Patients Recently Treated for B-lymphoid Malignancies Show Increased Risk of Severe COVID-19.

Patients with B-lymphoid malignancies have been consistently identified as a population at high risk of severe COVID-19. Whether this is exclusively due to cancer-related deficits in humoral and cellular immunity, or whether risk of severe COVID-19 is increased by anticancer therapy, is uncertain. Using data derived from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19), we show that patients treated for B-lymphoid malignancies have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 compared with control populations of patients with non-B-lymphoid malignancies. Among patients with B-lymphoid malignancies, those who received anticancer therapy within 12 months of COVID-19 diagnosis experienced increased COVID-19 severity compared with patients with non-recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies, after adjustment for cancer status and several other prognostic factors. Our findings suggest that patients recently treated for a B-lymphoid malignancy are at uniquely high risk for severe COVID-19. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study suggests that recent therapy for a B-lymphoid malignancy is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity. These findings provide rationale to develop mitigation strategies targeted at the uniquely high-risk population of patients with recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 171.

Utilization of COVID-19 Treatments and Clinical Outcomes among Patients with Cancer: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study.

Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. SIGNIFICANCE: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426.

Preoperative CHA2DS2-VASc Score Predicts Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation after Lobectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) affects 10 to 20% of noncardiac thoracic surgeries and increases patient morbidity and costs. The purpose of this study is to determine if preoperative CHA2DS2-VASc score can predict POAF after pulmonary lobectomy for nonsmall cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients with complete CHA2DS2-VASc data who underwent lobectomies from January 2007 to January 2016 at a single institution were analyzed in a retrospective case-control study using a prospective database. An independent samples t-test was used to compare the mean CHA2DS2-VASc scores of POAF and non-POAF groups. A multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) evaluated the independent contribution of variables of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in predicting POAF. Chi-square test with univariate odds ratios (ORs) was used to determine a statistically significant cutoff score for predicting POAF. RESULTS: Of 525 total patients, 82 (15.6%) developed POAF (mean CHA2DS2-VASc score: 2.7) and 443 (84.4%) did not develop POAF (mean score: 2.3). Mean difference between these groups was significant at 0.43 (p = 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-0.76). In the MVA, significant predictors of POAF were age 65 to 74 years (adjusted OR [aOR] = 2.45; 95% CI: 1.31-4.70; p = 0.006) and age ≥75 years (aOR = 3.11; 95% CI: 1.62-5.95; p = 0.0006). Patients with CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥5 had significantly increased OR for POAF (OR = 2.59; 95% CI: 1.22-5.50). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively calculated CHA2DS2-VASc score can predict POAF in patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy. Age is the most statistically significant independent predictor, and patients with scores ≥5 have significantly increased risk. Trials for POAF prophylaxis should target this population.

Esophageal stenting in the setting of malignancy.

Esophageal cancer is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, with many patients found to have locoregional or metastatic disease at time of diagnosis. Because of this, cure may be unlikely, leading treatment efforts to focus more on symptom palliation and improving patient quality of life. The majority of patients with advanced disease suffer from some degree of dysphagia. Palliative efforts are therefore directed at relieving dysphagia, allowing patients to manage their oropharyngeal secretions, reduce aspiration risk, and maintain caloric intake orally. A variety of endoscopic treatment modalities have been utilized with these objectives in mind, with options determined by the location and size of the tumor, as well as the patient's expected prognosis. In this article, we review the use of endoscopically-placed stents for palliation in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. We discuss the history of stent use in such cases, as well as more recent developments in stent technology. We give an overview of some of the more commonly used stents in practice, discuss the technique of insertion, and survey the short- and long-term outcomes of stent placement.

Improved survival after pulmonary metastasectomy for soft tissue sarcoma.

INTRODUCTION: Survival after pulmonary metastasectomy for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) has been lower than in osteosarcoma (14-40% versus 40-50%). With improved patient selection criteria and advanced chemotherapy agents, we hypothesized that survival after metastasectomy for STS has improved in recent years. METHODS: Retrospective study of 48 patients undergoing pulmonary metastasectomy for STS between 1995 and 2007. Potential predictors of overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were examined using the log-rank test or Cox regression. Multivariate analysis was conducted using Cox regression. RESULTS: Overall survival after initial metastasectomy was 67% and 52% at 3 and 5 years, respectively; DFS was 17% and 10% at 3 and 5 years. Univariate analysis indicated that ≤2 pulmonary metastases (p = 0.03), diameter of largest metastasis ≤2 cm (p = 0.09), and the absence of extrapulmonary metastases (p = 0.10) were associated with longer overall survival. Absence of extrapulmonary metastases (p = 0.07) and smaller size of the largest pulmonary metastasis (p = 0.06) were associated with longer DFS. Before 2001, 46.7% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy versus 72.7% after (p = 0.10). Neither use of chemotherapy nor chemotherapy type was related to overall survival or DFS. CONCLUSION: Five-year overall survival is substantially higher after pulmonary metastasectomy for STS in our study relative to previously published results (52% versus 14-40%). This improvement does not seem to be the result of greater use of, or newer, chemotherapeutic regimens. Among potential explanations, improved patient selection is the most likely factor.

Early outcomes after bilateral thoracoscopy versus median sternotomy for lung volume reduction.

OBJECTIVE: : A National Emphysema Treatment Trial subanalysis, although finally describing outcomes as "comparable," suggested that bilateral lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) may be slightly less morbid than by median sternotomy (MS). We report a single surgeon experience using both the MS and VATS approaches to provide additional information on this issue in a setting of uniform patient selection and perioperative management. Our hypothesis was that a VATS approach would provide equivalent or less morbidity than MS despite being applied to a group of patients subjectively selected to be higher risk than those undergoing MS. METHODS: : Consecutive patients over a 9-year period underwent LVRS by one surgeon by either MS or VATS in a nonrandomized fashion. Thoracoscopy was selected over MS primarily when the surgeon estimated a greater overall risk profile and thus a greater chance of morbidity/mortality in a particular patient. RESULTS: : There were 15 patients in the VATS group and 35 in the MS group. In terms of measures of risk profile, there were no differences between the groups that met statistical significance, but several values trended toward higher risk within the VATS group (eg, age, 63 VATS vs. 59 MS, P = 0.08; moderate pulmonary hypertension, 38% VATS vs. 14% MS, P = 0.11; and residual volume, 241% VATS vs. 226% MS, P = 0.32). With regard to outcomes, operative time was significantly longer in the VATS group (VATS = 155 minutes vs. MS=129 minutes, P = 0.01). All other outcomes, including the incidence of major complications (13.3% VATS vs. 17.1% MS, P = 0.39), were similar between the groups. There was a single death within 90 days (1.9% of entire series; 2.9% of MS group). CONCLUSIONS: : In this series, although patients undergoing LVRS by VATS tended to have a higher risk profile, their outcomes were no worse than in those undergoing LVRS by MS. This suggests that the VATS approach to bilateral LVRS may incur slightly less morbidity and thus may be the best option in the most compromised patients who is nonetheless felt will benefit from LVRS.

Ultrasound is not a useful screening tool for acute acalculous cholecystitis in critically ill trauma patients.

Acute acalculous cholecystitis remains a diagnostic challenge in critically ill trauma patients. Laboratory studies are nonspecific and associated injuries or mental status changes may mask clinical signs and symptoms. We conducted a retrospective study to assess the utility of ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute acalculous cholecystitis. We hypothesized that ultrasound is inadequate as a screening tool for acute acalculous cholecystitis. The abdominal ultrasounds of all patients undergoing evaluation for acute acalculous cholecystitis in a 40-month period at our Level I trauma center were reviewed. Thickened gallbladder wall, pericholecystic fluid and emphysematous gallbladder were considered positive sonographic criteria. Sludge, cholelithiasis, and hydrops were considered suggestive. Patients who did not undergo cholecystectomy had their gallbladders evaluated either during subsequent laparotomy or at autopsy or they were discharged from the hospital without need for intervention. Sixty-two patients were included. Twenty-one patients underwent cholecystectomy for presumed acute acalculous cholecystitis. The data revealed a sensitivity of 30 per cent (6/20) and a specificity of 93 per cent (39/42) for ultrasound evaluation. Twenty patients had subsequent hepatobiliary scans [hepato-iminodiacetic acid (HIDA)] with a sensitivity of 100 per cent (12/12) and specificity of 88 per cent (7/8). Our data do not support ultrasound as a reliable routine screening tool for acute acalculous cholecystitis. Despite its convenience as a bedside procedure ultrasound has insufficient sensitivity to justify its use and a more sensitive diagnostic tool should be used.