The experience of surgical cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large cancer centre in London.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on the experiences of patients across all health disciplines, especially those of cancer patients. The study aimed to understand the experiences of cancer patients who underwent surgery during the first two waves of the pandemic at Guy's Cancer Centre, which is a large tertiary cancer centre in London. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted for this study. Firstly, a survey was co-designed by the research team and a patient study group. Patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were invited to take part in this survey. Results were analysed descriptively. Three discussion groups were then conducted to focus on the main themes from the survey findings: communication, COVID-19 risk management and overall experience. These discussion groups were transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis using the NVivo software package. RESULTS: Out of 1657 patients invited, a total of 250 (15%) participants took part in the survey with a mean age of 66 (SD 12.8) and 52% females. The sample was representative of a wide range of tumour sites and was reflective of those invited to take part. Overall, the experience of the cancer patients was positive. They felt that the safety protocols implemented at the hospital were effective. Communication was considered key, and patients were receptive to a change in the mode of communication from in-person to virtual. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the immense challenges faced by our Cancer Centre, patients undergoing surgery during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had a generally positive experience with minimal disruptions to their planned surgery and ongoing care. Together with the COVID-19 safety precautions, effective communication between the clinical teams and the patients helped the overall patient experience during their surgical treatment.

Real-world data evaluating Guy's rapid diagnostic clinic as an alternate pathway for patients with FIT levels below 10.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic clinics (RDCs) as an alternative pathway for patients with concerning symptoms and a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) result <10. Our primary endpoint was rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Second endpoints were rates of other cancers and gastrointestinal (GI) serious benign conditions. Finally, we analysed the specific pathway followed by FIT <10 patients with cancer at Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) RDC. DESIGN: A retrospective and prospective cohort study. SETTING: GSTT RDC, one of England's largest single-centre RDCs. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of FIT <10 patients were analysed descriptively. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an FIT result <10, seen at GSTT RDC between 1 January 2020 and 5 May 2023. RESULTS: A total of 1299 patients with an FIT<10 were seen at GSTT RDC between January 2020 and May 2023. Of these, 66% (n=861) reported weight loss, 62% (n=805) pain, 37% (n=481) fatigue, 34% (n=444) were anaemic and 23% (n=301) had nausea and vomiting. Among these patients, 7% (n=88) received a cancer diagnosis, 36% (n=462) were identified as having a serious benign condition. Within the patients with cancer, 9% (n=8) were diagnosed with CRC. Among patients with serious benign conditions, 7% (n=31) were referred to colorectal, hepatopancreatobiliary, or upper GI specialists. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of RDCs as an alternate pathway for FIT <10 patients with ongoing clinical concerns. These results contribute to enhancing patient care and optimising resource allocation within the healthcare system.

Survivorship Data in Prostate Cancer: Where Are We and Where Do We Need To Be?

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life. Patient summary: As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

Real World Data Studies of Antineoplastic Drugs: How Can They Be Improved to Steer Everyday Use in the Clinic?

There is a growing interest in real world evidence when developing antineoplastic drugs owing to the shorter length of time and low costs compared to randomised controlled trials. External validity of studies in the regulatory phase can be enhanced by complementing randomised controlled trials with real world evidence. Furthermore, the use of real world evidence ensures the inclusion of patients often excluded from randomised controlled trials such as the elderly, certain ethnicities or those from certain geographical areas. This review explores approaches in which real world data may be integrated with randomised controlled trials. One approach is by using big data, especially when investigating drugs in the antineoplastic setting. This can even inform artificial intelligence thus ensuring faster and more precise diagnosis and treatment decisions. Pragmatic trials also offer an approach to examine the effectiveness of novel antineoplastic drugs without evading the benefits of randomised controlled trials. A well-designed pragmatic trial would yield results with high external validity by employing a simple study design with a large sample size and diverse settings. Although randomised controlled trials can determine efficacy of antineoplastic drugs, effectiveness in the real world may differ. The need for pragmatic trials to help guide healthcare decision-making led to the development of trials within cohorts (TWICs). TWICs make use of cohorts to conduct multiple randomised controlled trials while maintaining characteristics of real world data in routine clinical practice. Although real world data is often affected by incomplete data and biases such as selection and unmeasured biases, the use of big data and pragmatic approaches can improve the use of real world data in the development of antineoplastic drugs that can in turn steer decision-making in clinical practice.

The impact of 2 weeks wait referral on survival of head and neck cancer patients.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the association between 2 weeks wait referral and survival in the head and neck cancer. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutively discussed new head and neck cancer patients at large United Kingdom Cancer Alliance including two tertiary referral hospitals and two district general hospital. RESULTS: A total of 276 cancer patients were included for analysis. Patients referred under the 2 weeks wait had were seen and diagnosed sooner from referral (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001 respectively). However, this did not translate into better survival outcomes. No survival differences were seen between those patients that were managed within the proposed cancer targets and those that were not. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 weeks wait head and neck cancer pathway did not offer a survival advantage. Targeting the delay in referral as well as delay in treatment to prevent late-stage cancer presentation is paramount. Fulfilment of cancer time targets do not translate into better outcomes and should not be prioritised to clinical judgement.

Clinical outcomes of anterior prostate cancers treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.

Introduction: A prospective cohort study comparing peri- and postoperative outcomes for patients with predominantly anterior prostate cancer (APC) identified preoperatively against non-anterior prostate cancer (NAPC) treated via robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients and Methods: Of the 757 RARP's completed between January 2016 and April 2018, two comparative cohorts for anterior and an equivalent group of non-anterior prostate tumours each consisting of 152 patients were compared against each other. Data were collected on the following variables: patient age; operating consultant; preoperative PSA, ISUP grade, degree of nerve sparing; tumour staging; presence and location of positive surgical margins; PSA density, postoperative ISUP grade; treatment paradigm and postoperative PSA, erectile function, and continence outcomes with 2-year follow-up. Results: APCs were found to have significantly lower ISUP grading postoperatively; increased diagnosis via active surveillance over new diagnosis; more frequently undertaken bilateral nerve-sparing and long-term poorer continence outcomes at 18 and 24 months postoperatively (p < 0.05). Pre- and post-op PSA levels, erectile function, PSA density, positive surgical margins (PSM), age and tumour staging showed no significant differences between the APC and NAPC cohorts (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The lower ISUP grading could indicate APC as overall being less aggressive than NAPC, whereas the poorer long-term continence outcomes require further investigating. The non-significant differences amongst tumour staging, PSA density, preoperative PSA levels and PSM rates suggest that APC may not be as significant as predicted in diagnostic evaluation. Overall, this study provides useful information on the growing literature of anterior prostate cancer. Being the largest comparative cohort study to date on APC post-RARP, these results indicate the true characteristics of anterior tumours and their functional outcomes to help improve education, patient expectations and management.

Sex Differences in Survival from Neuroendocrine Neoplasia in England 2012-2018: A Retrospective, Population-Based Study.

Pre-clinical studies have suggested sex hormone signalling pathways may influence tumorigenesis in neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN). We conducted a retrospective, population-based study to compare overall survival (OS) between males and females with NEN. A total of 14,834 cases of NEN diagnosed between 2012 and 2018, recorded in England's National Cancer Registry and Analysis Service (NCRAS), were analysed. The primary outcome was OS with 5 years maximum follow-up. Multivariable analysis, restricted mean survival time and mediation analysis were performed. Appendiceal, pulmonary and early-stage NEN were most commonly diagnosed in females; stomach, pancreatic, small intestinal, colonic, rectal and later-stage NEN were more often diagnosed in males. Females displayed increased survival irrespective of the stage, morphology or level of deprivation. On average, they survived 3.62 (95% CI 1.73-5.90) to 10.26 (6.6-14.45) months longer than males; this was statistically significant in NEN of the lung, pancreas, rectum and stomach (p < 0.001). The stage mediated improved survival in stomach, lung, and pancreatic NEN but not in rectal NEN. The reasons underlying these differences are not yet understood. Overall, females diagnosed with NEN tend to survive longer than males, and the stage at presentation only partially explains this. Future research, as well as prognostication and treatment, should consider sex as an important factor.

Second Primary Malignancies in Patients with a Neuroendocrine Neoplasm in England.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) may often develop other malignancies. This study aimed to identify the frequency at which these second malignancies occurred in England. METHODS: Data were extracted from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) on all patients diagnosed with a NEN at one of eight NEN site groups between 2012 and 2018: appendix, caecum, colon, lung, pancreas, rectum, small intestine, and stomach. WHO International Classification of Disease Edition-10 (ICD-10) codes were used to identify patients who had been diagnosed with an additional non-NEN cancer. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for tumours diagnosed after the index NEN were produced for each non-NEN cancer type by sex and site. RESULTS: A total of 20,579 patients were included in the study. The most commonly occurring non-NEN cancers after NEN diagnosis were the prostate (20%), lung (20%), and breast (15%). Statistically significant SIRs were observed for non-NEN cancer of the lung (SIR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.55-2.22), colon (SIR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.40-2.27), prostate (SIR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.86), kidney (SIR = 3.53, 95% CI: 2.72-4.59), and thyroid (SIR = 6.31, 95% CI: 4.26-9.33). When stratified by sex, statistically significant SIRs remained for the lung, renal, colon, and thyroid tumours. Additionally, females had a statistically significant SIR for stomach cancer (2.65, 95% CI: 1.26-5.57) and bladder cancer (SIR = 2.61, 95% CI: 1.36-5.02). CONCLUSION: This study found that patients with a NEN experienced a metachronous tumour of the lung, prostate, kidney, colon, and thyroid at a higher rate than the general population of England. Surveillance and engagement in existing screening programmes are required to enable earlier diagnosis of second non-NEN tumours in these patients.

A cohort profile of the Graham Roberts study cohort.

Purpose: The Graham Roberts Study was initiated in 2018 and is the first Trials Within Cohorts (TwiCs) study for bladder cancer. Its purpose is to provide an infrastructure for answering a breadth of research questions, including clinical, mechanistic, and supportive care centred questions for bladder cancer patients. Participants: All consented patients are those aged 18 or older, able to provide signed informedconsent and have a diagnosis of new or recurrent bladder cancer. All patients are required to have completed a series of baseline questionnaires. The questionnaires are then sent out every 12 months and include information on demographics and medical history as well as questionnaires to collect information on quality of life, fatigue, depression, overall health, physical activity, and dietary habits. Clinical information such as tumor stage, grade and treatment has also been extracted for each patient. Findings to date: To date, a total of 125 bladder cancer patients have been consented onto the study with 106 filling in the baseline questionnaire. The cohort is made up of 75% newly diagnosed bladder cancer patients and 66% non-muscle invasive bladder cancer cases. At present, there is 1-year follow-up information for 70 patients, 2-year follow-up for 57 patients, 3-year follow-up for 47 patients and 4-year follow-up for 19 patients. Future plans: We plan to continue recruiting further patients into the cohort study. Using the data collected within the study, we hope to carry out independent research studies with a focus on quality of life. We are also committed to utilizing the Roberts Study Cohort to set up and commence an intervention. The future studies and trials carried out using the Roberts Cohort have the potential to identify and develop interventions that could improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of bladder cancer.

Is There a Role for Exercise When Treating Patients with Cancer with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors? A Scoping Review.

The impact of using exercise as a non-pharmacological intervention in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is not well known. Our objective was to determine the extent of, and identify gaps within, available literature addressing the effect of exercise on (a) oncological outcomes and (b) quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer receiving ICIs, and (c) the underlying biological mechanisms for such effects. We conducted searches across EMBASE, APA PsycInfo and Ovid MEDLINE(R). Studies were eligible if they addressed at least one aspect of the objective and were available in the English language. Results were synthesised using a narrative approach and subsequently discussed with multidisciplinary stakeholders. As of the final search on 5 April 2022, 11 eligible studies were identified, of which 8 were preclinical and 3 were clinical. Clinical studies only focused on QoL-related outcomes. When studies were grouped by whether they addressed oncological outcomes (n = 7), QoL (n = 5) or biological mechanisms (n = 7), they were found to be heterogeneous in methodology and findings. Additional evidence, particularly in the clinical setting, is required before robust recommendations about whether, and how, to include exercise alongside ICI treatment can be made.

Incidence and survival of neuroendocrine neoplasia in England 1995-2018: A retrospective, population-based study.

Background: Neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) incidence is rising internationally. We aimed to evaluate the epidemiology of NEN in England and examine changes in survival over time. Methods: A retrospective, population-based study using nationally representative data between 1995 and 2018 from the National Cancer Registry and Analysis Service (NCRAS) in England was conducted on 63,949 tumours. Age-standardized incidence was calculated using Office for National Statistics (ONS) data. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Multivariable analysis was performed using an accelerated failure time model. Findings: Of 63,949 cases, 50.5% (32,309) were female. Age-adjusted incidence increased 3.7-fold between 1995 and 2018 from 2.35 to 8.61 per 100,000. In 2018, highest incidence occurred in lung (1.47 per 100,000), small intestine (1.46 per 100,000), pancreas (1.00 per 100,000) and appendix (0.95 per 100,000). In multivariable analysis, age, sex, morphology, stage, site and deprivation were independent predictors of survival (p < 0.001). Survival of the entire cohort, and by primary site, is improving over time. Interpretation: NEN incidence continues to rise in England with survival improving over time. Relatively high survival compared to other cancers is an issue for long-term outcomes and funding of care. Funding: Data were extracted and transferred using a grant from Neuroendocrine cancer UK.

Long-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients: the experience from Guy's Cancer Centre.

Background: Few studies have investigated the long-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients. Materials & methods: The authors conducted a telephone survey on the long-term symptoms of cancer patients from Guy's Cancer Centre. They compared patients whose symptoms occurred/got worse over 4 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis (classified as long COVID) with patients who did not develop symptoms or whose symptoms occurred/got worse in the first 4 weeks after diagnosis. Results: The authors analyzed responses from 80 patients with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis; 51.3% (n = 41) developed long COVID. The most common symptoms were fatigue, breathlessness and cognitive impairment. Conclusion: Findings suggest that over half of the cancer population will experience long-term effects after their initial COVID-19 diagnosis. Further studies are required to validate the findings of this study.

Radical cancer treatment is safe during COVID-19: the real-world experience of a large London-based Comprehensive Cancer Centre during the first wave.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, there was a paucity of data to support clinical decision-making for anticancer treatments. We evaluated the safety of radical treatments which were delivered whilst mitigating the risks of concurrent COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Using descriptive statistics, we report on the characteristics and short-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing radical cancer treatment during the first COVID-19 wave compared to a similar pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, the number of patients undergoing radical treatment in 2020 reduced by: 28% for surgery; 18% for SACT; and 10% for RT. Within SACT, 36% received combination therapy, 35% systemic chemotherapy, 23% targeted treatments, 5% immunotherapy and 2% biological therapy. A similar proportion of RT was delivered in 2019 and 2020 (53% vs. 52%). Oncological outcomes were also similar to pre-COVID-19. The COVID-19 infection rates were low: 12 patients were positive pre surgery (1%), 7 post surgery (<1%), 17 SACT patients (2%) and 3 RT patients (<1%). No COVID-19-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst there were fewer patients receiving radical anticancer treatments, those who did receive treatment were treated in a safe environment. Overall, cancer patients should have the confidence to attend hospitals and be reassured of the safety measures implemented.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urological cancers: The surgical experience of two cancer hubs in London and Milan.

Objective: To report on the outcomes of urological cancer patients undergoing radical surgery between March-September 2020 (compared with 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Materials and Methods: Since March 2020, both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal 'green' pathway, whereby patients were required to isolate for 14 days prior to admission and report a negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test within 3 days of surgery. COVID-19 positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. Surgical outcomes assessed were: American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade; surgery time; theatre time; intensive care unit (ICU) stay >24 h; pneumonia; length of stay (LOS); re-admission. Postoperative COVID-19 infection rates and associated mortality were also recorded. Results: At IEO, uro-oncological surgery increased by 4%, as compared with the same period in 2019 (n = 515 vs. 534). The main increase was observed for renal (16%, n = 98 vs. 114), bladder (24%, n = 45 vs. 56) and testicular (27%, n = 26 vs. 33). Patient demographics were all comparable between 2019 and 2020. Only one bladder cancer patient developed COVID-19, reporting mild/moderate disease. There was no COVID-19 associated mortality. In the SELCA cohort, uro-oncological surgery declined by 23% (n = 403 vs. 312) compared with the previous year. The biggest decrease was seen for prostate (-42%, n = 156 vs. 91), penile (-100%, n = 4 vs. 0) and testicular cancers (-46%, n = 35 vs. 24). Various patient demographic characteristics were notably different when comparing 2020 versus 2019. This likely reflects the clinical decision of deferring COVID-19 vulnerable patients. One patient developed COVID-19, with no COVID-19 related mortality. Conclusion: The COVID-19 minimal 'green' pathways that were put in place have shown to be safe for uro-oncological patients requiring radical surgery. There were limited complications, almost no peri-operative COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19-related mortality in either cohort.

Secondary Treatment for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of PRIAS and ERSPC-Rotterdam Data within the PIONEER Data Platform.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment choice for localized prostate cancer is complicated, as each treatment option comes with various pros and cons. It is well established that active surveillance (AS), may be ended with a change to curative treatment at the time of disease progression, but it is less clear whether secondary treatment after initial curative treatment is required. As part of the PIONEER project, we quantified the probabilities of treatment change. METHODS: A cohort study based on PRIAS and ERSPC-Rotterdam data was conducted. Patients were followed up for 10 years or until the 31st of December 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment change following initial treatment (i.e., a change to curative treatment following AS or secondary treatment after initial RP/RT). RESULTS: Over a period of 1 to 5 years after initial treatment, the cumulative incidence of treatment change ranged from 3.8% to 42.8% for AS, from 7.6% to 12.1% for radical prostatectomy (RP) and from no change to 5.3% for radiation therapy (RT). While the possibility of treatment change in AS is known, the numbers within a five-year period were substantial. For RP and RT, the rate of change to secondary treatment was lower, but still non-neglectable, with 5 (10)-year incidences up to 12% (20%) and 5% (16%), respectively. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies comparing the incidence of guideline-recommended treatment changes in men receiving different primary treatments (i.e., AS, RT, or RP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa).

Cancer staff in an NHS cancer center: infections, vaccination, stress and well-being support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the well-being of cancer staff and determine the uptake of opt-in mitigation strategies. Materials & methods: Staff at Guy's Cancer Centre (London, UK) participated in an anonymized survey between May and August 2021. Results: Of 1182 staff, 257 (21.7%) participated. Ethnicity (p = 0.020) and comorbidity burden (p = 0.022) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Of 199 respondents, seven (3.6%) were vaccine-hesitant, which was associated with low flu vaccine uptake (p < 0.001). Greater stress was associated with younger age (p = 0.030) and redeployment (p = 0.012). Lack of time and skepticism were barriers to using mental well-being resources. Conclusion: Albeit cautious, numerous trends the authors observed echo those in the published literature. Improved accessibility, awareness and utility of mental well-being resources are required.

COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The pandemic has applied immense pressure to healthcare workers, putting their physical and mental well-being at risk. However, the impact for cancer staff, specifically, is less known. In a survey of 257 cancer staff at Guy's Cancer Centre (London, UK; May­August 2021), the authors found that staff of particular ethnic groups, or with pre-existing illnesses, appeared more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. Few staff were hesitant about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, appearing more common among those not receiving the flu vaccine. For many, stress increased over time. However, barriers prevent staff from using mental well-being resources. With findings from larger studies, this work will be useful for strategies protecting cancer staff well-being.

COVID-19 Sequelae and the Host Proinflammatory Response: An Analysis From the OnCovid Registry.

BACKGROUND: Fifteen percent of patients with cancer experience symptomatic sequelae, which impair post-COVID-19 outcomes. In this study, we investigated whether a proinflammatory status is associated with the development of COVID-19 sequelae. METHODS: OnCovid recruited 2795 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection between February 27, 2020, and February 14, 2021. This analysis focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent a clinical reassessment after the exclusion of patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated the association of inflammatory markers collected at COVID-19 diagnosis with sequelae, considering the impact of previous systemic anticancer therapy. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of 1339 eligible patients, 203 experienced at least 1 sequela (15.2%). Median baseline C-reactive protein (CRP; 77.5 mg/L vs 22.2 mg/L, P < .001), lactate dehydrogenase (310 UI/L vs 274 UI/L, P = .03), and the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; 6.0 vs 4.3, P = .001) were statistically significantly higher among patients who experienced sequelae, whereas no association was reported for the platelet to lymphocyte ratio and the OnCovid Inflammatory Score, which includes albumin and lymphocytes. The widest area under the ROC curve (AUC) was reported for baseline CRP (AUC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 0.69), followed by the NLR (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.61) and lactate dehydrogenase (AUC = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.61). Using a fixed categorical multivariable analysis, high CRP (odds ratio [OR] = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.67 to 3.91) and NLR (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.10) were confirmed to be statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of sequelae. Exposure to chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of sequelae (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.91), whereas no associations with immune checkpoint inhibitors, endocrine therapy, and other types of systemic anticancer therapy were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although the association between inflammatory status, recent chemotherapy and sequelae warrants further investigation, our findings suggest that a deranged proinflammatory reaction at COVID-19 diagnosis may predict for sequelae development.

Long-term outcomes of outpatient laser ablation for recurrent non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: A retrospective cohort study.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of office-based Holmium:YAG laser ablation for the treatment of recurrent non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all consecutive patients who underwent office-based laser ablation for recurrent bladder cancer between 2008 and 2016. The following data were collected: original histology, date of original histology, date of laser ablation, number of repeat laser ablation procedures required, date of tumor recurrence or progression, number of general anesthesia procedures (transurethral resection or cystodiathermy) required after first laser ablation, and number and severity of complications. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were produced for recurrence-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results: A total of 97 patients, with an average age of 84 (62-98) years and an average Charlson Comorbidity Index of 6.9 (4-13), were included. The median follow-up was 61 (2-150) months. Fifty-five (56.7%) patients presented with tumor recurrence, and the median recurrence-free survival time was 1.69 years (95% CI 1.20-2.25). Only 9 (9.3%) patients had evidence of tumor progression to a higher grade or stage, 8 (89%) of which initially had low-grade tumors; however, no patient progressed to muscle-invasive disease. The median progression-free survival time was 5.70 years (95% CI 4.10-7.60), and the median overall survival time was 7.60 years (95% CI 4.90-8.70). No patient required emergency inpatient admission after laser ablation. Conclusion: Office-based Holmium:YAG laser ablation offers a safe and effective alternative method for treating low-volume, low-grade recurrent NMIBC, especially in elderly patients with significant co-morbidity, while avoiding general anesthesia and inpatient admission.