SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Cancer Patients: A New Unknown in an Unsolved Equation.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients are more susceptible to infections, and infection can be more severe than in patients without cancer diagnosis. We conducted this retrospective study in patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to find differences in inflammatory markers and mortality in cancer patients compared to others. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic records of patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by PCR from March to September 2020. Data on socio-demographics, comorbidities, inflammatory makers, and cancer-related features were analyzed. RESULTS: 2,772 patients were admitted for SARS-CoV-2, to the Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal in Madrid during this period. Of these, 2,527 (91%) had no history of neoplastic disease, 164 (5.9%) patients had a prior history of cancer but were not undergoing oncological treatment at the time of infection, and 81 (2.9%) were in active treatment. Mortality in patients without a history of cancer was 19.5%, 28.6% for patients with a prior history of cancer, and 34% in patients with active cancer treatment. Patients in active oncology treatment with the highest mortality rate were those diagnosed with lung cancer (OR 5.6 95% CI: 2.2-14.1). In the multivariate study, active oncological treatment (OR 2.259 95% CI: 1.35-3.77) and chemotherapy treatment (OR 3.624 95% CI: 1.17-11.17), were statistically significant factors for the risk of death for the whole group and for the group with active oncological treatment, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients on active systemic treatment have an increased risk of mortality after SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially with lung cancer or chemotherapy treatment.

Interobserver variability in gross tumor volume contouring in non-spine bone metastases.

Background and Aim: The optimal imaging test for gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation in non-spine bone metastases has not been defined. The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) requires accurate target delineation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or 18fludesoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET) allow for better visualization of the extent of bone metastases and optimizes the accuracy of tumor delineation for stereotactic radiotherapy compared to computed tomography (CT) alone. We evaluated the interobserver agreement in GTV of non-spine bone metastases in a single center and compared MRI and/or 18FDG-PET and CT in GTV delineation. Methods: Anonymous CT and MRI and/or 18FDG-PET obtained from 10 non-spine bone metastases were analyzed by six radiation oncologists at our center. Images acquired by CT and MRI and/or 18FDG-PET were used to delineate 10 GTVs of non-spine bone metastases in the pelvis, extremities, and skull. The cases showed different characteristics: blastic and lytic metastases, and different primary cancers (lung, breast, prostate, rectum, urothelial, and biliary). In both CT and MRI and/or 18FDG-PET, the GTV volumes were compared. The index of agreement was evaluated according to Landis and Koch protocol. Results: The GTV volume as defined on MRI was in all cases larger or at least as large as the GTV volume on CT (P=0.25). The median GTV volume on MRI was 3.15 cc (0.027-70.64 cc) compared to 2.8 cc on CT (0.075-77.95 cc). Interobserver variance and standard deviation were lower in CT than MRI (576.3 vs. 722.2 and 24.0 vs. 26.9, respectively). The level of agreement was fair (kappa=0.36) between CT and MRI. The median GTV volume on 18FDG-PET in five patients was 5.8 cc (0.46-64.17 cc), compared to 4.1 cc on CT (0.99-54.2 cc) (P=0.236). Interobserver variance and standard deviation in CT, MRI, and 18FDG-PET were 576.3 versus 722.2 versus 730.5 and 24 versus 26.9 versus 27.0, respectively. The level of agreement was slight (kappa=0.08) between CT and 18FDG-PET. Conclusions: Interobserver variance in non-spine bone metastases was equal when MRI and PET were compared to CT. CT was associated with the lowest variance and standard deviation. Compared to CT GTVs, the GTVs rendered from MRI images had fair agreement, while the GTVs rendered from 18FDG-PET had only slight agreement. Relevance for Patients: The delimitation of the treatment volume in non-spine bone metastases with SBRT is important for the results determining its efficacy. It is therefore essential to know the variability and to manage it to achieve the highest quality of treatment.