Analyzing the impact of the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on initial oncologic presentation and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A significantly lower rate of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) screening, greater healthcare avoidance, and changes to oncologic recommendations were some consequences of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affecting the medical environment. We sought to determine how the healthcare environment during the COVID-19 pandemic affected the oncologic treatment of patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients with NSCLC in the National Cancer Database (2019-2020). Patients were divided into prepandemic (2019) and pandemic (2020) cohorts, and patient, oncologic, and treatment variables were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for the impact of demographic characteristics on oncologic variables and the impact of oncologic variables on treatment variables. RESULTS: The study population comprised 250,791 patients, including 114,533 patients (45.7%) in the pandemic cohort. There were 15% fewer new NSCLC diagnoses during the pandemic compared with prepandemic. Patients diagnosed during the pandemic had more advanced clinical TNM stage on presentation (P < .0001) and were more likely to have tumors in overlapping lobes or in a main bronchus (P = .0002). They were less likely to receive cancer treatment (P < .0001) and to undergo primary resection (P < .0001) and more likely to receive adjuvant systemic therapy (P = .004) and a combination of palliative treatment regimens (P < .0001). After risk adjustment, all these differences remained statistically significant (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased clinical stage at presentation for patients with NSCLC, which impacted subsequent treatment strategies. However, treatment differed minimally when controlling for cancer stage. Future studies will examine the impact of these differences on overall survival and cancer-free survival.

Prevalence and progression of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review.

Solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients are known to carry an increased risk of malignancy because of long-term immunosuppression. However, the progression of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas (IPMN) in this population remains unclear. We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. All studies containing IPMNs in solid organ transplantation recipients were screened. We included 11 studies in our final analysis, totaling 274 patients with IPMNs of the 8213 SOT recipients. The prevalence from 8 studies was 4.7% (95% CI 2.4%-7.7%) in a random-effects model with median study periods of 24 to 220 months. The median rate for all progressions from 10 studies was 20% (range, 0%-88%) within 13 to 41 months of the median follow-up time. By utilizing the results of 3 case-control studies, the relative risk from a random-effects model for progression (worrisome features and high-risk stigmata) of IPMNs was 0.39 (95% CI 0.12-1.31). No adenocarcinoma derived from IPMN was reported in the included studies. Overall, this study indicates that the progression of pretransplant IPMN does not increase drastically compared with the general nontransplant population. However, considering the limited literature, further studies are required for confirmation.

Validating a risk assessment tool in United Kingdom and Irish paediatric cardiac catheterisation practice.

BACKGROUND: No established risk prediction tool exists in United Kingdom and Irish Paediatric Cardiology practice for patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation. The Catheterisation RISk score for Paediatrics is used primarily in North American practice to assess risk prior to cardiac catheterisation. Validating the utility and transferability of such a tool in practice provides the opportunity to employ an already established risk assessment tool in everyday practice. AIMS: To ascertain whether the Catheterisation RISk score for Paediatrics assessment tool can accurately predict complications within United Kingdom and Irish congenital catheterisation practice. METHODS: Clinical and procedural data including National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research derived outcome data from 1500 patients across five large congenital cardiology centres in the United Kingdom and Ireland were retrospectively collected. Catheterisation RISk score for Paediatrics were then calculated for each case and compared with the observed procedural outcomes. Chi-square analysis was used to determine the relationship between observed and predicted events. RESULTS: Ninety-eight (6.6%) patients in this study experienced a significant complication as qualified by National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research classification. 4% experienced a moderate complication, 2.3% experienced a major complication and 0.3% experienced a catastrophic complication resulting in death. Calculated Catheterisation RISk score for Paediatrics scores correlated well with all observed adverse events for paediatric patients across all CRISP categories. The association was also transferable to adult congenital heart disease patients in lower Catheterisation RISk score for Paediatrics categories (CRISP 1-3). CONCLUSION: The Catheterisation RISk score for Paediatrics score accurately predicts significant complications in congenital catheterisation practice in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Our data validated the Catheterisation RISk score for Paediatrics assessment tool in five congenital centres using National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research-derived outcome data.