Clinical management of typical and atypical carcinoids/neuroendocrine tumors in ENETS centres of excellence (CoE): Survey from the ENETS lung NET task force.

Lung carcinoid tumours are neuroendocrine neoplasms originating from the bronchopulmonary tract's neuroendocrine cells, accounting for only 1%-3% of all lung cancers but 30% of all neuroendocrine tumours. The incidence of lung carcinoids, both typical and atypical, has been increasing over the years due to improved diagnostic methods and increased awareness among clinicians and pathologists. The most recent WHO classification includes a subgroup of lung carcinoids with atypical morphology and higher mitotic count and/or Ki67 labelling index. Despite appropriate surgery, the 5-year survival rate for atypical carcinoids barely exceeds 50%-70%. The role of adjuvant therapy in lung carcinoids is not well-defined, and clinical decisions are generally based on the presence of high-risk features. Long-term follow-up is essential to monitor for recurrence, although the optimal follow-up protocol remains unclear. To address the lack of consensus in clinical management decisions, the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) initiated a survey among 20 expert centres. The survey identified varied opinions on approaches to imaging, surgery, use of adjuvant therapy, and follow-up protocols. Notably, the absence of dedicated multidisciplinary lung neuroendocrine tumour boards in some centres was evident. Experts agreed on the need for a prospective adjuvant trial in high-risk patients, emphasizing the feasibility of such a study. In conclusion, the study highlights the need for a more uniform adoption of existing guidelines in the management of lung carcinoid tumours and emphasizes the importance of international collaboration to advance research and patient care. Close collaboration between healthcare providers and patients is vital for effective long-term surveillance and management of these rare tumours.

Optimizing a mentorship program from the perspective of academic medicine leadership - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Effective mentorship is an important contributor to academic success. Given the critical role of leadership in fostering mentorship, this study sought to explore the perspectives of departmental leadership regarding 1) current departmental mentorship processes; and 2) crucial components of a mentorship program that would enhance the effectiveness of mentorship. METHODS: Department Division Directors (DDDs), Vice-Chairs, and Mentorship Facilitators from the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine were interviewed between April and December 2021 using a semi-structured guide. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, then coded. Analysis occurred in 2 steps: 1) codes were organized to identify emergent themes; then 2) the Social Ecological Model (SEM) was applied to interpret the findings. RESULTS: Nineteen interviews (14 DDDs, 3 Vice-Chairs, and 2 Mentorship Facilitator) were completed. Analysis revealed three themes: (1) a culture of mentorship permeated the department as evidenced by rigorous mentorship processes, divisional mentorship innovations, and faculty that were keen to mentor; (2) barriers to the establishment of effective mentoring relationships existed at 3 levels: departmental, interpersonal (mentee-mentor relationships), and mentee; and (3) strengthening the culture of mentorship could entail scaling up pre-existing mentorship processes and promoting faculty engagement. Application of SEM highlighted critical program features and determined that two components of interventions (creating tools to measure mentorship outcomes and systems for mentor recognition) were potential enablers of success. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing 'mentorship outcome measures' can incentivize and maintain relationships. By tangibly delineating departmental expectations for mentorship and creating systems that recognize mentors, these measures can contribute to a culture of mentorship.

The Impact of the Pandemic on the Quality of Colorectal and Anal Cancer Care, and 2-Year Clinical Outcomes.

We undertook a retrospective study to compare the quality of care delivered to a cohort of newly diagnosed adults with colon, rectal or anal cancer during the early phase of COVID-19 (02/20-12/20) relative to the same period in the year prior (the comparator cohort), and examine the impact of the pandemic on 2-year disease progression and all-cause mortality. We observed poorer performance on a number of quality measures, such as approximately three times as many patients in the COVID-19 cohort experienced 30-day post-surgical readmission (10.5% vs. 3.6%; SD:0.27). Despite these differences, we observed no statistically significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and time to either all-cause mortality (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61-1.27, p = 0.50) or disease progression (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.82-1.64, p = 0.41). However, there was a substantial reduction in new patient consults during the early phase of COVID-19 (12.2% decrease), which appeared to disproportionally impact patients who traditionally experience sociodemographic disparities in access to care, given that the COVID-19 cohort skewed younger and there were fewer patients from neighborhoods with the highest Housing and Dwelling, ands Age and Labour Force marginalization quintiles. Future work is needed to understand the more downstream effects of COVID-19 related changes on cancer care to inform planning for future disruptions in care.

The impact of marginalization on diffuse large B-cell lymphoma overall survival: a retrospective cohort study.

The aim of this study was to describe the impact of marginalization on DLBCL overall survival (OS) within the Canadian setting. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL in Ontario between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2017 receiving a rituximab-containing chemotherapy regimen with curative intent followed until 1 March 2020. Our primary exposure of interest was the Ontario Marginalization Index (ON-Marg). The primary outcome was 2-year OS, accounting for patient age, sex, cancer characteristics, comorbidity burden, and rural dwelling status. While two-year overall survival was inferior for individuals in the most deprived marginalization quintile (70.4% Q5 vs. 76.0% Q1), after adjustment for relevant covariates neither the composite ON-Marg nor any of its dimensions had a significant effect. Within the Canadian context, among patients who receive chemotherapy, marginalization may not have a significant association with overall survival when accounting for key patient covariates, lending support for preserved outcomes.

Methodology of the SORENTO clinical trial: a prospective, randomised, active-controlled phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy and safety of high exposure octreotide subcutaneous depot (CAM2029) in patients with GEP-NET.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care (SoC) for the initial treatment of unresectable or metastatic well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NET) requires initiation of first-generation somatostatin receptor ligand (SRL) therapy, octreotide and lanreotide, which provide safe and efficacious tumour/symptom control in most patients. However, disease progression can occur with SoC SRL treatment and the optimal dose response of SRL remains unknown. Octreotide subcutaneous depot (CAM2029) is a novel, long-acting, high-exposure formulation that has shown greater bioavailability and improved administration than octreotide long-acting release (LAR) with a well-tolerated safety profile. Retrospective data have highlighted a potential benefit of high-exposure SRL for improved disease control in patients who did not adequately respond to the current SoC SRL treatment. This trial will investigate the efficacy and tolerability of CAM2029 compared to the current SoC, including octreotide LAR and lanreotide autogel (ATG). METHODS: SORENTO is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, open-label phase 3 trial aiming to demonstrate superiority of treatment with 20 mg octreotide subcutaneous depot (CAM2029) every 2 weeks (Q2W) compared to treatment with the Investigator's choice of SRL therapy at standard doses for tumour control (octreotide LAR 30 mg or lanreotide ATG 120 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W]) as assessed by progression-free survival (PFS) in approximately 300 patients with unresectable/metastatic and well-differentiated GEP-NET. Upon confirmation of disease progression (determined by a Blinded Independent Review Committee [BIRC] and defined as per RECIST 1.1), patients may enter an open-label extension treatment period with once weekly dosing, to investigate the effects of higher frequency dosing. Overall survival follow-up will end a maximum of 2 years after primary analysis. The primary endpoint will be analysed after 194 confirmed PFS events. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial investigating the efficacy of CAM2029 versus SoC SRL therapy using a head-to-head, superiority trial design. It is expected to be the first trial to investigate the efficacy of increased dosing frequency of a high-exposure SRL. A BIRC will limit bias and measurement variability and ensure high-quality efficacy data. Additionally, inclusion of patients with well-differentiated Grade 3 NET may elucidate treatment strategies for this rarely investigated patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05050942. Registered on 21st September 2021.

Patient Priorities Concerning Treatment Decisions for Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors Identified by Discrete Choice Experiments.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have multiple treatment options. Ideally, treatment decisions are shared between physician and patient; however, previous studies suggest that oncologists and patients place different value on treatment attributes such as adverse event (AE) rates. High-quality information on NET patient treatment preferences may facilitate patient-centered decision making by helping clinicians understand patient priorities. METHODS: This study used 2 discrete choice experiments (DCE) to elicit preferences of NET patients regarding advanced midgut and pancreatic NET (pNET) treatments. The DCEs used the "potentially all pairwise rankings of all possible alternatives" (PAPRIKA) method. The primary objective was to determine relative utility rankings for treatment attributes, including progression-free survival (PFS), treatment modality, and AE rates. Ranking of attribute profiles matching specific treatments was also determined. Levels for treatment attributes were obtained from randomized clinical trial data of NET treatments. RESULTS: One hundred and 10 participants completed the midgut NET DCE, and 132 completed the pNET DCE. Longer PFS was the highest ranked treatment attribute in 64.5% of participants in the midgut NET DCE, and in 59% in the pNET DCE. Approximately, 40% of participants in both scenarios prioritized lower AE rates or less invasive treatment modalities over PFS. Ranking of treatment profiles in the midgut NET scenario identified 60.9% of participants favoring peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), and 30.0% somatostatin analogue dose escalation. CONCLUSION: NET patients have heterogeneous priorities when choosing between treatment options based on the results of 2 independent DCEs. These results highlight the importance of shared decision making for NET patients.

Indolent lymphoma care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

The treatment pattern and outcomes in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma treated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period compared to the prepandemic period are unclear. This was a retrospective population-based study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (follow-up to 31 March 2022). The primary outcome was treatment pattern; secondary outcomes were death, toxicities, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visit, hospitalization) and SARS-CoV-2 outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations. We identified 4143 patients (1079 pandemic, 3064 prepandemic), with a median age of 69 years. In both time periods, bendamustine (B) + rituximab (BR) was the most frequently prescribed regimen. During the pandemic, fewer patients received R maintenance or completed the full 2-year course (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001). Patients treated during the pandemic had less healthcare utilization (ED visit aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68, 0.88, p < 0.0001; hospitalization aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p = 0.0067) and complications (infection aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82, p < 0.0001; febrile neutropenia aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94, p = 0.020), with no difference in death. Independent of vaccination, active rituximab use was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Despite similar front-line regimen use, healthcare utilization and admissions for infection were less in the pandemic cohort.

68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in the Initial Diagnosis of Patients With Clinical, Imaging, and/or Biochemical Suspicion of a Neuroendocrine Tumor.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the yield of somatostatin receptor PET in patients with clinical, imaging, and/or biochemical suspicion of a neuroendocrine tumor (NET). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis includes patients referred for the initial diagnosis of an unconfirmed NET, as part of a prospective, single-arm registry study (NCT03873870) assessing the utility of 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in the management of NETs. Inclusion criteria to this cohort consisted of elevated biomarkers and/or clinical presentation suspicious for a NET, with negative conventional cross-sectional imaging, or presence of a lesion suspicious for a NET on conventional imaging, not amenable for biopsy. Patients with histological confirmation of a NET were excluded. RESULTS: There were 220 patients included between April 2019 and March 2022 with a mean age ± SD of 59.5 ± 16.1 years with biochemical, morphological, and/or clinical suspicion of a NET. Overall, 132/220 patients (60%) had a positive 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT. 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT confirmed a type 2 somatostatin receptor overexpressing tumor in 123/171 (71.9%) of patients with a radiographically suspicious abnormality. The positivity rate for pancreatic, small bowel/mesenteric, adrenal, and other sites was 78/96 (81.2%), 38/57 (66.7%), 7/7 (100%), and 1/11 (9.1%), respectively. 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT was positive in 9/49 (18.4%) of those with a biochemical and/or clinical suspicion of a NET. CONCLUSIONS: 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT is positive in nearly 3 of 4 patients with morphological suspicion of a NET, with the highest yield in those with pancreatic and small bowel or mesenteric masses, and in approximately 1 of 6 patients with biochemical and/or clinical suspicion of a NET.

Systemic Therapy for Tumor Control in Metastatic Well-Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for systemic therapy for well-differentiated grade 1 (G1) to grade 3 (G3) metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS: Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are recommended as first-line systemic therapy for most patients with G1-grade 2 (G2) metastatic well-differentiated GI-NETs. Observation is an option for patients with low-volume or slow-growing disease without symptoms. After progression on SSAs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is recommended as systematic therapy for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive tumors. Everolimus is an alternative second-line therapy, particularly in nonfunctioning NETs and patients with SSTR-negative tumors. SSAs are standard first-line therapy for SSTR-positive pancreatic (pan)NETs. Rarely, observation may be appropriate for asymptomatic patients until progression. Second-line systemic options for panNETs include PRRT (for SSTR-positive tumors), cytotoxic chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. For SSTR-negative tumors, first-line therapy options are chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. There are insufficient data to recommend particular sequencing of therapies. Patients with G1-G2 high-volume disease, relatively high Ki-67 index, and/or symptoms related to tumor growth may benefit from early cytotoxic chemotherapy. For G3 GEP-NETs, systemic options for G1-G2 may be considered, although cytotoxic chemotherapy is likely the most effective option for patients with tumor-related symptoms, and SSAs are relatively ineffective. Qualifying statements are provided to assist with treatment choice. Multidisciplinary team management is recommended, along with shared decision making with patients, incorporating their values and preferences, potential benefits and harms, and other characteristics and circumstances, such as comorbidities, performance status, geographic location, and access to care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Global challenges in access to diagnostics and treatment for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients.

SCAN, an online survey, measured access to diagnosis, treatments and monitoring of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients globally. Between September and November 2019, NET patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) completed an online, semi-standardized survey with 54 patient questions and 33 HCP questions. A total of 2359 patients with NETs and 436 HCPs responded. Misdiagnosis was common (44% [1043/2359]). Mean time to diagnosis was 4.8 years (standard deviation [SD], 6.2). Compared with global figures (60% [1407/2359]), the availability of 68 Ga-DOTA positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) was significantly lower in Asia (45% [126/280]) and higher in Oceania (86% [171/200]). HCPs reported that 68 Ga-DOTA PET/CT was free/affordable to fewer patients in Emerging and Developing Economies (EDE) than Advanced Economies (AE; 17% [26/150] and 59% [84/142], respectively). Compared with global data (52% [1234/2359]), patient-reported availability of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) was significantly lower in Asia (31% [88/280]) and higher in Oceania (61% [122/200]). Significant differences were observed in average annual NET specialist costs between AE and EDE ($1081 and $2915, respectively). Compared with AE, patients in EDE traveled further for NET specialists (1032 [SD, 1578] and 181 [SD, 496] km, respectively). Patients and HCPs both recommended referral to HCPs that were more knowledgeable in the field of NETs and had better access to NET experts/specialist centers. National care pathways, enhancing HCP NET knowledge and ensuring effective diagnostics and access to appropriate treatments are crucial to improving patient survival and NET care worldwide.

Consensus report of the 2021 National Cancer Institute neuroendocrine tumor clinical trials planning meeting.

Important progress has been made over the last decade in the classification, imaging, and treatment of neuroendocrine neoplasm (NENs), with several new agents approved for use. Although the treatment options available for patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have greatly expanded, the rapidly changing landscape has presented several unanswered questions about how best to optimize, sequence, and individualize therapy. Perhaps the most important development over the last decade has been the approval of 177Lu-DOTATATE for treatment of gastroenteropancreatic-NETs, raising questions around optimal sequencing of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) relative to other therapeutic options, the role of re-treatment with PRRT, and whether PRRT can be further optimized through use of dosimetry among other approaches. The NET Task Force of the National Cancer Institute GI Steering Committee convened a clinical trial planning meeting in 2021 with multidisciplinary experts from academia, the federal government, industry, and patient advocates to develop NET clinical trials in the era of PRRT. Key clinical trial recommendations for development included 1) PRRT re-treatment, 2) PRRT and immunotherapy combinations, 3) PRRT and DNA damage repair inhibitor combinations, 4) treatment for liver-dominant disease, 5) treatment for PRRT-resistant disease, and 6) dosimetry-modified PRRT.

Association between the COVID-19 pandemic and first cancer treatment modality: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Physicians were directed to prioritize using nonsurgical cancer treatment at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to quantify the impact of this policy on the modality of first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or no treatment). METHODS: In this population-based study using Ontario data from linked administrative databases, we identified adults diagnosed with cancer from January 2016 to November 2020 and their first cancer treatment received within 1 year postdiagnosis. Segmented Poisson regressions were applied to each modality to estimate the change in mean 1-year recipient volume per thousand patients (rate) at the start of the pandemic (the week of Mar. 15, 2020) and change in the weekly trend in rate during the pandemic (Mar. 15, 2020, to Nov. 7, 2020) relative to before the pandemic (Jan. 3, 2016, to Mar. 14, 2020). RESULTS: We included 321 535 people diagnosed with cancer. During the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean rate of receiving upfront surgery over the next year declined by 9% (rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.95), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates rose by 30% (rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.23-1.36) and 13% (rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.19), respectively. Subsequently, the 1-year rate of upfront surgery increased at 0.4% for each week (rate ratio 1.004, 95% CI 1.002-1.006), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates decreased by 0.9% (rate ratio 0.991, 95% CI 0.989-0.994) and 0.4% (rate ratio 0.996, 95% CI 0.994-0.998), respectively, per week. Rates of each modality resumed to prepandemic levels at 24-31 weeks into the pandemic. INTERPRETATION: An immediate and sustained increase in use of nonsurgical therapy as the first cancer treatment occurred during the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. Further research is needed to understand the consequences.

Second primary cancers and survival among neuroendocrine tumor patients.

There is an increased risk of second primary cancers (SPCs) after neuroendocrine tumor (NET) diagnosis. The clinical significance of SPCs in this population is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between SPCs after NET diagnosis and survival. We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of NET patients (gastrointestinal, pancreatic, or lung primary) from 2000 to 2016 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Cox regression models assessed the association between SPCs and NET-specific (NET-SS), cancer-specific (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Of 58,553 NET patients, 7.9% experienced an SPC. SPCs were associated with worse OS (hazard ratio (HR) 2.14, 95% CI 1.94-2.36) and CSS (HR 2.31, 95% CI 2.06-2.59) with no difference in NET-SS (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87-1.23). Stratified analyses by histologic grade showed similar results for well and moderately differentiated NETs, but no difference in OS or CSS for poorly differentiated NETs (P > 0.05). In stratified analyses by NET site, SPCs were associated with worse OS (HR 3.41, 95% CI 3.01-3.87) and CSS (HR 4.96, 95% CI 4.28-5.74) in gastrointestinal NETs and worse OS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.52) with no difference in CSS (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85-1.36) in lung NETs. SPCs were not associated with a difference in OS or CSS in pancreatic NETs (P > 0.05). In conclusion, SPCs after NETs were associated with inferior OS and CSS compared to no SPC but were not associated with NET-SS. These data highlight the need for long-term follow-up in NETs to include the detection of SPCs to ensure early diagnosis and timely management.

Practical considerations when providing palliative care to patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the context of routine disease management or hospice care.

This serves as a white paper by the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (NANETS) on the practical considerations when providing palliative care to patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the context of routine disease management or hospice care. The authors involved in the development of this manuscript represent a multidisciplinary team of patient advocacy, palliative care, and hospice care practitioners, endocrinologist, and oncologists who performed a literature review and provided expert opinion on a series of questions often asked by our patients and patient caregivers affected by this disease. We hope this document serves as a starting point for oncologists, palliative care teams, hospice medical teams, insurers, drug manufacturers, caregivers, and patients to have a frank, well-informed discussion of what a patient needs to maximize the quality of life during a routine, disease-directed care as well as at the end-of-life.

Early survival for patients newly diagnosed with cancer during COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre-pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time-varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type. RESULTS: Among 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post-diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96-1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05-1.49]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one-year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer care.

Timeliness and Modality of Treatment for New Cancer Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada.

Importance: The impact of COVID-19 on the modality and timeliness of first-line cancer treatment is unclear yet critical to the planning of subsequent care. Objective: To explore the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with modalities of and wait times for first cancer treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data was conducted in Ontario, Canada, among adults newly diagnosed with cancer between January 3, 2016, and November 7, 2020. Participants were followed up from date of diagnosis for 1 year, until death, or until June 26, 2021, whichever occurred first, to ensure a minimum of 6-month follow-up time. Exposures: Receiving a cancer diagnosis in the pandemic vs prepandemic period, using March 15, 2020, the date when elective hospital procedures were halted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a time-to-event variable describing number of days from date of diagnosis to date of receiving first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation) or to being censored. For each treatment modality, a multivariable competing-risk regression model was used to assess the association between time to treatment and COVID-19 period. A secondary continuous outcome was defined for patients who were treated 6 months after diagnosis as the waiting time from date of diagnosis to date of treatment. Results: Among 313 499 patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (14.1) years and 153 679 (49.0%) were male patients. Those who were diagnosed during the pandemic were less likely to receive surgery first (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) but were more likely to receive chemotherapy (sHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.30) or radiotherapy (sHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) first. Among patients who received treatment within 6 months from diagnosis (228 755 [73.0%]), their mean (SD) waiting time decreased from 35.1 (37.2) days to 29.5 (33.6) days for surgery, from 43.7 (34.1) days to 38.4 (30.6) days for chemotherapy, and from 55.8 (41.8) days to 49.0 (40.1) days for radiotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the pandemic was significantly associated with greater use of nonsurgical therapy as initial cancer treatment. Wait times were shorter in the pandemic period for those treated within 6 months of diagnosis. Future work needs to examine how these changes may have affected patient outcomes to inform future pandemic guideline development.

Association of COVID-19 Vaccination With Breakthrough Infections and Complications in Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Patients with cancer are known to have increased risk of COVID-19 complications, including death. Objective: To determine the association of COVID-19 vaccination with breakthrough infections and complications in patients with cancer compared to noncancer controls. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective population-based cohort study using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, in residents 18 years and older who received COVID-19 vaccination. Three matched groups were identified (based on age, sex, type of vaccine, date of vaccine): 1:4 match for patients with hematologic and solid cancer to noncancer controls (hematologic and solid cancers separately analyzed), 1:1 match between patients with hematologic and patients with solid cancer. Exposures: Cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes occurring 14 days after receipt of second COVID-19 vaccination dose: primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection; secondary outcomes were emergency department visit, hospitalization, and death within 4 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection (end of follow-up March 31, 2022). Multivariable cumulative incidence function models were used to obtain adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% CIs. Results: A total of 289 400 vaccinated patients with cancer (39 880 hematologic; 249 520 solid) with 1 157 600 matched noncancer controls were identified; the cohort was 65.4% female, and mean (SD) age was 66 (14.0) years. SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection was higher in patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.20-1.46; P < .001) but not in patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05; P = .87). COVID-19 severe outcomes (composite of hospitalization and death) were significantly higher in patients with cancer compared to patients without cancer (aHR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.42-1.63; P < .001). Risk of severe outcomes was higher among patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.21-2.85; P < .001) than patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.64; P < .001). Patients receiving active treatment had a further heightened risk for COVID-19 severe outcomes, particularly those who received anti-CD20 therapy. Third vaccination dose was associated with lower infection and COVID-19 complications, except for patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large population-based cohort study, patients with cancer had greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and worse outcomes than patients without cancer, and the risk was highest for patients with hematologic cancer and any patients with cancer receiving active treatment. Triple vaccination was associated with lower risk of poor outcomes.

Factors associated with timely COVID-19 vaccination in a population-based cohort of patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: In many jurisdictions, cancer patients were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination because of increased risk of infection and death. To understand sociodemographic disparities that affected timely receipt of COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients, we undertook a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years and diagnosed with cancer January 2010 to September 2020 were identified using administrative data; vaccination administration was captured between approval (December 2020) up to February 2022. Factors associated with time to vaccination were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 356 535 patients, the majority of whom had solid tumor cancers (85.9%) and were not on active treatment (74.1%); 86.8% had received at least 2 doses. The rate of vaccination was 25% lower in recent (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.76) and nonrecent immigrants (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.81). A greater proportion of unvaccinated patients were from neighborhoods with a high concentration of new immigrants or self-reported members of racialized groups (26.0% vs 21.3%, standardized difference = 0.111, P < .001), residential instability (27.1% vs 23.0%, standardized difference = 0.094, P < .001), or material deprivation (22.1% vs 16.8%, standardized difference = 0.134, P < .001) and low socioeconomic status (20.9% vs 16.0%, standardized difference = 0.041, P < .001). The rate of vaccination was 20% lower in patients from neighborhoods with the lowest socioeconomic status (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.84) and highest material deprivation (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.81) relative to those in more advantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Despite funding of vaccines and prioritization of high-risk populations, marginalized patients were less likely to be vaccinated. Differences are likely due to the interplay between systemic barriers to access and cultural or social influences affecting uptake.