandoz (travel fees), and Takeda (travel fees). E. Felip reports personal fees from Pfizer (grant to institution) and Instituto Carlos III (research grant). A. Cortellini reports personal fees from BMS (consultancy), MSD (consultancy), Astrazeneca (consultancy and lecture fees), Roche (consultancy), Astellas (lecture fees), and Novartis (Lecture fees). F. Mazzoni reports personal fees from Roche (lecture fees), Takeda (lecture fees), MSD (lecture fees), BMS (lecture fees), Lilly (lecture fees), and Boehringer (lecture fees). M. Romeo reports personal fees from MSD (consultancy), Pfizer (travel fees), and GSK (occasional advisory board). A. Gennari reports personal fees from Astrazeneca (lecture fees), Lilly (lecture fees), Eisai (lecture fees), Pfizer (lecture fees), Novartis (lecture fees), Teva (lecture fees), and Daiichi Sankyo (lecture fees)., (© The Author(s), 2021.)

Background: Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100,000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of death in UK patients with cancer versus those in continental EU., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of patients with cancer consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from 27th February to 10th September 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline including oncological and COVID-19-specific therapy across UK and EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk of adverse outcomes in multivariable Cox regression models., Findings: Compared with EU (n = 924), UK patients (n = 468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%; p < 0.0001; HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often men, were of older age and have more comorbidities than EU counterparts (p < 0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK than in EU patients (p < 0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK patients with cancer were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, antivirals and interleukin-6 antagonists (p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, independent of the patient's age, gender, tumour stage and status; number of comorbidities; COVID-19 severity and receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy after COVID-19 were similar in the UK and EU cohorts., Interpretation: UK patients with cancer have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anticancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK patients with cancer highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement D.J.P. received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for MiNA Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche and AstraZeneca and research funding (to the institution) from MSD and BMS. A.P. has declared personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; travel, accommodations and expenses paid by Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from Roche and Novartis and a consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb. T.N-D. has declared a consulting/advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Takeda and travel, accommodations and expenses paid by AstraZenca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Otsuka, Roche and Takeda. J.B. has declared a consulting/advisory role for MSD and AstraZeneca. PPS has declared a consulting/advisory role for Sanofi and AbbVie. A.P. has declared a consulting/advisory role for Takeda and Sanofi. MP has declared a consulting/advisory role for Gilead and Bayer. A.G. has declared a consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI and Daiichi Sankyo; is on the speaker's bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene and Daiichi Sankyo and declared research funds from EISAI, Eli Lilly and Roche. C.M.-V. has received travel grants and other honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche. L.R. received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi and Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche and Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, FibroGen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche and Zymeworks. J.T. reports personal financial interest in form of a scientific consultancy role for Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Genentech, Inc., HalioDX SAS, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Imedex, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, NeoPhore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics and TheraMyc. A.C. received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche and speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Astellas. All the remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

i2b2 data-warehouse could be a useful tool to support the enrollment phase of clinical studies. The aim of this work is to evaluate its performance on two clinical trials. We developed also an i2b2 extension to help in suggesting eligible patients for a study. The work showed good results in terms of ability to implement inclusion/exclusion criteria, but also in terms of identified patients actually enrolled and high number of patients suggested as potentially enrollable.

Introduction: In Europe, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had its first epicenter in Italy. Despite a significant mortality rate, the severity of most cases of COVID-19 infection ranges from asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic, and silent infection affects a still-unknown proportion of the general population. No information is available on the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection among patients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment during the pandemic., Materials and Methods: From April 1, 2020, to the end of the same month, 560 consecutive patients with cancer, asymptomatic for COVID-19 and on anticancer treatment at Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo, were evaluated and tested for SARS-CoV-2. We implemented a two-step diagnostics, including the rapid serological immunoassay for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM and the nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test in case of seropositivity to identify SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers., Results: In 560 patients, 172 (31%) resulted positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibodies, regardless of different type of cancer, stage, and treatment. The Ig-seropositive patients were then tested with RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swabs, and 38% proved to be SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. At an early follow-up, in the 97 SARS-CoV-2-seropositive/RT-PCR-negative patients who continued their anticancer therapies, only one developed symptomatic COVID-19 illness., Conclusion: Among patients with cancer, the two-step diagnostics is feasible and effective for SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers detection and might support optimal cancer treatment strategies at both the individual and the population level. The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in cases of RT-PCR-negative patients., Implications for Practice: This is the first study evaluating the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection in actively treated patients with cancer, during the epidemic peak in one of the worst areas of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lacking national and international recommendations for the detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, a pragmatic and effective two-step diagnostics was implemented to ascertain SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. In this series, consisting of consecutive and unselected patients with cancer, the prevalence of both SARS-CoV-2-seropositive patients and silent carriers is substantial (31% and 10%, respectively). The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in case of RT-PCR-negative patients., (© 2020 AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Patients with cancer are particularly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The systemic inflammatory response is a pathogenic mechanism shared by cancer progression and COVID-19. We investigated systemic inflammation as a driver of severity and mortality from COVID-19, evaluating the prognostic role of commonly used inflammatory indices in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer accrued to the OnCovid study., Methods: In a multicenter cohort of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer in Europe, we evaluated dynamic changes in neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR); platelet:lymphocyte ratio (PLR); Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), renamed the OnCovid Inflammatory Score (OIS); modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS); and Prognostic Index (PI) in relation to oncological and COVID-19 infection features, testing their prognostic potential in independent training (n=529) and validation (n=542) sets., Results: We evaluated 1071 eligible patients, of which 625 (58.3%) were men, and 420 were patients with malignancy in advanced stage (39.2%), most commonly genitourinary (n=216, 20.2%). 844 (78.8%) had ≥1 comorbidity and 754 (70.4%) had ≥1 COVID-19 complication. NLR, OIS, and mGPS worsened at COVID-19 diagnosis compared with pre-COVID-19 measurement (p<0.01), recovering in survivors to pre-COVID-19 levels. Patients in poorer risk categories for each index except the PLR exhibited higher mortality rates (p<0.001) and shorter median overall survival in the training and validation sets (p<0.01). Multivariable analyses revealed the OIS to be most independently predictive of survival (validation set HR 2.48, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.20, p=0.001; adjusted concordance index score 0.611)., Conclusions: Systemic inflammation is a validated prognostic domain in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and can be used as a bedside predictor of adverse outcome. Lymphocytopenia and hypoalbuminemia as computed by the OIS are independently predictive of severe COVID-19, supporting their use for risk stratification. Reversal of the COVID-19-induced proinflammatory state is a putative therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DJP received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. AP has declared personal honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo; travel, accommodations, and expenses paid by Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from Roche and Novartis; and consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. TND has declared consulting/advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; speakers fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Takeda; and travel, accommodations and expenses paid by AstraZenca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. JB has declared consulting/advisory role for MSD and Astra Zeneca. PPS has declared consulting/advisory role for Sanofi and Abbvie. AP has declared consulting/advisory role for Takeda and Sanofi. MP has declared consulting/advisory role for Gilead and Bayer. AG has declared consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, and Daichii Sankyo; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo; research funds: EISAI, Eli Lilly, and Roche. LR reports receiving consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, and Sanofi; lectures fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Roche, and Sanofi; travel fees from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

In this work we describe the application of a careflow mining algorithm to detect the most frequent patterns of care in a cohort of 3000 breast cancer patients. The applied method relies on longitudinal data extracted from electronic health records, recorded from the first surgical procedure after a breast cancer diagnosis. Careflows are mined from events data recorded for administrative purposes, including procedures from ICD9 - CM billing codes and chemotherapy treatments. Events data have been pre-processed with Topic Modelling to create composite events based on concurrent procedures. The results of the careflow mining algorithm allow the discovery of electronic temporal phenotypes across the studied population. These phenotypes are further characterized on the basis of clinical traits and tumour histopathology, as well as in terms of relapses, metastasis occurrence and 5-year survival rates. Results are highly significant from a clinical perspective, since phenotypes describe well characterized pathology classes, and the careflows are well matched with existing clinical guidelines. The analysis thus facilitates deriving real-world evidence that can inform clinicians as well as hospital decision makers., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Unstructured clinical notes contain a huge amount of information. We investigated the possibility of harvesting such information through an NLP-based approach. A manually curated ontology is the only resource required to handle all the steps of the process leading from clinical narrative to a structured data warehouse (i2b2). We have tested our approach at the Papa Giovanni XXIII hospital in Bergamo (Italy) on pathology reports collected since 2008.

Medical reports often contain a lot of relevant information in the form of free text. To reuse these unstructured texts for biomedical research, it is important to extract structured data from them. In this work, we adapted a previously developed information extraction system to the oncology domain, to process a set of anatomic pathology reports in the Italian language. The information extraction system relies on a domain ontology, which was adapted and refined in an iterative way. The final output was evaluated by a domain expert, with promising results.