Same-day post-therapy imaging with a new generation whole-body digital SPECT/CT in assessing treatment response to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy (RLT) represents a significant advancement for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), demonstrating improvements in radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) with a low rate of associated side effects. Currently, most post-therapy SPECT/CT is conducted at 24 h after infusion. This study examines the clinical utility of a next-generation multi-detector Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride (CZT) SPECT/CT system (StarGuide) in same-day post-infusion assessment and early treatment response to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 68 men with progressive mCRPC treated with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 at our center from June 2022 to June 2023 were evaluated. Digital whole-body SPECT/CT imaging was performed after [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617infusion (mean ± SD: 1.8 ± 0.6 h, range 1.1-4.9 h). Quantitative analysis of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 positive lesions was performed in patients who underwent at least 2 post-therapy SPECT/CT, using liver parenchyma uptake as reference. Metrics including [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 positive total tumor volume (Lu-TTV), SUVmax and SUVmean were calculated. These quantitative metrics on post-infusion SPECT/CT images after cycles 1, 2 and 3 were correlated with overall survival (OS), prostate specific antigen-progression free survival (PSA-PFS) as defined by prostate cancer working group 3 (PCWG3), and PSA decrease over 50% (PSA50) response rates. RESULTS: 56 patients (means age 76.2 ± 8.1 years, range: 60-93) who underwent at least 2 post-therapy SPECT/CT were included in the image analysis. The whole-body SPECT/CT scans (~ 12 min per scan) were well tolerated, with 221 same-day scans performed (89%). At a median of 10-months follow-up, 33 (58.9%) patients achieved PSA50 after [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 treatment and median PSA-PFS was 5.0 months (range: 1.0-15 months) while median OS was not reached. Quantitative analysis of SPECT/CT images showed that 37 patients (66%) had > 30% reduction in Lu-TTV, associated with significantly improved overall survival (median not reached vs. 6 months, P = 0.008) and PSA-PFS (median 6 months vs. 1 months, P < 0.001). However, changes in SUVmax or SUVmean did not correlate with PSA-PFS or OS. CONCLUSION: We successfully implemented same-day post-therapy SPECT/CT after [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 infusions. Quantitation of 1-2 h post-therapy SPECT/CT images is a promising method for assessing treatment response. However, the approach is currently limited by its suboptimal detection of small tumor lesions and the necessity of incorporating a third-cycle SPECT/CT to mitigate the effects of any potential treatment-related flare-up. Further investigation in a larger patient cohort and prospective validation is essential to confirm these findings and to explore the role of SPECT/CT as a potential adjunct to PSMA PET/CT in managing mCRPC.

Lay healthcare worker financial toxicity intervention: a pilot financial toxicity screening and referral program.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is a source of significant distress for patients with urologic cancers, yet few studies have addressed financial burden in this patient population. METHODS: We developed a financial toxicity screening program using a lay health worker (LHW) and social worker (SW) to assess and mitigate financial toxicity in a single academic medical clinic. As part of a quality improvement project, the LHW screened all newly diagnosed patients with advanced stages of prostate, kidney, or urothelial cancer for financial burden using three COST tool questions and referred patients who had significant financial burden to an SW who provided personalized recommendations. The primary outcome was feasibility defined as 80% of patients with financial burden completing the SW consult. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, change in COST Tool responses, and qualitative assessment of financial resources utilized. RESULTS: The LHW screened a total of 185 patients for financial toxicity; 82% (n = 152) were male, 65% (n = 120) White, and 75% (n = 139) reported annual household income >$100,000 US Dollars; 60% (n = 114) had prostate cancer. A total of 18 (9.7%) participants screened positive for significant financial burden and were referred to the SW for consultation. All participants (100%) completed and reported satisfaction with the SW consultation and had 0.83 mean lower scores on the COST Tool post-intervention assessment compared to pre-intervention (95% confidence interval [0.26, 1.41]). CONCLUSION: This multidisciplinary financial toxicity intervention using an LHW and SW was feasible, acceptable, and associated with reduced financial burden among patients with advanced stages of urologic cancers. Future work should evaluate the effect of this intervention among cancer patients in diverse settings.

Neurological manifestations and complications of COVID-19 in patients admitted to a tertiary care center in Nepal during the second wave.

Neurological symptoms and signs of Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) can accompany, follow, or precede respiratory symptoms and signs; hence, they are important in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients. In this retrospective study conducted during the second wave of COVID-19, we included all patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using real-time polymerase chain reaction and admitted to the Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital between June 2021 and October 2021. The patients were categorized into 2 groups: group A (with neurological manifestations or complications) and Group-B (without neurological manifestations or complications). The 2 groups were compared in terms of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for ventilatory support, length of hospital stay, and various outcomes. The study included 235 participants ranging in age from 13 to 102 years (mean age = 54 years, standard deviation = 18). Among the participants, 54.50% were male. The proportion of individuals in group A was higher (59.15%, N = 139) than that in Group-B (40.85%, N = 96). Notably, a significantly greater number of patients were admitted to the ICU in Group B than in Group A. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the need for ventilatory support or hospital stay between the 2 groups. Interestingly, group A showed a higher rate of improvement (Z = -3.1145, P = .00188, 95% CI), while Group-B had a higher rate of mortality (Z = 4.5562, P < .00001, 95% CI). Altered mental status and stroke have been specifically linked to poorer outcomes, whereas typical neurological manifestations, such as hyposmia, hypogeusia, dizziness, headache, and myalgia, are associated with better outcomes.

Evusheld, a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-directed attachment inhibitor, appears in serum protein electrophoresis and immunofixation: a case study.

Serum protein electrophoresis (SPE) and immunofixation (IFE) assays are commonly used to diagnose and monitor patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Identifying analytical interferences in SPE and IFE caused by therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (tmAbs) can be challenging. Here we report the case of a 72-year-old male with a long history of relapsed immunoglobulin (Ig)G kappa MM. A follow-up SPE showed the original peak plus 2 additional cathode peaks. Immunofixation was ordered as a reflex test to investigate the new peaks that showed initial patient monoclonal IgG kappa in addition to 2 restricted bands of the IgG kappa type. Therapeutic monoclonal antibody interference was suspected and the patient's chart was reviewed. The patient was not on any antimyeloma monoclonal antibody therapy. However, preexposure prophylaxis therapeutic monoclonal antibodies tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld) for severe acute SARS-CoV-2 was administered approximately 45 minutes before sample collection, which led to the identifiable spikes and correlated bands. After 2 days, the IgG kappa bands disappeared, confirming this therapy's effect on SPE and IFE. Therefore, clinical pathologists should be aware of when providers prescribe new monoclonal antibody therapy and become familiar with the position of commonly prescribed (tmAbs) therapies at their institutions.

COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Background: Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. Objectives: To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated. Results: Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31-1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], pinteraction <0.001). Conclusions: Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).

Factors associated with breast cancer screening services use among women in the United States: An application of the Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use.

This study applied Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use to examine predisposing, enabling, and need factors associated with adherence to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for breast cancer screening (BCS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors of BCS services utilization among 5484 women aged 50-74 from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. Predisposing factors significantly associated with use of BCS services were: being a Black (odds-ratios [OR]:1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.14-1.95) or a Hispanic woman (OR:2.25; CI:1.62-3.12); being married/partnered (OR:1.32, CI:1.12-1.55); having more than a bachelor's degree (OR: 1.62; CI:1.14-2.30); and living in rural areas (OR:0.72; CI:0.59-0.92). Enabling factors were: poverty level [≤138% federal poverty level (FPL) (OR:0.74; CI:0.56-0.97), >138-250% FPL (OR:0.77; CI:0.61-0.97), and > 250-400% FPL (OR:0.77; CI:0.63-0.94)]; being uninsured (OR:0.29; CI:0.21-0.40); having a usual source of care at a physician office (OR:7.27; CI:4.99-10.57) or other healthcare facilities (OR:4.12; CI:2.68-6.33); and previous breast examination by a healthcare professional (OR:2.10; CI:1.68-2.64). Need factors were: having fair/poor health (OR:0.76; CI:0.59-0.97) and being underweight (OR:0.46; CI:0.30-0.71). Disparities in BCS services utilization by Black and Hispanic women have been reduced. Disparities still exist for uninsured and financially restrained women living in rural areas. Addressing disparities in BCS uptake and improving adherence to USPSTF guidelines may require revamping policies that address disparities in enabling resources, such as health insurance, income, and health care access.

Impact of COVID-19 in patients on active melanoma therapy and with history of melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors. RESULTS: Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors.

Associations Between General Vaccine Hesitancy and Healthcare Access Among Arkansans.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines provide protection against numerous diseases that can cause serious illness and death. However, vaccine hesitancy threatens to undermine progress in reducing preventable diseases and illness. Vaccine hesitancy has been shown to vary by sociodemographic characteristics. However, studies examining associations between healthcare access and vaccine hesitancy are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Using a statewide random sample of Arkansas adults, we examined the relationship between general vaccine hesitancy and healthcare access. DESIGN: From July 12 to 30, 2021, participants were contacted by landlines and cellular phones using random digit dialing. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1500 Arkansas adults were surveyed. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx adults were oversampled to ensure adequate representation. The survey had a cooperation rate of 20%. MAIN MEASURES: The dependent variable was an ordinal measure of general vaccine hesitancy. Age, gender, race, education, relationship status, and rural/urban residence were included in the model. Healthcare access was measured across four domains: (1) health insurance coverage; (2) having a primary care provider (PCP); (3) forgoing care due to cost; and (4) time since last routine checkup. The relationship between general vaccine hesitancy and healthcare access was modeled using ordinal logistic regression, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Mean age was 48.5 years, 51.1% were women, 28% reported a race other than White, and 36.3% held a bachelor's degree or higher. Those with a PCP and those with health insurance had approximately two-thirds the odds of being more hesitant ([OR=0.63, CI=0.47, 0.84] and [OR=0.68; CI=0.49, 0.94]) than those without a PCP and those without health insurance. Participants reporting a routine checkup in the last 2 years were almost half as likely to be more hesitant than those reporting a checkup more than 2 years prior (OR=0.58; CI=0.43, 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest improving access to health insurance, PCPs, and routine preventative care services may be critical to reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Use of Machine Learning and Lay Care Coaches to Increase Advance Care Planning Conversations for Patients With Metastatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic cancer benefit from advance care planning (ACP) conversations. We aimed to improve ACP using a computer model to select high-risk patients, with shorter predicted survival, for conversations with providers and lay care coaches. Outcomes included ACP documentation frequency and end-of-life quality measures. METHODS: In this study of a quality improvement initiative, providers in four medical oncology clinics received Serious Illness Care Program training. Two clinics (thoracic/genitourinary) participated in an intervention, and two (cutaneous/sarcoma) served as controls. ACP conversations were documented in a centralized form in the electronic medical record. In the intervention, providers and care coaches received weekly e-mails highlighting upcoming clinic patients with < 2 year computer-predicted survival and no prior prognosis documentation. Care coaches contacted these patients for an ACP conversation (excluding prognosis). Providers were asked to discuss and document prognosis. RESULTS: In the four clinics, 4,968 clinic visits by 1,251 patients met inclusion criteria (metastatic cancer with no prognosis previously documented). In their first visit, 28% of patients were high-risk (< 2 year predicted survival). Preintervention, 3% of both intervention and control clinic patients had ACP documentation during a visit. By intervention end (February 2021), 35% of intervention clinic patients had ACP documentation compared with 3% of control clinic patients. Providers' prognosis documentation rate also increased in intervention clinics after the intervention (2%-27% in intervention clinics, P < .0001; 0%-1% in control clinics). End-of-life care intensity was similar in intervention versus control clinics, but patients with ≥ 1 provider ACP edit met fewer high-intensity care measures (P = .04). CONCLUSION: Combining a computer prognosis model with care coaches increased ACP documentation.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and racial discrimination among US adults.

Vaccination is a critical preventive measure to reduce COVID-19 health risks. We utilize full information maximum likelihood (FIML) logistic regression to analyze COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a national sample of United States (US) adults (N = 2,022). Online survey data was collected between September 7th and October 3rd, 2021. Before weighting, the racial composition of the sample was as follows: Asian American (15.0 %), Black/African American (20.0 %), Hispanic/Latino (20.0 %), American Indian or Alaska Native (12.6 %), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (12.5 %), and White (20.0 %). Informed by the Increasing Vaccination Model (IVM), we assessed the relationship between COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and experiences of racial discrimination (Krieger's 9-item measure). Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were greater for most younger age groups, women (OR = 1.96; 95 % CI[1.54, 2.49]), Black/African American respondents (OR = 1.68; 95 % CI[1.18, 2.39]), those with a high school education or less (OR = 1.46; 95 % CI[1.08, 1.98]), Independent (OR = 1.77; 95 % CI[1.34, 2.35]) or Republican political affiliation (OR = 2.69; 95 % CI[1.92, 3.79]), and prior COVID-19 infection (OR = 1.78; 95 % CI[1.29, 2.45]). Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were 1.04 greater for every-one unit increase in lifetime experiences of racial discrimination (95 % CI[1.02, 1.05]). Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were lower for Asian American respondents (OR = 0.682; 95 % CI[0.480, 0.969]), and those who had a primary care doctor had reduced odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (OR = 0.735; 95 % CI[0.542, 0.998). Our primary finding provides support for a link between experiences of racial discrimination and hesitancy towards a COVID-19 vaccine among US adults. We discuss implications for public health officials and future research.

Associations of Renal Cell Carcinoma Subtype with Patient Demographics, Comorbidities, and Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status in the California Population.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes differ in molecular characteristics and prognosis. We investigated the associations of RCC subtype with patient demographics, comorbidity, and neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES). METHODS: Using linked California Cancer Registry and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development data, we identified history of hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease prior to RCC diagnosis in Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Latino Black, Latino, and non-Latino White adults diagnosed with their first pathologically confirmed RCC from 2005 through 2015. We used multinomial multivariable logistic regression to model the association of demographics, comorbidity, and nSES with clear-cell, papillary, and chromophobe RCC subtype. RESULTS: Of the 40,016 RCC cases included, 62.6% were clear cell, 10.9% papillary, and 5.9% chromophobe. The distribution of subtypes differed strikingly by race and ethnicity, ranging from 40.4% clear cell and 30.4% papillary in non-Latino Black adults to 70.7% clear cell and 4.5% papillary in Latino adults. In multivariable analysis, non-Latino Black individuals had a higher likelihood of presenting with papillary (OR, 3.99; 95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.42) and chromophobe (OR, 1.81; 1.54-2.13) versus clear-cell subtype compared with non-Latino White individuals. Both hypertension (OR, 1.19; 1.10-1.29) and kidney disease (OR, 2.38; 2.04-2.77 end-stage disease; OR, 1.52; 1.33-1.72 non-end-stage disease) were associated with papillary subtype. Diabetes was inversely associated with both papillary (OR, 0.63; 0.58-0.69) and chromophobe (OR, 0.61; 0.54-0.70) subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: RCC subtype is independently associated with patient demographics, and comorbidity. IMPACT: Targeted RCC treatments or RCC prevention efforts may have differential impact across population subgroups.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Experiences of Discrimination Among Black Adults.

Early in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, Black adults consistently reported more hesitancy than White adults, but few studies have examined variation in hesitancy among Black adults or its associations with racial discrimination. Data were collected from Black Arkansas residents age 18 and older (n = 350) between July 12th and July 30th, 2021, as part of a larger survey of Arkansans (N = 1500). Participants were recruited through random digit dialing of both landline and cell phones, with oversampling of Black and Hispanic residents. Respondents reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, sociodemographic information, influenza vaccination history, pandemic-related experiences, and experiences of racial discrimination. Almost half (48.9%) of Black adults in Arkansas were not hesitant towards COVID-19 vaccines, while the remainder reported some level of hesitancy. Nearly a quarter were very hesitant (22.4%), while fewer reported being somewhat (14.0%) and a little (14.7%) hesitant. Using an ordered logistic regression with partial proportional odds, we find odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy decreased as age and influenza vaccination increased. Odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were 1.70 times greater for Black adults who experienced the death of a close friend/family member due to COVID-19 and 2.61 times greater for individuals reporting discrimination with police or in the courts. Within-group analysis revealed nearly half of Black adults did not report any COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and heterogeneity among those who were hesitant. Findings suggest there may be an important link between racial discrimination in the criminal justice system and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black adults.

Assessment of Colorectal Cancer Screening Disparities in U.S. Men and Women Using a Demographically Representative Sample.

Timely receipt of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce morbidity and mortality. This is the first known study to adopt Andersen's model of health services use to identify factors associated with CRC screening among US adults. The data from National Health Interview Survey from 2019 was utilized to conduct the analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to separately analyze data from 7,503 age-eligible women and 6,486 age-eligible men. We found similar CRC screening levels among men (57.7%) and women (57.6%). Factors associated with higher screening odds in women were older age, married/cohabitating with a partner, Black race, >bachelor's degree, having a usual source of care, and personal cancer history. Factors associated with lower odds for women were American Indian/Alaska Native race, living in the US for ≤10 years, ≤138% federal poverty level (FPL), uninsured or having Medicare, and in fair/poor health. For men, factors associated with higher screening odds were older age, homosexuality, married/cohabitating with a partner, Black race, >high school/general educational development education, having military insurance, having a usual source of care, and personal cancer history. Factors associated with lower odds for men were being a foreign-born US resident, living in the South or Midwest, ≤138% FPL, and being uninsured or having other insurance. Despite lower screening rates in the past, Black adults show a significantly higher likelihood of CRC screening than White adults; yet, screening disparities remain in certain other groups. CRC screening efforts should continue to target groups with lower screening rates to eliminate screening disparities.

Associations between 5-year influenza vaccination and sociodemographic factors and healthcare access among Arkansans.

Despite wide availability, only 50.2% of the United States (US) adult population and 50.3% of adult Arkansans were vaccinated for influenza during the 2020-2021 influenza season. The proportion of the population vaccinated for influenza varies by age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, rural/urban residence, and income. However, measures of healthcare access have not been adequately investigated as predictors of influenza vaccination. Using a large, statewide random sample, this study examined 5-year influenza vaccination among Arkansans by sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, rural/urban residence), general vaccine hesitancy, and healthcare access (having a primary care provider, having health insurance, forgoing health care due to cost, and frequency of doctor checkups). Older age, being female, being Hispanic, having a bachelor's degree or higher, having a primary care provider, visiting a doctor for a checkup in the past two years, and lack of hesitancy towards vaccines were significant predictors of receiving influenza vaccination.

Parent/guardian intentions to vaccinate children against COVID-19 in the United States.

Vaccination is critical for protecting adults and children from COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. Analyzing subsamples of parent/guardians of children age 0-11 (n = 343) and 12-17 (n = 322) from a larger national survey of US adults (n = 2,022), we aimed to assess intentions to vaccinate children and how intentions might vary across parent/guardian sociodemographic characteristics, healthcare coverage, vaccination status, political affiliation, prior COVID-19 infection, exposure to COVID-19 death(s) of family or friends, perceived norms of vaccination, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We also report the prevalence of vaccinated children for parents whose oldest child was eligible for vaccination at the time of the survey. More than one third of parents whose oldest child was not yet eligible for vaccination (11 or younger) planned to get them vaccinated right away when a vaccine became available to them. Among parents whose child was eligible to be vaccinated (age 12-17 years), approximately a third reported their child had already been vaccinated and approximately a third planned to do so right away. Intentions to vaccinate children age 0 to 11 were significantly associated with age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, COVID-19 vaccination, political affiliation, social norms, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Intentions to vaccinate children age 12 to 17 were significantly associated with age, education, healthcare coverage, COVID-19 vaccination, political affiliation, social norms, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We discuss implications for public health officials and for future research.

Parents' and Guardians' Intentions to Vaccinate Children against COVID-19.

A cross-sectional survey design was used to assess Arkansas parents'/guardians' intentions to vaccinate their child against COVID-19. Parents/guardians whose oldest child was age 0-11 years (n = 171) or 12-17 years (n = 198) were recruited between 12 July and 30 July 2021 through random digit dialing. Among parents/guardians with an age-eligible child, age 12-17, 19% reported their child had been vaccinated, and 34% reported they would have their child vaccinated right away. Among parents/guardians with a child aged 0-11, 33% of parents/guardians reported they would have their child vaccinated right away. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of parents/guardians whose oldest child was 12-17 and 26% of parents/guardians whose oldest child was 0-11 reported they would only have their child vaccinated if their school required it; otherwise, they would definitely not vaccinate them. For both groups, parents'/guardians' education, COVID-19 vaccination status, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were significantly associated with intentions to vaccinate their child. More than a third of parents/guardians whose child was eligible for vaccination at the time of the survey reported they intended to have them vaccinated right away; however, they had not vaccinated their child more than two months after approval. This finding raises questions about the remaining barriers constraining some parents/guardians from vaccinating their child.

Coinfections in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. METHODS: We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28-3.76) coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

Cancer Screening Recommendations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening tests are recommended to prevent cancer-associated mortality by detecting precancerous and cancerous lesions in early stages. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the use of preventive health care services. Although there was an increase in the number of cancer screening tests beginning in late 2020, screenings remained 29% to 36% lower than in the prepandemic era. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to assist health care providers in identifying approaches for prioritizing patients and increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening during the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used the scoping review framework to identify articles on PubMed and EBSCO databases. A total of 403 articles were identified, and 23 articles were selected for this review. The literature review ranged from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. RESULTS: The articles included two primary categories of recommendations: (1) risk stratification and triage to prioritize screenings and (2) alternative methods to conduct cancer screenings. Risk stratification and triage recommendations focused on prioritizing high-risk patients with an abnormal or suspicious result on the previous screening test, patients in certain age groups and sex, patients with a personal medical or family cancer history, patients that are currently symptomatic, and patients that are predisposed to hereditary cancers and cancer-causing mutations. Other recommended strategies included identifying areas facing the most disparities, creating algorithms and using artificial intelligence to create cancer risk scores, leveraging in-person visits to assess cancer risk, and providing the option of open access screenings where patients can schedule screenings and can be assigned a priority category by health care staff. Some recommended using telemedicine to categorize patients and determine screening eligibility for patients with new complaints. Several articles noted the importance of implementing preventive measures such as COVID-19 screening prior to the procedures, maintaining hygiene measures, and social distancing in waiting rooms. Alternative screening methods that do not require an in-person clinic visit and can effectively screen patients for cancers included mailing self-collection sampling kits for cervical and colorectal cancers, and implementing or expanding mobile screening units. CONCLUSIONS: Although the COVID-19 pandemic had devastating effects on population health globally, it could be an opportunity to adapt and evolve cancer screening methods. Disruption often creates innovation, and focus on alternative methods for cancer screenings may help reach rural and underresourced areas after the pandemic has ended.