Association of travel time, patient characteristics, and hospital quality with patient mobility for breast cancer surgery: A national population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This national study investigated hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: By using linked administrative data sets from the English National Health Service, the authors identified all women diagnosed between January 2, 2016, and December 31, 2018, who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. The extent to which patients bypassed their nearest hospital was investigated using a geographic information system (ArcGIS). Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the impact of travel time, hospital quality, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 22,622 Of 69,153 patients undergoing BCS, 22,622 (32.7%) bypassed their nearest hospital; and, of 23,536 patients undergoing mastectomy, 7179 (30.5%) bypassed their nearest hospital. Women who were younger, without comorbidities, or from rural areas were more likely to travel to more distant hospitals (p < .05). Patients undergoing BCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.50) or mastectomy (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02) were more likely to be treated at specialist breast reconstruction centers despite not undergoing the procedure. Patients receiving mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were more likely to travel to hospitals employing surgeons who had a media reputation (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.28-4.52). Patients undergoing BCS were less likely to travel to hospitals with shorter surgical waiting times (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92). The authors did not observe a significant impact for research activity, hospital quality rating, breast re-excision rates, or the status as a multidisciplinary cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: Patient choice policies may drive inequalities in the health care system without improving patient outcomes.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 breakthrough infections in patients with cancer (UKCCEP): a population-based test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level. METHODS: In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3-6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population. FINDINGS: The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8-69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1-65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3-6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3-47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4-61·5). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer. FUNDING: University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK.

The impact of hospital attendance on COVID-19 infection in cancer patients: an assessment of data from Guy's Cancer.

Objective: The authors monitored positivity rates of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 tests during the second wave of COVID-19 at Guy's Cancer Centre. Methods: Logistic regression was used to investigate factors associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 positivity rates between 1 December 2020 and 28 February 2021 (n = 1346). Results: Living 20-40 km and 40-60 km from the alpha variant was associated with a reduced chance of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test compared with 0-20 km (odds ratio [OR]: 0.20; CI: 0.07-0.53 and OR: 0.38; CI: 0.15-0.98, respectively). An increased number of tests was associated with an increased chance of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (OR: 1.10; CI: 1.04-1.16). Conclusion: The COVID-19 positivity rate of asymptomatic cancer patients is partly due to increased testing, with some contribution from the proximity of the patient population to the epicenter of the alpha variant.

The UK's second wave of COVID-19 was partly driven by the emergence of the alpha variant in the southeast of England in November 2020, spreading farther to become the predominant variant across England in December 2020. The alpha variant is associated with a greater transmissibility rate, posing an increased risk to the vulnerable population. This raised concerns about the welfare of cancer patients, as the disease and its treatment can lower one's ability to fight infection. This resulted in some cancer treatments being interrupted or stopped on the grounds of clinical safety and some follow-up care being disrupted. In order to investigate the factors associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 positivity rates between 1 December 2020 and 28 February 2021, the authors gathered information on the number of tests taken per cancer patient at Guy's and extracted data from Guy's approved research database, which houses all routinely collected clinical data on cancer patients. This included demographic data, such as post code and age, as well as number of visits to the hospital. From their analysis, the authors concluded that living closer to the epicenter of the alpha variant was associated with a high positivity rate; also, the more tests taken, the more likely the patients are to test positive. Therefore, the authors can conclude that attending the hospital does not increase the risk of transmission.

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.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of one versus two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with cancer: interim analysis of a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety profiles of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer is unknown. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in patients with cancer. METHODS: For this prospective observational study, we recruited patients with cancer and healthy controls (mostly health-care workers) from three London hospitals between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated between Dec 8 and Dec 29, 2020, received two 30 µg doses of BNT162b2 administered intramuscularly 21 days apart; patients vaccinated after this date received only one 30 µg dose with a planned follow-up boost at 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken before vaccination and at 3 weeks and 5 weeks after the first vaccination. Where possible, serial nasopharyngeal real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) swab tests were done every 10 days or in cases of symptomatic COVID-19. The coprimary endpoints were seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in patients with cancer following the first vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine and the effect of vaccine boosting after 21 days on seroconversion. All participants with available data were included in the safety and immunogenicity analyses. Ongoing follow-up is underway for further blood sampling after the delayed (12-week) vaccine boost. This study is registered with the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (REC ID 20/HRA/2031). FINDINGS: 151 patients with cancer (95 patients with solid cancer and 56 patients with haematological cancer) and 54 healthy controls were enrolled. For this interim data analysis of the safety and immunogenicity of vaccinated patients with cancer, samples and data obtained up to March 19, 2021, were analysed. After exclusion of 17 patients who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (detected by either antibody seroconversion or a positive rRT-PCR COVID-19 swab test) from the immunogenicity analysis, the proportion of positive anti-S IgG titres at approximately 21 days following a single vaccine inoculum across the three cohorts were 32 (94%; 95% CI 81-98) of 34 healthy controls; 21 (38%; 26-51) of 56 patients with solid cancer, and eight (18%; 10-32) of 44 patients with haematological cancer. 16 healthy controls, 25 patients with solid cancer, and six patients with haematological cancer received a second dose on day 21. Of the patients with available blood samples 2 weeks following a 21-day vaccine boost, and excluding 17 participants with evidence of previous natural SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 18 (95%; 95% CI 75-99) of 19 patients with solid cancer, 12 (100%; 76-100) of 12 healthy controls, and three (60%; 23-88) of five patients with haematological cancers were seropositive, compared with ten (30%; 17-47) of 33, 18 (86%; 65-95) of 21, and four (11%; 4-25) of 36, respectively, who did not receive a boost. The vaccine was well tolerated; no toxicities were reported in 75 (54%) of 140 patients with cancer following the first dose of BNT162b2, and in 22 (71%) of 31 patients with cancer following the second dose. Similarly, no toxicities were reported in 15 (38%) of 40 healthy controls after the first dose and in five (31%) of 16 after the second dose. Injection-site pain within 7 days following the first dose was the most commonly reported local reaction (23 [35%] of 65 patients with cancer; 12 [48%] of 25 healthy controls). No vaccine-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with cancer, one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine yields poor efficacy. Immunogenicity increased significantly in patients with solid cancer within 2 weeks of a vaccine boost at day 21 after the first dose. These data support prioritisation of patients with cancer for an early (day 21) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. FUNDING: King's College London, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust, Rosetrees Trust, and Francis Crick Institute.

Risk of COVID-19 death in cancer patients: an analysis from Guy's Cancer Centre and King's College Hospital in London.

BACKGROUND: Using an updated dataset with more patients and extended follow-up, we further established cancer patient characteristics associated with COVID-19 death. METHODS: Data on all cancer patients with a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) at Guy's Cancer Centre and King's College Hospital between 29 February and 31 July 2020 was used. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to identify which factors were associated with COVID-19 mortality. RESULTS: Three hundred and six SARS-CoV-2-positive cancer patients were included. Seventy-one had mild/moderate and 29% had severe COVID-19. Seventy-two patients died of COVID-19 (24%), of whom 35 died <7 days. Male sex [hazard ratio (HR): 1.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-3.38)], Asian ethnicity [3.42 (1. 59-7.35)], haematological cancer [2.03 (1.16-3.56)] and a cancer diagnosis for >2-5 years [2.81 (1.41-5.59)] or ≥5 years were associated with an increased mortality. Age >60 years and raised C-reactive protein (CRP) were also associated with COVID-19 death. Haematological cancer, a longer-established cancer diagnosis, dyspnoea at diagnosis and raised CRP were indicative of early COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (<7 days from diagnosis). CONCLUSIONS: Findings further substantiate evidence for increased risk of COVID-19 mortality for male and Asian cancer patients, and those with haematological malignancies or a cancer diagnosis >2 years. These factors should be accounted for when making clinical decisions for cancer patients.

Risk of chemotherapy-related amenorrhoea (CRA) in premenopausal women undergoing chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: While chemotherapy has improved survival among younger women with breast cancer, it can induce temporary or permanent chemotherapy-related amenorrhoea (CRA), impacting survival benefit, quality of life and, importantly for younger patients, fertility. METHODS: This single institution retrospective study of 107 premenopausal women with early stage breast cancer who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant combined chemotherapy treatment investigates the association of clinicopathological factors (including age-related, gynaecological and tumour-related variables) with CRA and resumption of menses using generalised linear models for univariable and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: 76% of women developed CRA, of which only 40% resumed menses after treatment. Age at time of treatment and at menarche were significantly associated with CRA incidence, with higher rates linked to older age (≥ 40 years) and later menarche (at ≥ 13 years), in both univariable (P = 0.043 and P = 0.009, respectively) and multivariate (P = 0.010 and P = 0.012, respectively) analyses. Age at time of treatment, age at menarche and use of tamoxifen were significantly associated with resumption of menses (with greater resumption rates linked to younger age (< 40 years old), later menarche (≥ 13 years old) or no tamoxifen use status), in both univariable (P < 0.0001, P = 0.002 and P = 0.039, respectively) and multivariate (P = 0.001, P = 0.011 and P = 0.008, respectively) analyses. Menses resumption rates were also significantly higher (P = 0.015) in women with later cessation of menses (after 3-6 chemotherapy cycles rather than sooner). CONCLUSIONS: Age at menarche and, specially, at time of treatment are important risk factors for CRA. These variables could aid decision-making for treatment selection and fertility preservation among premenopausal women with early breast cancer.

The impact of Oncotype DX breast cancer assay results on clinical practice: a UK experience.

BACKGROUND: Genomic tests are increasingly being used by clinicians when considering adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The Oncotype DX breast recurrence score assay was the first test available in the UK National Health Service. This study looked at how UK clinicians were interpreting Recurrence Scores (RS) in everyday practice. METHODS: RS, patient and tumour characteristics and adjuvant therapy details were retrospectively collected for 713 patients from 14 UK cancer centres. Risk by RS-pathology-clinical (RSPC) was calculated and compared to the low/intermediate/risk categories, both as originally defined (RS < 18, 18-30 and > 30) and also using redefined boundaries (RS < 11, 11-25 and > 25). RESULTS: 49.8%, 36.2% and 14% of patients were at low (RS < 18), intermediate (RS 18-30) and high (RS > 30) risk of recurrence, respectively. Overall 26.7% received adjuvant chemotherapy. 49.2% of those were RS > 30; 93.3% of patients were RS > 25. Concordance between RS and RSPC improved when intermediate risk was defined as RS 11-25. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world data demonstrate the value of genomic tests in reducing the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Incorporating clinical characteristics or RSPC scores gives additional prognostic information which may also aid clinicians' decision making.

One Piece of the Jigsaw for the Cancer Recovery Strategy: Prevalence of COVID-19 in Patients With Cancer.

COVID-19 has forced governments to make drastic changes to healthcare systems. To start making informed decisions about cancer care, we need to understand the scale of COVID-19 infection. Therefore, we introduced swab testing for patients visiting Guy's Cancer Centre. Our Centre is one of the largest UK Cancer Centers at the epicenter of the UK COVID-19 epidemic. The first COVID-19 positive cancer patient was reported on 29 February 2020. We analyzed data from 7-15 May 2020 for COVID-19 tests in our cancer patients. 2,647 patients attended for outpatient, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy appointments. 654 were swabbed for COVID-19 (25%). Of those tested, 9 were positive for COVID-19 (1.38%) of which 7 were asymptomatic. Cancer service providers will need to understand their local cancer population prevalence. The absolute priority is that cancer patients have the confidence to attend hospitals and be reassured that they will be treated in a COVID-19 managed environment.

Discordance between oncotype DX recurrence score and RSPC for predicting residual risk of recurrence in ER-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Oncotype DX, a gene expression assay widely employed to aid decision making on adjuvant chemotherapy use in patients with primary oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer, produces a recurrence score (RS) related to distant disease recurrence (DR) risk (RS%). In node-negative patients, RS can be integrated with clinicopathological parameters to derive RS-pathology-clinical (RSPC) that improves prognostic accuracy. METHODS: Data were collected on patients having clinically indicated tests with an intermediate clinical risk of distant recurrence, and for whom the decision to prescribe chemotherapy remained unclear. Correlation between RS% and RSPC scores was examined. An agreement table was constructed using risk-categorised data. Association between RS%-derived categorical risk assignments and treatment recommendation was evaluated. RESULTS: Data on 171 tests (168 patients) were available. Median DR risk by RS% was 11% (range 3-34%), by RSPC it was 15% (range 4-63%). Correlation between RS% and RSPC was 0.702 (p < 0.001). RS% classified 57.3% of cases as low-, 32.2% intermediate- and 10.5% high-risk for DR; by RSPC proportions were 33.9, 35.7, and 30.4%, respectively. The number of patients receiving chemotherapy recommendations was: 14/87 (16.1%) categorised as low-risk by RS%, 27/49 (55.1%) as intermediate-risk and 12/13 (92.3%) as high-risk. Of 149 patients recommended for endocrine treatment alone, 28 (18.8%) were categorised by RS% as low-risk but by RSPC as intermediate- or high-risk. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients, RSPC assessed fewer patients as low-risk and more as high-risk than did RS%. The discordances between the scores indicate that RSPC estimates of risk should be considered when selecting patients for endocrine therapy alone.

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.

Acute kidney injury in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a retrospective real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPi) can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including acute kidney injury (AKI). We investigated the incidence of ICPi-associated AKI (ICPi-AKI) and AKI from other causes (non-ICPi-AKI) in cancer patients treated with ICPi. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of patients receiving ICPi therapy between December 2011 and August 2020. AKI was defined and staged by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes creatinine criteria. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI and ICPi-AKI. RESULTS: A total of 1037 patients were included in the final analysis. The median age was 63 years, 60% were male, and 22% had pre-existing chronic kidney disease. Overall, 189 patients (18.2%) developed AKI of whom 37 patients (3.6%) had ICPi-AKI. In patients with progressive cancer, AKI was not associated with increased mortality. In treatment responders, non-ICPi-AKI was associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-3.67), whereas ICPi-AKI was not linked to an increased risk of death (adjusted HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.18-1.96). Patients with ICPi-AKI were more likely to have higher AKI stages and less likely to have complete kidney recovery compared with non-ICPi-AKI (54% versus 79%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: AKI was common in cancer patients treated with ICPi. Patients with ICPi-AKI had worse kidney outcomes compared to those with AKI from other causes. However, non-ICPi-AKI was associated with a higher risk of death. These findings emphasise the importance of identifying different sub-phenotypes of AKI.

A population-scale temporal case-control evaluation of COVID-19 disease phenotype and related outcome rates in patients with cancer in England (UKCCP).

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Antibody Vaccine Response With Infection Severity in Patients With Cancer: A National COVID Cancer Cross-sectional Evaluation.

Importance: Accurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer. Objective: To evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK's third-dose vaccination booster program. Interventions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche). Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization. Results: The evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P < .001). Patients with leukemia or lymphoma had the lowest antibody titers. In the cancer cohort, following multivariable correction, patients who had an undetectable antibody response were at much greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 1.96-4.72; P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 3.31-12.67; P < .001) than individuals who had a positive antibody response. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

Association between COVID-19 burden and delays to diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients in England.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive for cancer care. Here, we examined the effect COVID-19 had on performance of the 62-day Cancer Waiting Time (CWT) target set by the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: Data were retrospectively obtained on COVID-19 hospitalisations and CWT for NHS hospitals in England (n = 121). We produced a 'COVID-19 burden' to describe the proportion of each provider's beds occupied with COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 burden was examined against CWT performance for 1st April - 30th May 2020 (Wave 1), and 1st October - 30th November 2020 (Wave 2). Two-tailed Spearman correlations were used to identify relationships between COVID-19 burden and CWT performance amongst different referral (i.e., 2-week-wait (2 W W) and internal specialist) and tumour types. Significantly correlated variables were further examined using linear regression models. RESULTS: COVID-19 burden was negatively associated with the percentage of 2 W W pathway referrals that met the CWT target in Wave 1 (r= -0.30, p = 0.001) and Wave 2 (r= -0.21, p = 0.02). These associations were supported by the results from our linear regression models (B for wave 1: -0.71; 95 %CI: -1.03 to -0.40; B for wave 2: -0.38; 95 %CI: -0.68 to -0.07). No associations were found between COVID-19 burden and internal specialist referrals or tumour type. CONCLUSION: Increased COVID-19 burden was associated with lower compliance with CWT targets amongst urgent referrals from primary care in England. This will likely be an ongoing issue due to the backlog of patients awaiting investigations and treatment. POLICY SUMMARY: As the number of cancer referrals improve, we highlight the need for changes to primary and secondary care to manage the backlog within cancer diagnostic services to alleviate the impact of COVID-19.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Delivery of Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment at Guy's Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the outcome of cancer patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) at our centre to help inform future clinical decision-making around SACT during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Patients receiving at least one episode of SACT for solid tumours at Guy's Cancer Centre between 1 March and 31 May 2020 and the same period in 2019 were included in the study. Data were collected on demographics, tumour type/stage, treatment type (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological-targeted) and SARS-CoV2 infection. RESULTS: A total of 2120 patients received SACT in 2020, compared to 2449 in 2019 (13% decrease). From 2019 to 2020, there was an increase in stage IV disease (62% vs. 72%), decrease in chemotherapy (42% vs. 34%), increase in immunotherapy (6% vs. 10%), but similar rates of biologically targeted treatments (37% vs. 38%). There was a significant increase in 1st and 2nd line treatments in 2020 (68% vs. 81%; p < 0.0001) and reduction in 3rd and subsequent lines (26% vs. 15%; p = 0.004) compared to 2019. Of the 2020 cohort, 2% patients developed SARS-CoV2 infections. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world data from a tertiary Cancer Centre suggest that despite the challenges faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SACT was able to be continued without any significant effects on the mortality of solid-tumour patients. There was a low rate (2%) of SARS-CoV-2 infection which is comparable to the 1.4%-point prevalence in our total cancer population.

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. METHODS: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. RESULTS: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

Cancer diagnosis in people with severe mental illness: practical and ethical issues.

There has been increasing recognition of the high physical morbidity in patients with severe mental illness, but little has been written about cancer in these patients. Therefore, we review the published work on risk of cancer in patients with severe mental illness, treatment challenges, and ethical issues. Severe mental illness is associated with behaviours that predispose an individual to an increased risk of some cancers, including lung and breast cancer, although lower rates of other cancers are reported in this population. Severe mental illness is also associated with disparities in screening for cancer and with higher case-fatality rates. This higher rate is partly due to the specific challenges of treating these patients, including medical comorbidity, drug interactions, lack of capacity, and difficulties in coping with the treatment regimen as a result of psychiatric symptoms. To ensure that patients with severe mental illness receive effective treatment, inequalities in care need to be addressed by all health-care professionals involved, including those from mental health services and the surgical and oncology teams.

The impact of national non-pharmaceutical interventions ('lockdowns') on the presentation of cancer patients.

One of the most ignored aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the impact of public health measures by governments on wider health and welfare. From March 2020, hospitals in the UK saw a dramatic reduction in patients with cancer presenting due to multifactorial reasons. The impact of the pandemic on patients with cancer in the South East London Cancer Alliance was studied. The specific aims were (1) to examine the reduction in cancer diagnoses during the first wave of the pandemic and (2) to examine the stage of diagnosis of patients with cancer presenting during the pandemic compared with that of patients presenting before the pandemic. There was an 18.2% reduction in new cancer diagnoses (an estimate of 987 cancers), when compared with 2019. This fall in cancer diagnoses was most marked in patients with prostate (51.4%), gynaecological (29.7%), breast (29.5%) and lung (23.4%) cancers. There was an overall 3.9% increase in advanced stage presentation (Stages 3 and 4), with an overall 6.8% increase in Stage 4 cancers during this period. The greatest shifts were seen in lung (increase of 6.3%, with an 11.2% increase in Stage 4 cancer alone) and colorectal (5.4%) cancers. For prostate cancer, there was an increase in 3.8% in those presenting with Stage 4 disease. For breast cancer, there was an 8% reduction in patients diagnosed with Stage 1 cancer with commensurate increases in the proportion of those with Stage 2 disease. The experiences in cancer are a salient warning that pandemic control measures and policy need to balance all health and welfare. Alternative strategies need to be adopted during further waves of the current and any future pandemic to ensure that patients with cancer are prioritised for diagnosis and treatment to prevent late-stage presentation and an increase in avoidable deaths.