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.

Adherence to postresection colorectal cancer surveillance at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers.

Guidelines recommend surveillance after resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), but rates of adherence to surveillance are variable and have not been studied at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The aim of this study was to determine rates of adherence to standard postresection CRC surveillance recommendations including physician visits, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), computed tomography (CT), and colonoscopy after CRC resection at three NCI-designated centers. Data on patients with resected CRC from 2010 to 2017 were reviewed. Adherence to physician visits was defined as having at least two visits within 14 months after surgical resection. CEA adherence was defined as having at least four CEA levels drawn within 14 months. CT and colonoscopy adherence were defined as completing each between 10 and 14 months from surgical resection. Chi-square test and logistic regression analyses were performed for overall adherence and adherence to individual components. A total of 241 CRC patients were included. Overall adherence was 23%. While adherence to physician visits was over 98%, adherence to CEA levels, CT, and colonoscopy were each less than 50%. Center was an independent predictor of adherence to CEA, CT, and/or colonoscopy. Stage III disease predicted CT adherence, while distance traveled of 40 miles or less predicted colonoscopy adherence. Overall adherence to postresection CRC guideline-recommended care is low at NCI-designated centers. Adherence rates to surveillance vary by center, stage, and distance traveled for care. Understanding factors associated with adherence is critical to ensure CRC patients benefit from postresection surveillance.

The evolving role of CT colonography.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended as part of standard preventive care. All average risk persons over the age of 50 y are eligible. Various authorities have advocated fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, barium enema and colonoscopy at varying intervals as acceptable screening options. Despite the array of choices, CRC screening lags in frequency behind other cancer screening maneuvers like mammography or Pap smear. Of late, there is growing interest in CT colonography (CTC) as another screening option. CTC, or virtual colonoscopy, may represent an attractive, non-invasive method of CRC screening that provides images akin to traditional colonoscopy. Improvements in CTC performance, especially when coupled with declining costs, suggest that CTC's role in average risk screening will increase in the future. This review summarizes available data about the efficacy of CTC in average and high risk screening populations. Current indications as well as limitations to this technology are discussed, as are practical issues like the cost-effectiveness of CTC for widespread use.

Effectiveness of complete diagnostic examination in clinical practice settings.

BACKGROUND: Thorough follow-up of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) result, or a complete diagnostic evaluation (CDE), is recommended as routine care on the basis of findings from colorectal cancer (CRC) screening trials. CDE involves either colonoscopy or the combination of flexible sigmoidoscopy and double contrast barium enema X-ray. However, little evidence outside clinical screening trial settings has been reported in the literature to support CDE performance. The focus of this study was to determine the impact of CDE in primary care practice settings. METHODS: We determined diagnostic outcomes for 461 adult patients with a positive FOBT result in 318 primary care practices in southeastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey. Sociodemographic data were collected and CDE status was ascertained for these patients. Polytomous logistic models were used to identify whether having CDE was associated with subsequently being diagnosed with lower gastrointestinal "neoplastic disease" or "other gastrointestinal disease" as compared to "normal findings. RESULTS: Patients who underwent CDE were significantly more likely to have a reported diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia than normal findings (adjusted odds ratio = 3.65, 95% confidence interval = 1.58-8.39, p = 0.02). CDE performance did not result in the differential diagnosis of other gastrointestinal disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a positive screening FOBT who underwent CDE were more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal neoplasia than with less serious conditions or have normal findings. Results support the use of CDE in CRC screening.

Screening for colorectal cancer--now and the near future.

When used appropriately, screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) can reduce disease-related morbidity and mortality. Current methods include fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy [FS], barium enema, and colonoscopy; all are cost-effective techniques. Unfortunately, offering an array of options has not increased screening utilization, which continues to lag behind that of other common cancers. Newer techniques, particularly virtual colonoscopy (VC) and stool DNA testing, may offer attractive alternatives for healthcare provider recommendation and patient use.

Physician-reported reasons for limited follow-up of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test screening result.

OBJECTIVE: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) screening can reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality when patients with an abnormal result [FOBT(+)] undergo a complete diagnostic evaluation (colonoscopy or double-contrast barium enema with or without flexible sigmoidoscopy). The aim of this study was to determine common reasons for nonperformance of a complete diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: We identified 544 FOBT(+) patients, aged 50 yr or older, who had participated in a managed care organization-sponsored CRC screening program. The performance of a complete diagnostic evaluation was determined from a patient-specific follow-up form and managed care organization claims data. Physicians were asked to report whether patients submitted to a complete diagnostic evaluation. When an evaluation was not done, the physicians were also asked to state the reasons for nonperformance. RESULTS: A total of 248 (46%) patients did not undergo a complete diagnostic evaluation. Physicians provided reasons for nonperformance for 50% (123/248). Factors accounting for nonperformance of a complete diagnostic evaluation were classified as follows: primary care physician decision (50%); specialist decision (28%); patient decision (17%); and other (practice-related) (5%). Many failures to complete an appropriate diagnostic evaluation were due to providers deciding to repeat the FOBT, perform a sigmoidoscopy, or not to proceed with any further testing. CONCLUSION: Many patients with a positive FOBT do not receive a complete diagnostic evaluation. The reasons for nonperformance most frequently have to do with physician decision making. Many physician-related explanations do not conform to expert recommendations for appropriate follow-up.