Germline testing for veterans with advanced prostate cancer: concerns about service-connected benefits.

To better understand veterans' decisions about germline testing, we conducted a single-site, qualitative study of 32 veterans with advanced prostate cancer. Seven days after oncologist-patient discussions about germline testing, we conducted semistructured interviews with patients to explore their decision-making process using an interview guide. Four of 14 veterans with service-connected disability benefits for prostate cancer declined germline testing for fear of losing benefits because their livelihood depended on these benefits. All 18 veterans without service-connected benefits agreed to testing. Veterans declining germline testing based on this concern can lead to suboptimal cancer care because targeted treatments that could improve their outcomes may go unrecognized. Our findings contributed to new language in the Veterans Benefits Administration Compensation and Pension Manual clarifying that genetic testing showing hereditary predisposition is insufficient to deny service-connected benefits for conditions presumed to be caused by military exposures. Clinicians should communicate this protection when counseling veterans about genetic testing.

Large language models' responses to liver cancer surveillance, diagnosis, and management questions: accuracy, reliability, readability.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy, reliability, and readability of publicly available large language models in answering fundamental questions on hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis and management. METHODS: Twenty questions on liver cancer diagnosis and management were asked in triplicate to ChatGPT-3.5 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Bing (Microsoft). Responses were assessed by six fellowship-trained physicians from three academic liver transplant centers who actively diagnose and/or treat liver cancer. Responses were categorized as accurate (score 1; all information is true and relevant), inadequate (score 0; all information is true, but does not fully answer the question or provides irrelevant information), or inaccurate (score - 1; any information is false). Means with standard deviations were recorded. Responses were considered as a whole accurate if mean score was > 0 and reliable if mean score was > 0 across all responses for the single question. Responses were also quantified for readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Readability and accuracy across 60 responses were compared using one-way ANOVAs with Tukey's multiple comparison tests. RESULTS: Of the twenty questions, ChatGPT answered nine (45%), Gemini answered 12 (60%), and Bing answered six (30%) questions accurately; however, only six (30%), eight (40%), and three (15%), respectively, were both accurate and reliable. There were no significant differences in accuracy between any chatbot. ChatGPT responses were the least readable (mean Flesch Reading Ease Score 29; college graduate), followed by Gemini (30; college) and Bing (40; college; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Large language models provide complex responses to basic questions on hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis and management that are seldomly accurate, reliable, or readable.

Accuracy, readability, and quality of websites about metastatic renal cell carcinoma treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) face complex treatment decisions and frequently turn to the Internet for treatment information. The content of patient educational websites about mRCC treatment has not been evaluated. This study evaluated the accuracy, readability, and quality of websites about the treatment of mRCC. METHODS: A total of 2,700 Internet queries were performed. Across 3 Internet search engines, 25 links of 36 permutations of mRCC keywords and their synonyms were screened for eligibility. Eligible websites were English-language websites containing information about mRCC treatments. Sponsored, social media, provider-facing, and news websites were excluded. Accuracy of eligible websites was evaluated in 2 domains: (1) Completeness by calculating the percentage of mRCC facts included in websites using an investigator-created checklist based on the NCI's RCC Treatment (PDQ®)-patient version, and (2) Correctness by identifying incorrect statements that were inconsistent with guidelines. Websites containing ≥60% of checklist items had a "passing" completeness score. Incorrect statements were tallied and qualitatively categorized. Readability was evaluated using the Fry and SMOG formulae, which calculate reading grade levels. Quality was evaluated using validated instruments that appraise health information quality: QUEST (scored 0-28), which focuses on online information, and DISCERN (scored 16-80), which focuses on treatment choices. RESULTS: Thirty-nine websites were analyzed. Mean completeness score was 30% (range 0%-69%); only 2 (5%) websites had a passing score. Twelve (31%) websites had ≥1 incorrect statement, such as listing homeopathy or hormone therapy as mRCC treatment options, or including outdated statements. Mean readability levels were 11th and 12th grades for the Fry and SMOG methods, respectively. No website had a reading level lower than 9th grade. Mean QUEST score was 19 (range 9-28); authorship, complementarity, and currency items had the lowest scores. Mean DISCERN score was 56 (range 42-76), with 7 (18%) websites rated "excellent", 22 (56%) rated "good", and 10 (26%) rated fair. CONCLUSIONS: Many websites about mRCC treatment have incomplete, inaccurate, and unreadable information. Quality is highly variable. Efforts to improve accuracy, readability, and quality are needed to ensure that patients with mRCC can make well-informed treatment decisions and avoid harm from misinformation.

Shared decision-making needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital: a multi-level, mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the shared decision-making (SDM) needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital. Understanding this may improve SDM and cancer care quality in this vulnerable population. METHODS: A single-site, mixed-methods study of hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer, caregivers, and oncologists was conducted. After discharge, patient ± caregiver semi-structured interviews exploring SDM needs, barriers, and facilitators regarding their most important upcoming cancer-related decision were conducted. Oncologists were surveyed about patient knowledge and SDM needs using closed- and open-ended questions, respectively. Thematic analysis was performed for qualitative data with a focus on themes unique to or amplified by hospitalization. Descriptive statistics and the Chi-squared test were performed for quantitative data. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers reported high SDM needs surrounding treatment and prognostic information, leading to decisional conflict. Eight themes emerged: anticipated cancer treatment decisions, variable control preferences in decision-making, high cancer-related information needs and uncertainty, barriers and facilitators to information gathering during and post hospitalization, and decision-making facilitators. Among 32 oncologists, most (56%) reported patients were poorly informed about treatment and prognosis. Oncologists reported variable expectations about patient knowledge after hospitalization, facilitators to patient decision-making, and patient uncertainty while awaiting an outpatient oncologist appointment. CONCLUSION: Patients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer in the hospital have high SDM needs and experience decisional conflict. This may be due to barriers unique to or exacerbated by hospitalization. Further research is needed to develop strategies to address these barriers and enhance the facilitators identified in this study.

Clinical characteristics, racial inequities, and outcomes in patients with breast cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and cancer consortium (CCC19) cohort study.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32-1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24-2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70-6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71-5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83-12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63-3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20-2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66-3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89-22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Funding: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Clinical trial number: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701.

Systemic Anticancer Therapy and Thromboembolic Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With Cancer and COVID-19.

Importance: Systematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking. Objective: To assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022. Exposure: Treatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up. Results: Of 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19-related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

FDG PET Scans in Cancer Care.

This JAMA Oncology Patient Page explains FDG PET scans and how they are used in cancer care.

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).

Clinical Characteristics, Racial Inequities, and Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1,383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32 - 1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24-2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70 - 6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71-5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83 - 12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63 - 3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20 - 2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66 - 3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89 - 22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to Non-Hispanic White patients.

Accuracy of Information Provided by ChatGPT Regarding Liver Cancer Surveillance and Diagnosis.

ChatGPT did not reliably provide accurate information to 20 questions about liver cancer surveillance and diagnosis, as assessed by six physicians who actively diagnose and/or treat liver cancer. Answers deemed inaccurate commonly related to questions on specific LI-RADS categories and included contradictory or falsely reassuring, if not wrong, information.

Intermittent Hormonal Therapy in Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer Is Worth Considering Because of Mitigation of Cardiovascular Events and Reduction of Other Effects.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with better outcomes for men with biochemical recurrence following treatment for localized prostate cancer but can predispose patients to a higher risk of cardiovascular events. Intermittent ADT is worth considering in this setting, with close monitoring of prostate-specific antigen to decide when to restart ADT after off-treatment periods.

Implementation of a Telehealth Genetic Testing Station to Deliver Germline Testing for Men With Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Germline testing for men with prostate cancer (PCa) poses numerous implementation barriers. Alternative models of care delivery are emerging, but implementation outcomes are understudied. We evaluated implementation outcomes of a hybrid oncologist- and genetic counselor-delivered model called the genetic testing station (GTS) created to streamline testing and increase access. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution, cohort study of men with PCa referred to the GTS from October 14, 2019, to October 14, 2021, was conducted. Using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework, we described patients referred to GTS (Reach), the association of GTS with germline testing completion rates within 60 days of a new oncology appointment in a pre- versus post-GTS multivariable logistic regression (Effectiveness), Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. Because GTS transitioned from an on-site to remote service during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also compared outcomes for embedded versus remote GTS. RESULTS: Overall, 713 patients were referred to and eligible for GTS, and 592 (83%) patients completed germline testing. Seventy-six (13%) patients had ≥ 1 pathogenic variant. Post-GTS was independently associated with higher odds of completing testing within 60 days than pre-GTS (odds ratio, 8.97; 95% CI, 2.71 to 29.75; P < .001). Black race was independently associated with lower odds of testing completion compared with White race (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.96; P = .042). There was no difference in test completion rates or patient-reported decisional conflict for embedded versus remote GTS. GTS has been adopted by 31 oncology providers across four clinics, and implementation fidelity was high with low patient loss to follow-up, but staffing costs are a sustainability concern. CONCLUSION: GTS is a feasible, effective model for high-volume germline testing in men with PCa, both in person and using telehealth. GTS does not eliminate racial disparities in germline testing access.

Serial stereotactic body radiation therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer detected by novel PET-based radiotracers.

BACKGROUND: Radiopharmaceuticals, including Ga-68-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 and F-18-Fluciclovine, are increasingly used to inform therapies for prostate cancer (CaP). Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to PET-detected oligometastatic CaP has been shown to improve progression free survival (PFS) and delay androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to observation. For men who subsequently develop oligorecurrent CaP, outcomes following second SBRT are unknown. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Eligibility criteria included patients with oligometastatic (1-5 lesions) CaP detected on PSMA or Fluciclovine PET who underwent 2 consecutive SBRT courses to tracer-avid sites. Data on stage, tracer type, concurrent systemic therapy, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses for first SBRT (SBRT1) and second SBRT (SBRT2) were collected. Outcomes included PSA decline ≥50% (PSA50), PFS after SBRT2, and ADT initiation or intensification-free survival after SBRT2. Factors potentially associated with PSA50 after SBRT2 was evaluated with multivariable logistic regression. Factors potentially associated with PFS and ADT initiation/intensification-free survival after SBRT2 were evaluated with separate multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were identified. At SBRT2, oligorecurrence was detected on PSMA and Fluciclovine PET in 17 (68%) and 8 (32%) patients, respectively. Fifteen (60%) patients had castration-sensitive disease and 10 (40%) had castration-resistant disease. After SBRT2, 16 (64%) achieved a PSA50 response, median PFS was 11.0mo, and median ADT initiation/intensification-free survival was 23.2mo. On multivariable analysis, maximum percent change in PSA after SBRT1 (OR 0.94, 95%CI 0.88-0.99, P = 0.046) and concurrent change in systemic therapy (OR 21.61, 95%CI 1.12-417.9, P = 0.042) were associated with PSA50 responses after SBRT2. PSA50 response after SBRT1 was associated with improved PFS (HR 0.36, 95%CI 0.00-0.42, P = 0.008) and ADT initiation/intensification-free survival (HR 0.07, 95%CI 0.01-0.68, P = 0.021) after SBRT2. From SBRT1 to last follow-up (median 48 months), 7 (28%) patients remained ADT-free. CONCLUSIONS: Serial SBRT for oligometastatic CaP detected on PSMA or Fluciclovine PET is feasible and can achieve PSA declines, with or without systemic therapy. Degree of biochemical response to first SBRT warrants further study as a potential predictor of PSA response, PFS, and ADT initiation/intensification-free survival following a subsequent SBRT course. This preliminary evidence provides rationale for larger, prospective studies of this strategy.

Interplay of Immunosuppression and Immunotherapy Among Patients With Cancer and COVID-19.

Importance: Cytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation. Objective: To determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings. Exposures: Immunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm. Results: The median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701.

PSMA PET Scan.

This JAMA Oncology Patient Page describes the PSMA PET scan, an imaging test used to detect prostate cancer throughout the body.

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.

Skeletal-related events after abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A population-based study using the SEER-Medicare linked dataset.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal-related events (SREs) from bone metastases disease carry significant morbidity in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The differential risk of SREs among patients receiving abiraterone acetate (AA) or enzalutamide (ENZ) is unknown. METHODS: To compare the risk of SREs among men with mCRPC receiving AA or ENZ, a retrospective cohort study using the SEER-Medicare Linked Database was conducted. Men with prostate cancer aged ≥65 years at first AA or ENZ prescription (index date) from 2011 to 2015 were identified. Patients were followed until the earliest occurrence of SRE, death, Medicare disenrollment, or December 31, 2016. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of SRE (pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or surgery or radiation to bone) after the index date. Multivariable logistic regressions including key demographic and clinical covariates with death as a competing risk were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 5,856 patients were identified (4,207 received AA and 1,649 received ENZ). Median age was 76.5 years (IQR 71.4-82.3), 4,557 (77.8%) were White, 1,112 (19.2%) had recent chemotherapy, and 2,730 (46.6%) had recent zoledronic acid or denosumab. Eight-hundred and thirty-seven (14.3%) patients had ≥1 SRE after index date. In multivariable analyses, there was no difference in SRE risk based on AA and ENZ (HR=0.99 for ENZ, 95%CI 0.84-1.16, P=0.890). Denosumab was associated with lower SRE risk (HR=0.75, 95%CI 0.64-0.88, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of men with mCRPC, there was no difference in risk of SRE between AA and ENZ. Decision-making should be informed by prior therapies, comorbidities, toxicity profiles, and patient preferences. Denosumab has evidence of benefit in preventing SREs in this real-world population.

The Impact of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on COVID-19 Illness in Men With Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: TMPRSS2, a cell surface protease regulated by androgens and commonly upregulated in prostate cancer (PCa), is a necessary component for SARS-CoV-2 viral entry into respiratory epithelial cells. Previous reports suggested a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 among PCa patients on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, the impact of ADT on severe COVID-19 illness is poorly understood. METHODS: We performed a multicenter study across 7 US medical centers and evaluated patients with PCa and SARS-CoV-2 detected by polymerase-chain-reaction between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020. PCa patients were considered on ADT if they had received appropriate ADT treatment within 6 months of COVID-19 diagnosis. We used multivariable logistic and Cox proportional-hazard regression models for analysis. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: We identified 465 PCa patients (median age = 71 years) with a median follow-up of 60 days. Age, body mass index, cardiovascular comorbidity, and PCa clinical disease state adjusted overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 1.98, P = .59), hospitalization status (HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.52 to 1.77, P = .90), supplemental oxygenation (HR 1.14, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.99, P = .64), and use of mechanical ventilation (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.25 to 2.66, P = .73) were similar between ADT and non-ADT cohorts. Similarly, the addition of androgen receptor-directed therapy within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis to ADT vs ADT alone did not statistically significantly affect overall survival (androgen receptor-directed therapy: HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.69 to 2.32, P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort of PCa patients, the use of ADT was not demonstrated to influence severe COVID-19 outcomes, as defined by hospitalization, supplemental oxygen use, or death. Age 70 years and older was statistically significantly associated with a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease.

COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer: Findings from the University of California health system database.

BACKGROUND: The interaction between cancer diagnoses and COVID-19 infection and outcomes is unclear. We leveraged a state-wide, multi-institutional database to assess cancer-related risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the University of California Health COVID Research Dataset, which includes electronic health data of patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at 17 California medical centers. We identified adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 from 2/1/2020-12/31/2020 and selected a cohort of patients with cancer. We obtained demographic, clinical, cancer type, and antineoplastic therapy data. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 30d after the first positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Secondary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 positivity and severe COVID-19 (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or death within 30d after the first positive test). We used multivariable logistic regression to identify cancer-related factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 409,462 patients undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing. Of 49,918 patients with cancer, 1781 (3.6%) tested positive. Patients with cancer were less likely to test positive (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.67-0.74, p < 0.001). Among the 1781 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with cancer, BCR/ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (RR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.25-3.41, p = 0.007), venetoclax (RR 2.96, 95% CI: 1.14-5.66, p = 0.028), and methotrexate (RR 2.72, 95% CI: 1.10-5.19, p = 0.032) were associated with greater hospitalization risk. Cancer and therapy types were not associated with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, diverse cohort, cancer was associated with a decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Patients with BCR/ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm or receiving methotrexate or venetoclax may be at increased risk of hospitalization following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mechanistic and comparative studies are needed to validate findings.

Patients Recently Treated for B-lymphoid Malignancies Show Increased Risk of Severe COVID-19.

Patients with B-lymphoid malignancies have been consistently identified as a population at high risk of severe COVID-19. Whether this is exclusively due to cancer-related deficits in humoral and cellular immunity, or whether risk of severe COVID-19 is increased by anticancer therapy, is uncertain. Using data derived from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19), we show that patients treated for B-lymphoid malignancies have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 compared with control populations of patients with non-B-lymphoid malignancies. Among patients with B-lymphoid malignancies, those who received anticancer therapy within 12 months of COVID-19 diagnosis experienced increased COVID-19 severity compared with patients with non-recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies, after adjustment for cancer status and several other prognostic factors. Our findings suggest that patients recently treated for a B-lymphoid malignancy are at uniquely high risk for severe COVID-19. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study suggests that recent therapy for a B-lymphoid malignancy is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity. These findings provide rationale to develop mitigation strategies targeted at the uniquely high-risk population of patients with recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 171.