The impact of cancer metastases on COVID-19 outcomes: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can have a particularly detrimental effect on patients with cancer, but no studies to date have examined if the presence, or site, of metastatic cancer is related to COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, the authors identified 10,065 patients with COVID-19 and cancer (2325 with and 7740 without metastasis at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis). The primary ordinal outcome was COVID-19 severity: not hospitalized, hospitalized but did not receive supplemental O2, hospitalized and received supplemental O2, admitted to an intensive care unit, received mechanical ventilation, or died from any cause. The authors used ordinal logistic regression models to compare COVID-19 severity by presence and specific site of metastatic cancer. They used logistic regression models to assess 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Compared to patients without metastasis, patients with metastases have increased hospitalization rates (59% vs. 49%) and higher 30 day mortality (18% vs. 9%). Patients with metastasis to bone, lung, liver, lymph nodes, and brain have significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted odds ratios [ORs], 1.38, 1.59, 1.38, 1.00, and 2.21) compared to patients without metastases at those sites. Patients with metastasis to the lung have significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.00) when adjusting for COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic cancer, especially with metastasis to the brain, are more likely to have severe outcomes after COVID-19 whereas patients with metastasis to the lung, compared to patients with cancer metastasis to other sites, have the highest 30-day mortality after COVID-19.

Disparities in PI3K/mTOR inhibitor use, toxicities, and outcomes among patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Novel agents such as PI3K and mTOR inhibitors (PI3K/mTORi) have expanded treatment options in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Nevertheless, mortality rates remain disproportionately high for Black patients and patients with lower socioeconomic status. Furthermore, clinical trials for these novel agents lacked diversity, so their toxicity profile in minority populations is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of EHR-derived data from the Flatiron Health Database for patients with HR+, HER2- MBC. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with PI3K/mTORi use and toxicity outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 9169 patients with MBC were included in our analysis, of which 1780 (19.4%) received a PI3K/mTORi. We estimated the conditional total effect of insurance through Medicaid, and found lower odds of use of PI3K/mTORi among patients on Medicaid compared to those with commercial insurance (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.99, p = 0.049). Odds of PI3K/mTORi use were higher for patients treated at an academic center (OR 1.28, CI 1.06-1.55, p = 0.01). Modeled as a controlled direct effect, Black/African American (Black/AA) race had no impact on odds of PI3K/mTOR use. Black/AA patients had twice the odds of developing hyperglycemia on PI3K/mTORi compared to White patients (OR 2.02, CI 1.24-3.39, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This analysis of real-world data suggests that the use of PI3K/mTORi is influenced by socioeconomic factors. We also found racial disparities in toxicity outcomes, with Black/AA patients having twice the risk of hyperglycemia. Our findings call for greater efforts to ensure access to novel treatments and improve their tolerability in diverse populations.

Use of a Smartphone Application to Promote Adherence to Oral Medications in Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Medication nonadherence is common among patients with breast cancer (BC) and increases BC mortality and complications from comorbidities. There is growing interest in mobile health interventions such as smartphone applications (apps) to promote adherence. METHODS: Use of Medisafe, a medication reminder and tracking app, was tested over 12 weeks among patients on BC treatment and at least one oral medication. Study participants were instructed to generate adherence reports every 4 weeks through Medisafe and were deemed to have completed the intervention if >50% of reports were generated. The primary end point was feasibility of the intervention, defined as a completion rate of ≥75% of consented patients. Secondary end points included changes in self-reported nonadherence from baseline to 12 weeks and patient-reported outcomes including reasons for nonadherence and satisfaction with Medisafe. We conducted univariable and multivariable analyses to evaluate demographic and clinical factors associated with intervention completion. RESULTS: Among 100 patients enrolled, 78 (78.0%) completed the intervention. Age, race, ethnicity, clinical stage, and type of medication were not associated with odds of intervention completion. Self-reported nonadherence rates did not improve from baseline to postintervention in the overall study population. However, among patients with self-reported nonadherence at baseline, 26.3% reported adherence postintervention; these patients frequently reported logistical barriers to adherence. Study participants reported high levels of satisfaction with Medisafe, noting that the app was highly functional and provided high-quality information. CONCLUSION: Smartphone apps such as Medisafe are feasible and associated with high patient satisfaction. They may improve adherence in nonadherent patients and those who face logistical challenges interfering with medication-taking. Future trials of mobile health interventions should target patients at high risk for medication nonadherence.