Adverse Events Reported by Patients With Cancer After Administration of a 2-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.

Value of Second-Opinion Interpretation of Outside-Facility Breast Imaging Studies to a Radiology Department and Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate the physician work effort for formal written breast radiology second-opinion reports of imaging performed at outside facilities, to compare this effort with a per-report credit system, and to estimate the downstream value of subsequent services provided by the radiology department and institution at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network-designated comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive reports for "outside film review" from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2018. The number and types of breast imaging studies reinterpreted for each individual patient request were tabulated for requests for a 3-month sample from each year. Physician effort was estimated on the basis of the primary interpretation CMS fee schedule for work relative value units (wRVUs) for the study-specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code and study type. This effort was compared with the interpreting radiologist credit of 0.44 wRVUs per report. Subsequent imaging and evaluation and management encounters generated by these second-opinion patient requests were tracked through June 30, 2019. RESULTS: For the 3-year period reviewed, 2,513 unique patient requests were identified, averaging 837 per fiscal year. For January to March of 2016, 2017, and 2018, 645 unique patient reports were identified. For these reports, 2,216 studies were reinterpreted, with an estimated physician effort of 2,660 wRVUs compared with 284 wRVUs on the basis of per-report credit. The range of annualized wRVUs for all outside studies interpreted and credited per specific CPT code was 3,135 to 3,804 (mean, 3,547). However, the institutional relative value unit credit received for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, on the basis of the number of patient requests, was only 385, 375, and 345 wRVUs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the substantial work effort necessary to provide formal second-opinion interpretations for breast imaging studies at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network cancer center. The authors believe that these data support billing for the study-specific CPT code and crediting the radiologist with the full wRVUs for each study reinterpreted.

Ten-Year Update of a Randomized, Prospective Trial of Conventional Fractionated Versus Moderate Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The previously published single institution randomized prospective trial failed to show superiority in the 5-year biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) rate with moderate hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT). We now present 10-year disease outcomes using updated risk groups and definitions of biochemical failure. METHODS: Men with protocol-defined intermediate- and high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fractions). Men with high-risk disease were all prescribed 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and had lymph node irradiation. Men with intermediate risk were prescribed 4 months of ADT at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of BCDF. We compared disease outcomes and overall mortality by treatment arm, with sensitivity analyses for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group adjustment. RESULTS: Overall, 303 assessable men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT. The median follow-up was 122.9 months. Per updated NCCN risk classification, there were 28 patients (9.2%) with low-risk, 189 (62.4%) with intermediate-risk, and 86 (28.4%) with high-risk prostate cancer. The arms were equally balanced for clinicopathologic factors, except that there were more black patients in the C-IMRT arm (17.8% v 7.3%; P = .02). There was no difference in ADT use (P = .56). The 10-year cumulative incidence of BCDF was 25.9% in the C-IMRT arm and was 30.6% in the H-IMRT arm (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.82 to 2.11). The two arms also had similar cumulative 10-year rates of biochemical failure, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality; however, the 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was higher in the H-IMRT arm (rate difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 15.1%). CONCLUSION: H-IMRT failed to demonstrate superiority compared with C-IMRT in long-term disease outcomes.

Men's health supplement use and outcomes in men receiving definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of newly diagnosed cancer patients start taking dietary supplements. Men's health supplements (MHSs), which we define as supplements that are specifically marketed with the terms men's health and prostate health (or similar permutations), are often mislabeled as having potential anticancer benefits. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effects of MHSs on patient outcomes and toxicities in patients who were undergoing definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer. DESIGN: This retrospective analysis included patients who were being treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center and consented to have information stored in a prospective database. MHSs were queried online. Outcome measures were freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) (biochemical failure was defined with the use of the prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2-ng/mL definition), freedom from distant metastasis (FFDM), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) as well as toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, Fine and Gray competing-risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), and Cox models were used. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2012, 2207 patients were treated with IMRT with a median dose of 78 Gy, and a median follow-up of 46 mo. Of these patients, 43% were low risk, 37% were intermediate risk, and 20% were high risk; 10% used MHSs. MHSs contained a median of 3 identifiable ingredients (range: 0-78 ingredients). Patients who were taking an MHS compared with those who were not had improved 5-y OS (97% compared with 92%, respectively; P = 0.01), but there were no differences in the FFBF (94% compared with 89%, respectively; P = 0.12), FFDM (96% compared with 97%, respectively; P = 0.32), or CSS (100% compared with 99%, respectively; P = 0.22). The unadjusted association between MHS use and improved OS was attenuated after adjustment for patient lifestyle factors and comorbidities. There was no difference in toxicities between the 2 groups (late-grade 3-4 genitourinary <3%; gastrointestinal <4%). CONCLUSION: The use of MHSs is not associated with outcomes or toxicities.

Gleason scoring at a comprehensive cancer center: what's the difference?

This study attempted to determine whether the Gleason score (GS) assigned at a comprehensive cancer center better predicts risk of biochemical failure (BF) after prostate radiotherapy compared with the GS of the referring institution (RI). Between 1994 and 2007, 1649 men received radiotherapy for prostate cancer at Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC). The Cox proportional hazard regression was used for inferences about the relationship of time to BF and GS. Harrell's C-index (HCI) was used to assess concordance in the Cox regression between predicted and observed events. The discordance rate was 26% for any change in either major or minor Gleason pattern. In the RI GS 2 through 6 group, 79 (8%) patients were upgraded to GS 7. Twenty percent of patients with RI GS 7 were downgraded and 2% were upgraded. In the RI GS 8 through 9 group, 58% were downgraded to GS 6 (12%) or GS 7 (88%). The FCCC GS altered the NCCN risk group assignment in 144 men (9%): 92 (64%) men to lower risk and 52 (36%) to higher risk. FCCC GS was a stronger predictor of BF; the hazard ratios for GS 2 through 6 (ref), 3+4, 4+3, and 8 through 9 were 1.00 (ref), 1.82, 4.14, and 2.92, respectively. In contrast, the hazard ratios for the RI GS were 1.00 (ref), 1.53, 2.44, and 1.76, respectively. FCCC GS (HCI=0.76) had improved performance compared with RI GS (HCI=0.74). Changes in GS were common and the GS assigned by a comprehensive cancer center provided better BF risk stratification and prognostication for patients. Changes in GS may impact treatment recommendations in 9% to 26% of patients.

Biochemical and clinical experience with real-time intraoperatively planned permanent prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient characteristics and dosimetric parameters that predict biochemical failure (BCF) after real-time planned low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. METHODS: From 1998 to 2008, a low-risk cohort by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria of 341 men with a median followup of 41.6 months was analyzed. This cohort had a median age of 65.1 years, prostate volume of 35.8cc, and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen of 5.6ng/mL. Patients had predominately Gleason 6 (95.9%) and T1c (81.3%) disease. About 3.6% of the patients received androgen deprivation therapy. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards survival analysis methods were used to analyze predictors of BCF (Phoenix definition). RESULTS: At 72 months, freedom from BCF was 91.1% (95% confidence interval=85.0-94.8). The median D(90) was 145.9Gy, and the median V(100) was 90.3%. Because of infrequent BCF, the following prostate volume groups were examined: 15-<25, 25-<35, 35-<45, and 45+cc. Of all possible predictors, only small prostate volume (15-<25cc group) was significantly associated with BCF (hazard ratio=8.44, 95% confidence interval=1.82-39.14, p=0.007). Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, time to BCF was also significantly increased in the lowest prostate volume 15-<25cc group with 24.1% failing at 48 months compared with 1.6-5.1% among the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time planned low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy provides excellent biochemical control as a single-agent treatment for low-risk prostate cancer with 91.1% freedom from BCF at 72 months. Only prostate volume less than 25cc was an independent predictor of BCF.

Does transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) affect outcome in patients who subsequently develop prostate cancer?

OBJECTIVES: Pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) is a strong predictor of prostate cancer outcome after radiotherapy and is a key parameter in pretreatment risk assessment. Because PSA is secreted from both benign and malignant tissue, a prior transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) may lower pretreatment PSA levels out of proportion to the extent of cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a history of TURP is associated with increased biochemical failure (BF) after definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: From April 1989 to October 2001, 1135 men with low to intermediate risk T1c-2NX/0M0 (2002 AJCC) prostate cancer with a pretreatment PSA less than 20 ng/mL received three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (median dose, 76 Gy) without androgen deprivation. The median pretreatment PSA was 7.4 ng/mL (range, 0.4 to 19.9). There were 126 men with a prior history of TURP. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses for BF (nadir + 2 ng/mL definition). RESULTS: On multivariable analysis, Gleason score (GS), PSA, and T-stage were significant predictors of BF in a model containing TURP and dose. A history of TURP was not a significant independent predictor of BF on subgroup analysis. There was a trend toward significance for the subgroup of GS less than 7 (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: A history of prior TURP does not affect outcome after RT for prostate cancer in low to intermediate risk patients.

Clinicopathologic correlation of cutaneous metastases: experience from a cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical, histopathologic, and immunohistochemical characteristics of skin metastases. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis (January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2005). SETTING: Comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Fifty-one patients (21 men and 30 women) with biopsy-proven skin metastases and correlative clinical data. INTERVENTIONS: Four dermatopathologists reviewed a random mixture of metastases and primary skin tumors. Immunohistochemical studies for 12 markers were performed on the metastases, with skin adnexal tumors as controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical characteristics of cutaneous lesions, clinical outcomes, histologic features, and immunohistochemical markers. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent (43 of 50) of the patients had known stage IV cancer, and skin metastasis was the presenting sign in 12% (6 of 50). In 45% (21 of 47) of the biopsies, the lesions were not suspected of being metastases owing to unusual clinical presentations. Seventy-six percent of the patients died of disease (median survival, 5 months). On pathologic review, many metastases from adenocarcinomas were either recognized or suspected, but the primary site was not easily identified based on histologic findings alone. Metastases from small cell carcinomas and sarcomas were histologically misinterpreted as primary skin tumors. Immunohistochemical analysis using a panel including p63, B72.3, calretinin, and CK5/6 differentiated metastatic carcinoma from primary skin adnexal tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Cutaneous metastases can have variable clinical appearances and can mimic benign skin lesions. They are usually seen in patients with advanced disease, but they can be the presenting lesion. Although many metastatic adenocarcinomas can be recognized based on histologic findings alone, immunohistochemical analysis is an important diagnostic adjunct in some cases.

Risk for unplanned hospital readmission of patients with cancer: results of a retrospective medical record review.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To identify potential factors that place patients with cancer at risk for unplanned readmissions after discharge from the hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective, descriptive, medical record review. SETTING: A National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in an urban area of the Northeastern United States. SAMPLE: 78 patients were selected from those readmitted within seven days of discharge. For each readmission case, a nonreadmitted patient was randomly selected and matched on discharge date and reason for prior admission. The age range was 22-87 years, men and women were equally represented, and 88% were Caucasian. METHODS: The Readmission Criteria Record was developed to collect data from medical records about factors associated with readmission, including demographics, severity of illness, support at home, symptoms, and comorbidities. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Criteria associated with readmission risk. FINDINGS: Patients who had gastrointestinal cancer, nausea within 24 hours of discharge, financial and insurance concerns, or caregiver difficulty or those who lived alone were more likely to be readmitted within seven days of discharge. Patients were more likely to be readmitted on Friday than any other day. Among readmitted patients, 48% were readmitted within one to two days postdischarge. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of factors that may place patients with cancer at an increased risk for readmission and subsequent implementation of appropriate interventions during hospitalization may help to decrease risk of readmission. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The factors identified provide a basis for assessment, planning, interventions, and follow-up of patients to help reduce the risk of readmission and, thus, poor outcomes.