Rate of COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2: Analysis of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry.

BACKGROUND: The availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has enabled protections against serious COVID-19 outcomes, which are particularly important for patients with cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry enabled the study of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in patients with cancer who were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2. METHODS: Medical oncology practices entered data on patients who were in cancer treatment. The cohort included patients who had severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection in 2020 and had visits and vaccine data after December 31, 2020. The primary end point was the time to first vaccination from January 1, 2021. Cumulative incidence estimates and Cox regression with death as a competing risk were used to describe the time to vaccine uptake and factors associated with vaccine receipt. RESULTS: The cohort included 1155 patients from 56 practices. Among 690 patients who received the first vaccine dose, 92% received the second dose. The median time to vaccine was 99 days. After adjustment, older patients were associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination compared with patients younger than 50 years in January through March 2021, and age exhibited a linear effect, with older patients showing higher rates of vaccination. Metastatic solid tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.98) or non-B-cell hematologic malignancies (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) compared with nonmetastatic solid tumors, and any comorbidity (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) compared with no comorbidity, were associated with lower vaccination rates. Area-level social determinants of health (lower education attainment and higher unemployment rates) were associated with lower vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age, cancer type, comorbidity, area-level education attainment, and unemployment rates were associated with differential vaccine uptake rates. These findings should inform strategies to communicate about vaccine safety and efficacy to patients with cancer.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Cancer Treatment Trials: Evaluation of an ASCO-Association of Community Cancer Centers Site Self-Assessment.

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection in Oncology Practice: Findings of an ASCO Survey.

PURPOSE: Lack of collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data in oncology practices limits assessment of sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer patients' experiences and restricts opportunities to improve health outcomes of SGM patients. Despite national calls for routine SOGI data collection, individual-level and institutional barriers hinder progress. This study aimed to identify these barriers in oncology. METHODS: An online survey of ASCO members and others assessed SOGI data collection in oncology practices, institutional characteristics related to SOGI data collection, respondents' attitudes about SOGI data and SGM patients, and respondent demographics. Logistic regression calculated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for factors associated with sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) data collection. RESULTS: Less than half of 257 respondents reported institutional SO and GI data collection (40% and 46%, respectively), whereas over a third reported no institutional data collection (34% and 32%, respectively) and the remainder were unsure (21% and 17%, respectively). Most respondents felt that knowing both SO and GI was important for quality care (77% and 85%, respectively). Collection of SO and GI was significantly associated in separate models with leadership support (ORs = 8.01 and 6.02, respectively), having resources for SOGI data collection (ORs = 10.6 and 18.7, respectively), and respondents' belief that knowing patient SO and GI is important (ORs = 4.28 and 2.76, respectively). Themes from qualitative comments mirrored the key factors identified in our quantitative analysis. CONCLUSION: Three self-reinforcing factors emerged as critical drivers for collecting SOGI data: leadership support, dedicated resources, and individual respondents' attitudes. Policy mandates, implementation science, and clinical reimbursement are strategies to advance meaningful data collection and use in clinical practice.

Changes Over Time in COVID-19 Severity and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment in the United States: Initial Report From the ASCO Registry.

PURPOSE: People with cancer are at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. ASCO's COVID-19 registry promotes systematic data collection across US oncology practices. METHODS: Participating practices enter data on patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer treatment. In this analysis, we focus on all patients with hematologic or regional or metastatic solid tumor malignancies. Primary outcomes are 30- and 90-day mortality rates and change over time. RESULTS: Thirty-eight practices provided data for 453 patients from April to October 2020. Sixty-two percent had regional or metastatic solid tumors. Median age was 64 years. Forty-three percent were current or previous cigarette users. Patients with B-cell malignancies age 61-70 years had twice mortality risk (hazard ratio = 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3]) and those age > 70 years had 4.5 times mortality risk (95% CI, 1.8 to 11.1) compared with patients age ≤ 60 years. Association between survival and age was not significant in patients with metastatic solid tumors (P = .12). Tobacco users had 30-day mortality estimate of 21% compared with 11% for never users (log-rank P = .005). Patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 before June 2020 had 30-day mortality rate of 20% (95% CI, 14% to 25%) compared with 13% (8% to 18%) for those diagnosed in or after June 2020 (P = .08). The 90-day mortality rate for pre-June patients was 28% (21% to 34%) compared with 21% (13% to 28%; P = .20). CONCLUSION: Older patients with B-cell malignancies were at increased risk for death (unlike older patients with metastatic solid tumors), as were all patients with cancer who smoke tobacco. Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 later in 2020 was associated with more favorable 30- and 90-day mortality, likely related to more asymptomatic cases and improved clinical management.

Discrepancies in Financial Self-Disclosures and Open Payments Reporting Among Authors of Clinical Oncology Research Studies.

PURPOSE: Company-reported payments from the Open Payments database (OP) have been compared with self-disclosed financial relationships made by physician authors. Discrepancies have been viewed as under-reporting of financial relationships. Our goal was to perform a systematic comparison to determine sources of discordance between company-reported and self-reported financial relationships. METHODS: Financial disclosures reported by 163 authors and presenters who published in Journal of Clinical Oncology or who presented an abstract at the ASCO 2018 Annual Meeting were obtained and matched to payment data in OP. Categories included ownership, research, consulting/services, honoraria, expenses, royalty/patent/intellectual property, and other disclosures. Measures of concordance and discordance were calculated on the basis of matches on both company and category of disclosure and matches on company. Results are reported overall and within certain categories of disclosures. RESULTS: Overall concordance between disclosures to ASCO and payments in OP was 16% for company and category matching and 24% for matching on the basis of company only. Authors tended to report more disclosures for research and consulting to ASCO than appear in OP. Expense disclosures were more frequently reported in OP than to ASCO. No payments were categorized as ownership in OP, but 35 authors/presenters disclosed ownership (including stock) to ASCO. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal substantial discordance between self-reported and company-reported financial relationships for authors who report clinical oncology research. These findings support the calls for development of standardized disclosure policies across medicine.