Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with cancer following two and three doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a retrospective observational study from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

Background: Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections following vaccination against COVID-19 are of international concern. Patients with cancer have been observed to have worse outcomes associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic. We sought to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after 2 or 3 doses of mRNA vaccines. Methods: We evaluated the clinical characteristics of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough infections using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19; NCT04354701). Analysis was restricted to patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed in 2021 or 2022, to allow for a contemporary unvaccinated control population; potential differences were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for potential baseline confounding variables. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with key secondary endpoints of hospitalization and ICU and/or mechanical ventilation (ICU/MV). Findings: The analysis included 2486 patients, of which 564 and 385 had received 2 or 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine prior to infection, respectively. Hematologic malignancies and recent receipt of systemic anti-neoplastic therapy were more frequent among vaccinated patients. Vaccination was associated with improved outcomes: in the primary analysis, 2 doses (aOR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.88) and 3 doses (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.36) were associated with decreased 30-day mortality. There were similar findings for the key secondary endpoints of ICU/MV (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82 and 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58) and hospitalization (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.75 and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.46) for 2 and 3 doses, respectively. Importantly, Black patients had higher rates of hospitalization (aOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.12-1.92), and Hispanic patients presented with higher rates of ICU/MV (aOR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.06-2.44). Interpretation: Vaccination against COVID-19, especially with additional doses, is a fundamental strategy in the prevention of adverse outcomes including death, among patients with cancer. Funding: This study was partly supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to C-YH, YS, SM, JLW; T32-CA236621 and P30-CA046592 to C.R.F; CTSA 2UL1TR001425-05A1 to TMW-D; ACS/FHI Real-World Data Impact Award, P50 MD017341-01, R21 CA242044-01A1, Susan G. Komen Leadership Grant Hunt to MKA. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH).

Healthcare disparities among anticoagulation therapies for severe COVID-19 patients in the multi-site VIRUS registry.

Here we analyze hospitalized andintensive care unit coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient outcomes from the international VIRUS registry (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787). We find that COVID-19 patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality-rate (390 of 1012 = 39%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (270 of 1939 = 14%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.42, 3.16]; p = 4.45e-52). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an increased mortality rate on discharge from the hospital of 37% (268 of 733) for unfractionated heparin versus 22% (154 of 711) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.69 (95% CI: [1.42, 2.00]; p = 1.5e-8). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to patients administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury, acute cardiac injury, septic shock, and anemia. Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (414 of 1294 [32%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (671 of 2644 [25%]), risk ratio 1.26 (95% CI: [1.14, 1.40]; p = 7.5e-5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (311 of 1047 [30%] for Black/African American vs. 263 of 1047 [25%] for White/Caucasian, p = .02, risk ratio 1.18; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.36]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow-up prospective research into the observed racial disparity in anticoagulant use and outcomes for severe COVID-19 patients.

ReCAP: Impact of Multidisciplinary Care on Processes of Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Study.

PURPOSE: The role of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on cancer care processes is not fully understood. We investigated the impact of MDC on the processes of care at cancer centers within the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP). METHODS: The study used data from patients diagnosed with stage IIB to III rectal cancer, stage III colon cancer, and stage III non­small-cell lung cancer at 14 NCCCP cancer centers from 2007 to 2012. We used an MDC development assessment tool­with levels ranging from evolving MDC (low) to achieving excellence (high)­to measure the level of MDC implementation in seven MDC areas, such as case planning and physician engagement. Descriptive statistics and cluster-adjusted regression models quantified the association between MDC implementation and processes of care, including time from diagnosis to treatment receipt. RESULTS: A total of 1,079 patients were examined. Compared with patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting low MDC scores, time to treatment receipt was shorter for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high or moderate MDC scores for physician engagement (hazard ratio [HR] for high physician engagement, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.70 to 4.17; HR for moderate physician engagement, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.89) and longer for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high 2MDC scores for case planning (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85). Results for patients with rectal cancer were qualitatively similar, and there was no statistically significant difference among patients with lung cancer. CONCLUSION: MDC implementation level was associated with processes of care, and direction of association varied across MDC assessment areas.

Creating a "culture of research" in a community hospital: Strategies and tools from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program.

BACKGROUND: The value of community-based cancer research has long been recognized. In addition to the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical and Minority-Based Oncology Programs established in 1983, and 1991 respectively, the National Cancer Institute established the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program in 2007 with an aim of enhancing access to high-quality cancer care and clinical research in the community setting where most cancer patients receive their treatment. This article discusses strategies utilized by the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program to build research capacity and create a more entrenched culture of research at the community hospitals participating in the program over a 7-year period. METHODS: To facilitate development of a research culture at the community hospitals, the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program required leadership or chief executive officer engagement; utilized a collaborative learning structure where best practices, successes, and challenges could be shared; promoted site-to-site mentoring to foster faster learning within and between sites; required research program assessments that spanned clinical trial portfolio, accrual barriers, and outreach; increased identification and use of metrics; and, finally, encouraged research team engagement across hospital departments (navigation, multidisciplinary care, pathology, and disparities) to replace the traditionally siloed approach to clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: The health-care environment is rapidly changing while complexity in research increases. Successful research efforts are impacted by numerous factors (e.g. institutional review board reviews, physician interest, and trial availability). The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program sites, as program participants, had access to the required resources and support to develop and implement the strategies described. Metrics are an important component yet often challenging to identify and collect. The model requires a strong emphasis on outreach that challenges hospitals to improve and expand their reach, particularly into underrepresented populations and catchment areas. These efforts build on trust and a referral pipeline within the community which take time and significant commitment to establish. CONCLUSION: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program experience provides a relevant model to broadly address creating a culture of research in community hospitals that are increasingly networked via systems and consortiums. The strategies used align well with the National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Accrual Symposium recommendations for patient-/community-, physician-/provider-, and site-/organizational-level approaches to clinical trials; they helped sites achieve organizational culture shifts that enhanced their cancer research programs. The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program hospitals reported that the strategies were challenging to implement yet proved valuable as they provided useful metrics for programmatic assessment, planning, reporting, and growth. While focused on oncology trials, these concepts may be useful within other disease-focused research as well.

Early-phase clinical trials in the community: results from the national cancer institute community cancer centers program early-phase working group baseline assessment.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) formed an Early-Phase Working Group to facilitate site participation in early-phase (EP) trials. The Working Group conducted a baseline assessment (BA) to describe the sites' EP trial infrastructure and its association with accrual. METHODS: EP accrual and infrastructure data for the sites were obtained for July 2010-June 2011 and 2010, respectively. Sites with EP accrual rates at or above the median were considered high-accruing sites. Analyses were performed to identify site characteristics associated with higher accrual onto EP trials. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of the 30 NCCCP sites participated. The median number of EP trials open per site over the course of July 2010-June 2011 was 19. Median EP accrual per site was 14 patients in 1 year. Approximately half of the EP trials were Cooperative Group; most were phase II. Except for having a higher number of EP trials open (P = .04), high-accruing sites (n = 14) did not differ significantly from low-accruing sites (n = 13) in terms of any single site characteristic. High-accruing sites did have shorter institutional review board (IRB) turnaround time by 20 days, and were almost three times as likely to be a lead Community Clinical Oncology Program site (small sample size may have prevented statistical significance). Most sites had at least basic EP trial infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Community cancer centers are capable of conducting EP trials. Infrastructure and collaborations are critical components of success. This assessment provides useful information for implementing EP trials in the community.

Reproductive health assessment for women with cancer: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to pilot a survey instrument and to develop descriptive data about the reproductive goals of reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) with cancer. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional pilot survey study of 20 women who were diagnosed with various types of cancers at the oncology clinic of Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, from January-July 2006. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients whose cases were surveyed, the mean age was 36.6 years, and 90% of the women had breast cancer. Ten percent of patients would continue pregnancy, if they became pregnant while receiving treatment. Contraception was used by 55% of patients (n = 11), of whom 55% of the women (n = 6) were using abstinence. CONCLUSION: The result of this pilot study demonstrates the need for reproductive health counseling in women with cancer; the range of discussion must include fertility interest, contraception, and fertility preservation.

Papillary lesions of the breast discovered on percutaneous large core and vacuum-assisted biopsies: reliability of clinical and pathological parameters in identifying benign lesions.

BACKGROUND: A review of the literature reveals conflicting evidence on whether core biopsy, complemented with concordant imaging, is sufficient in differentiating benign from malignant papillary lesions. Our objective was to evaluate whether in our patient population, commonly used clinical and pathological parameters could predict benignity, thus eliminating the need to proceed with excision. METHODS: A retrospective review of clinical variables and pathologic slides of 39 patients in whom both core biopsy and excisional biopsy were available for evaluation. RESULTS: Excision revealed malignancy in 44%. Risk factors for malignancy, palpability, size, or Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA) did not help differentiate benign from malignant disease. Younger age and core biopsies revealing minimal or no atypia were predictive of benignity. However, 4 (25%) of 20 patients whose core biopsies were classified as probably benign were found to have malignancy on excision. CONCLUSIONS: Caution should be used in recommending nonoperative management after a core biopsy revealing a papillary lesion.