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.

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).

Is There a Role for Palliative Services and Supportive Care in Managing Advanced Penile Cancer?

OBJECTIVES: We aim to review the benefits of palliative care, describe why a palliative approach to care is needed for patients with advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma and propose ways in which oncology nurses can improve access to and provision of palliative care. DATA SOURCES: A review of the literature was performed and identified a range of randomized trials and systematic reviews regarding the benefits of palliative care in this patient group. Cohort studies of patients with penile cancer were used to describe the psychosocial and physical disease burden of penile cancer. CONCLUSION: Throughout each phase of penile cancer and its treatment, oncology nurses can engage in care that goes beyond cancer-directed treatments to address the whole person, thereby improving quality of life by delivering person-centered palliative care in line with individual needs. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nurses are in key positions to explore many concerns that patients with penile cancer have for themselves or their caregivers. Through speaking directly with patients and caregivers, oncology nurses can uncover sources of distress, assess for unmet needs, and advocate for improved primary palliative care or early referral to specialty palliative care teams.

Assessment of Regional Variability in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer in the United States.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a distinct spatiotemporal pattern in the United States. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, but it is not well known whether COVID-19 outcomes in this patient population were associated with geography. Objective: To quantify spatiotemporal variation in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients with a historical diagnosis of invasive malignant neoplasm and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and November 2020. Data were collected from cancer care delivery centers in the United States. Exposures: Patient residence was categorized into 9 US census divisions. Cancer center characteristics included academic or community classification, rural-urban continuum code (RUCC), and social vulnerability index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary composite outcome consisted of receipt of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated associations of center-level and census division-level exposures with outcomes after adjustment for patient-level risk factors and quantified variation in adjusted outcomes across centers, census divisions, and calendar time. Results: Data for 4749 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-76] years; 2439 [51.4%] female individuals, 1079 [22.7%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 690 [14.5%] Hispanic individuals) were reported from 83 centers in the Northeast (1564 patients [32.9%]), Midwest (1638 [34.5%]), South (894 [18.8%]), and West (653 [13.8%]). After adjustment for patient characteristics, including month of COVID-19 diagnosis, estimated 30-day mortality rates ranged from 5.2% to 26.6% across centers. Patients from centers located in metropolitan areas with population less than 250 000 (RUCC 3) had lower odds of 30-day mortality compared with patients from centers in metropolitan areas with population at least 1 million (RUCC 1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.84). The type of center was not significantly associated with primary or secondary outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome rates across the 9 census divisions, but adjusted mortality rates significantly improved over time (eg, September to November vs March to May: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based cohort study, significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes across US census divisions were not observed. However, substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes across cancer care delivery centers was found. Attention to implementing standardized guidelines for the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 could improve outcomes for these vulnerable patients.

Association Between Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Mortality Among Patients With Prostate Cancer and COVID-19.

Importance: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been theorized to decrease the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with prostate cancer owing to a potential decrease in the tissue-based expression of the SARS-CoV-2 coreceptor transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2). Objective: To examine whether ADT is associated with a decreased rate of 30-day mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed patient data recorded in the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry between March 17, 2020, and February 11, 2021. The consortium maintains a centralized multi-institution registry of patients with a current or past diagnosis of cancer who developed COVID-19. Data were collected and managed using REDCap software hosted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Initially, 1228 patients aged 18 years or older with prostate cancer listed as their primary malignant neoplasm were included; 122 patients with a second malignant neoplasm, insufficient follow-up, or low-quality data were excluded. Propensity matching was performed using the nearest-neighbor method with a 1:3 ratio of treated units to control units, adjusted for age, body mass index, race and ethnicity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, smoking status, comorbidities (cardiovascular, pulmonary, kidney disease, and diabetes), cancer status, baseline steroid use, COVID-19 treatment, and presence of metastatic disease. Exposures: Androgen deprivation therapy use was defined as prior bilateral orchiectomy or pharmacologic ADT administered within the prior 3 months of presentation with COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality after COVID-19 diagnosis for patients receiving ADT compared with patients not receiving ADT after propensity matching. Results: After exclusions, 1106 patients with prostate cancer (before propensity score matching: median age, 73 years [IQR, 65-79 years]; 561 (51%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White) were included for analysis. Of these patients, 477 were included for propensity score matching (169 who received ADT and 308 who did not receive ADT). After propensity matching, there was no significant difference in the primary end point of the rate of all-cause 30-day mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.42-1.42). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this cohort study suggest that ADT use was not associated with decreased mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, large ongoing clinical trials will provide further evidence on the role of ADT or other androgen-targeted therapies in reducing COVID-19 infection severity.

Incorporating palliative care principles to improve patient care and quality of life in urologic oncology.

Palliative care - specialized healthcare focused on improving quality of life for patients with serious illnesses - can help urologists to care for patients with unmet symptom, coping and communication needs. Society guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend incorporating palliative care into standard oncological care, based on multiple randomized trials demonstrating that it significantly improves physical well-being, patient satisfaction and goal concordant care. Misconceptions regarding the objective and ideal timing of palliative care are common; a key concept is that palliative care and treatments seeking to cure or prolong life are not mutually exclusive. Urologists are well positioned to champion the integration of palliative care into surgical urologic oncology and should be aware of palliative care guidelines, indications for palliative care use and how the field of urologic oncology can adopt best practices.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Therapy With Survival in Patients With Hematologic Cancers and COVID-19.

Importance: COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness for many patients. Prior studies have established hematologic cancers as a risk factor associated with particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To our knowledge, no studies have established a beneficial role for anti-COVID-19 interventions in this at-risk population. Convalescent plasma therapy may benefit immunocompromised individuals with COVID-19, including those with hematologic cancers. Objective: To evaluate the association of convalescent plasma treatment with 30-day mortality in hospitalized adults with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 from a multi-institutional cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry with propensity score matching evaluated patients with hematologic cancers who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Data were collected between March 17, 2020, and January 21, 2021. Exposures: Convalescent plasma treatment at any time during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders was performed. Hazard ratios (HRs) are reported with 95% CIs. Secondary subgroup analyses were conducted on patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilatory support and/or intensive care unit admission. Results: A total of 966 individuals (mean [SD] age, 65 [15] years; 539 [55.8%] male) were evaluated in this study; 143 convalescent plasma recipients were compared with 823 untreated control patients. After adjustment for potential confounding factors, convalescent plasma treatment was associated with improved 30-day mortality (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). This association remained significant after propensity score matching (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.92). Among the 338 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score-matched comparison, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.80). Among the 227 patients who required mechanical ventilatory support, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score-matched comparison, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.72). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest a potential survival benefit in the administration of convalescent plasma to patients with hematologic cancers and COVID-19.

High-intensity end-of-life care among Medicare beneficiaries with bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the proportion of patients receiving high-intensity end-of-life care, identify associated risk factors, and assess how receipt of palliative care impact end-of-life care; as the delivery of such care, and how it relates to palliative care, has not been reported in bladder cancer SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with bladder cancer who died within 1 year of diagnosis using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results linked Medicare data. The primary outcome was a composite measure of high-intensity end-of-life care (>1 hospital admission, >1 ED visit, or ≥1 ICU admission within the last month of life; receipt of chemotherapy within the last 2 weeks of life; or acute care in-hospital death). Secondary outcomes included the use of such care over time and any association with the use of palliative care. A generalized linear mixed model assessed for independent determinants. RESULTS: Overall, 45% of patients received high-intensity end-of-life care. This proportion decreased over time. Patients receiving high-intensity care had higher rates of comorbidities, advanced bladder cancer, and nonbladder cancer cause of death. These patients more often received palliative care but, compared to those not receiving high-intensity care, this occurred farther removed from bladder cancer diagnosis and closer to death. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries with bladder cancer who die within 1 year of diagnosis receive high-intensity care at the end of life. Palliative care was seldom used and only very near the time of death.

Opioid Use Disorder and Overdose in Older Adults With Breast, Colorectal, or Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite high rates of opioid therapy, evidence about the risk of preventable opioid harms among cancer survivors is underdeveloped. Our objective was to estimate the odds of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose following breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer diagnosis among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2007-2014 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data for cancer survivors with a first cancer diagnosis of stage 0-III breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer at age 66-89 years between 2008 and 2013. Cancer survivors were matched to up to 2 noncancer controls on age, sex, and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results region. Using Firth logistic regression, we estimated adjusted 1-year odds of OUD or nonfatal opioid overdose associated with a cancer diagnosis. We also estimated adjusted odds of OUD and overdose separately and by cancer stage, prior opioid use, and follow-up time. RESULTS: Among 69 889 cancer survivors and 125 007 controls, the unadjusted rates of OUD or nonfatal overdose were 25.2, 27.1, 38.9, and 12.4 events per 10 000 patients in the noncancer, breast, colorectal, and prostate samples, respectively. There was no association between cancer and OUD. Colorectal survivors had 2.3 times higher odds of opioid overdose compared with matched controls (adjusted odds ratio = 2.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.49 to 3.67). Additionally, overdose risk was greater in those with more advanced disease, no prior opioid use, and preexisting mental health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid overdose was a rare, but statistically significant, outcome following stage II-III colorectal cancer diagnosis, particularly among previously opioid-naïve patients. These patients may require heightened screening and intervention to prevent inadvertent adverse opioid harms.

Late Soft Tissue Complications of Head and Neck Cancer Therapy: Lymphedema and Fibrosis.

Head and neck cancer and its treatment result in soft tissue damage secondary to lymphedema and fibrosis. Lymphedema is the result of pathological accumulation of interstitial fluid in tissues. It is caused by the inability of the lymphatic system to transport lymph fluid from the tissues to the central circulatory system and is manifested clinically by tissue swelling. Fibrosis is defined as an overaccumulation of fibrotic tissues within the skin and soft tissues after a single or repetitive injury and is characterized by hardening of the soft tissues with associated loss of elasticity. Lymphedema and fibrosis are common yet overlooked late effects of head and neck cancer and its therapy. They may result in profound long-term symptom burden, loss of critical functions, and altered quality of life. The following review will discuss the current pathobiology, clinical manifestations, and future directions for research related to lymphedema and fibrosis.

Evaluation of CT Changes in the Head and Neck After Cancer Treatment: Development of a Measurement Tool.

BACKGROUND: The late effect continuum of lymphedema and fibrosis (LEF) affects more than 70% of patients after treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC). LEF is associated with symptom burden and decreased function and quality of life. Although surveillance imaging is common posttreatment, objective assessment of soft tissues is not, likely due to the lack of objective evaluation methods and understanding of the significance of LEF. We undertook the development of a tool to measure LEF using CT scans in HNC patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a CT measurement tool assessing sites of soft tissue damage secondary to tumor, surgery, or radiation. The tool was applied to pre- and posttreatment CT scans for 10 HNC patients. The data were reviewed, and the initial tool was modified. Ten additional patients' scans were assessed using the revised tool. The tool was modified further after data review by an expert panel and was then applied to scans from all 20 patients. The final tool included 11 items as follows: grading of fat stranding at 6 sites (axial reconstruction images, scale 0-2), measurement of epiglottic thickness (sagittal images, scale mm), and measurement of prevertebral soft tissue thickness at C3 (sagittal images, scale mm). A total of 176 CT scans were evaluated from 20 patients (range 4-14 examinations/patient). Preliminary data demonstrated face validity. CONCLUSIONS: The final LEF assessment tool (CT-LEFAT) provides a standardized method for assessing critical sites that are involved by LEF. Studies to assess reliability and validity are ongoing.