AVAHO

A strategy that includes a urine steroid test along with imaging characteristics and tumor size criteria can significantly improve the challenging diagnosis of adrenocortical cancer, helping to avoid unnecessary, and often unsuccessful, further imaging and even surgery, new research shows.

“A triple-test strategy of tumor diameter, imaging characteristics, and urine steroid metabolomics improves detection of adrenocortical carcinoma, which could shorten time to surgery for patients with ... carcinoma and help to avoid unnecessary surgery in patients with benign tumors,” the authors say in research published online July 23 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The triple-test strategy can be expected to make its way into international guidelines, notes joint lead author Irina Bancos, MD, an associate professor of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in a press statement issued by the University of Birmingham (England), which also had a number of researchers involved in the study.

“The findings of this study will feed into the next international guidelines on the management of adrenal tumors and the implementation of the new test will hopefully improve the overall outlook for patients diagnosed with adrenal tumors,” Dr. Bancos emphasized.

More imaging has led to detection of more adrenal tumors

Advances in CT and MRI imaging have increased the ability to detect adrenal incidentalomas, which are now picked up on about 5% of scans, and the widespread use of imaging has compounded the prevalence of such findings, particularly in older people.

Adrenocortical carcinomas represent only about 2%-12% of adrenal incidentalomas, but the prognosis is very poor, and early detection and surgery can improve outcomes, so findings of any adrenal tumor typically trigger additional multimodal imaging to rule out malignancy.

Evidence is lacking on the accuracy of imaging in determining whether such masses are truly cancerous, or benign, and such procedures add costs, as well as expose patients to radiation that may ultimately have no benefit. However, a previous proof-of-concept study from the same authors did show that the presence of excess adrenal steroid hormones in the urine is a key indicator of adrenal tumors, and other research has supported the findings.

All three tests together give best predictive value: EURINE-ACT

To further validate this work, the authors conducted the EURINE-ACT trial, a prospective 14-center study that is the first of its kind to evaluate the efficacy of a screening strategy for adrenocortical carcinoma that combines urine steroid profiling with tumor size and imaging characteristics.

The study of 2,017 participants with newly diagnosed adrenal masses, recruited from January 2011 to July 2016 from specialist centers in 11 different countries, assessed the diagnostic accuracy of three components: maximum tumor diameter (≥4 cm vs. <4 cm), imaging characteristics (positive vs. negative), and urine steroid metabolomics (low, medium, or high risk of adrenocortical carcinoma), separately and in combination.

Of the patients, 98 (4.9%) had adrenocortical carcinoma confirmed clinically, histopathologically, or biochemically.

Tumors with diameters of 4 cm or larger were identified in 488 patients (24.2%) and were observed in the vast majority of patients with adrenocortical carcinoma (96 of 98), for a positive predictive value (PPV) of 19.7%.

Likewise, the PPV for imaging characteristics was 19.7%. However, increasing the unenhanced CT tumor attenuation threshold to 20 Hounsfield units (HU) from the recommended 10 HU increased specificity for adrenocortical carcinoma (80.0% vs. 64.0%) while maintaining sensitivity (99.0% vs. 100.0%).

Comparatively, a urine steroid metabolomics result suggesting a high risk of adrenocortical carcinoma had a PPV of 34.6%.

A total of 106 patients (5.3%) met the criteria for all three measures, and the PPV for all three was 76.4%.

Using the criteria, 70 patients (3.5%) were classified as being at moderate risk of adrenocortical carcinoma and 1,841 (91.3%) at low risk, for a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.7%.

“Use of radiation-free, noninvasive urine steroid metabolomics has a higher PPV than two standard imaging tests, and best performance was seen with the combination of all three tests,” the authors state.

Limit urine test to patients with larger tumors

They note that the use of the combined diagnostic strategy would have led to additional imaging in only 488 (24.2%) of the study’s 2,017 patients, compared with the 2,737 scans that were actually conducted before reaching a diagnostic decision.

“Implementation of urine steroid metabolomics in the routine diagnostic assessment of newly discovered adrenal masses could reduce the number of imaging procedures required to diagnose adrenocortical carcinoma and avoid unnecessary surgery of benign adrenal tumors, potentially yielding beneficial effects with respect to patient burden and health care costs,” they stress.

And regarding imaging parameters, “we also showed that using a cutoff of 20 HU for unenhanced CT tumor attenuation increases the accuracy of imaging characteristic assessment for exclusion of adrenocortical carcinoma, compared with the currently recommended cutoff of 10 HU, which has immediate implications for clinical practice,” they emphasize.

In an accompanying editorial, Adina F. Turcu, MD, of the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and diabetes, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Axel K. Walch, MD, of the Helmholtz Zentrum München–German Research Centre for Environmental Health, agree. “The introduction of urine steroid metabolomics into routine clinical practice would provide major advantages,” they state.

However, they point out that, although the overall negative predictive value of the test was excellent, the specificity was weak.

“Thus, urine steroid metabolomics should be limited to patients who have adrenal nodules larger than 4 cm and have qualitative imaging characteristics suggestive of malignancy,” say Dr. Turcu and Dr. Walch.

The EURINE-ACT study results suggest this subgroup would represent roughly only 12% of all patients with adrenal incidentalomas, they add.

Issues that remain to be addressed with regard to the implementation of the screening strategy include how to best respond to patients who are classified as having intermediate or moderate risk of malignancy, and whether the diagnostic value of steroid metabolomics could be refined by adding analytes or parameters, the editorialists conclude.

The study was funded by the European Commission, U.K. Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, U.K. National Institute for Health Research, U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Claire Khan Trust Fund at University Hospitals Birmingham Charities, and the Mayo Clinic Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A strategy that includes a urine steroid test along with imaging characteristics and tumor size criteria can significantly improve the challenging diagnosis of adrenocortical cancer, helping to avoid unnecessary, and often unsuccessful, further imaging and even surgery, new research shows.

“A triple-test strategy of tumor diameter, imaging characteristics, and urine steroid metabolomics improves detection of adrenocortical carcinoma, which could shorten time to surgery for patients with ... carcinoma and help to avoid unnecessary surgery in patients with benign tumors,” the authors say in research published online July 23 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The triple-test strategy can be expected to make its way into international guidelines, notes joint lead author Irina Bancos, MD, an associate professor of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in a press statement issued by the University of Birmingham (England), which also had a number of researchers involved in the study.

“The findings of this study will feed into the next international guidelines on the management of adrenal tumors and the implementation of the new test will hopefully improve the overall outlook for patients diagnosed with adrenal tumors,” Dr. Bancos emphasized.

More imaging has led to detection of more adrenal tumors

Advances in CT and MRI imaging have increased the ability to detect adrenal incidentalomas, which are now picked up on about 5% of scans, and the widespread use of imaging has compounded the prevalence of such findings, particularly in older people.

Adrenocortical carcinomas represent only about 2%-12% of adrenal incidentalomas, but the prognosis is very poor, and early detection and surgery can improve outcomes, so findings of any adrenal tumor typically trigger additional multimodal imaging to rule out malignancy.

Evidence is lacking on the accuracy of imaging in determining whether such masses are truly cancerous, or benign, and such procedures add costs, as well as expose patients to radiation that may ultimately have no benefit. However, a previous proof-of-concept study from the same authors did show that the presence of excess adrenal steroid hormones in the urine is a key indicator of adrenal tumors, and other research has supported the findings.

All three tests together give best predictive value: EURINE-ACT

To further validate this work, the authors conducted the EURINE-ACT trial, a prospective 14-center study that is the first of its kind to evaluate the efficacy of a screening strategy for adrenocortical carcinoma that combines urine steroid profiling with tumor size and imaging characteristics.

The study of 2,017 participants with newly diagnosed adrenal masses, recruited from January 2011 to July 2016 from specialist centers in 11 different countries, assessed the diagnostic accuracy of three components: maximum tumor diameter (≥4 cm vs. <4 cm), imaging characteristics (positive vs. negative), and urine steroid metabolomics (low, medium, or high risk of adrenocortical carcinoma), separately and in combination.

Of the patients, 98 (4.9%) had adrenocortical carcinoma confirmed clinically, histopathologically, or biochemically.

Tumors with diameters of 4 cm or larger were identified in 488 patients (24.2%) and were observed in the vast majority of patients with adrenocortical carcinoma (96 of 98), for a positive predictive value (PPV) of 19.7%.

Likewise, the PPV for imaging characteristics was 19.7%. However, increasing the unenhanced CT tumor attenuation threshold to 20 Hounsfield units (HU) from the recommended 10 HU increased specificity for adrenocortical carcinoma (80.0% vs. 64.0%) while maintaining sensitivity (99.0% vs. 100.0%).

Comparatively, a urine steroid metabolomics result suggesting a high risk of adrenocortical carcinoma had a PPV of 34.6%.

A total of 106 patients (5.3%) met the criteria for all three measures, and the PPV for all three was 76.4%.

Using the criteria, 70 patients (3.5%) were classified as being at moderate risk of adrenocortical carcinoma and 1,841 (91.3%) at low risk, for a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.7%.

“Use of radiation-free, noninvasive urine steroid metabolomics has a higher PPV than two standard imaging tests, and best performance was seen with the combination of all three tests,” the authors state.

Limit urine test to patients with larger tumors

They note that the use of the combined diagnostic strategy would have led to additional imaging in only 488 (24.2%) of the study’s 2,017 patients, compared with the 2,737 scans that were actually conducted before reaching a diagnostic decision.

“Implementation of urine steroid metabolomics in the routine diagnostic assessment of newly discovered adrenal masses could reduce the number of imaging procedures required to diagnose adrenocortical carcinoma and avoid unnecessary surgery of benign adrenal tumors, potentially yielding beneficial effects with respect to patient burden and health care costs,” they stress.

And regarding imaging parameters, “we also showed that using a cutoff of 20 HU for unenhanced CT tumor attenuation increases the accuracy of imaging characteristic assessment for exclusion of adrenocortical carcinoma, compared with the currently recommended cutoff of 10 HU, which has immediate implications for clinical practice,” they emphasize.

In an accompanying editorial, Adina F. Turcu, MD, of the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and diabetes, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Axel K. Walch, MD, of the Helmholtz Zentrum München–German Research Centre for Environmental Health, agree. “The introduction of urine steroid metabolomics into routine clinical practice would provide major advantages,” they state.

However, they point out that, although the overall negative predictive value of the test was excellent, the specificity was weak.

“Thus, urine steroid metabolomics should be limited to patients who have adrenal nodules larger than 4 cm and have qualitative imaging characteristics suggestive of malignancy,” say Dr. Turcu and Dr. Walch.

The EURINE-ACT study results suggest this subgroup would represent roughly only 12% of all patients with adrenal incidentalomas, they add.

Issues that remain to be addressed with regard to the implementation of the screening strategy include how to best respond to patients who are classified as having intermediate or moderate risk of malignancy, and whether the diagnostic value of steroid metabolomics could be refined by adding analytes or parameters, the editorialists conclude.

The study was funded by the European Commission, U.K. Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, U.K. National Institute for Health Research, U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Claire Khan Trust Fund at University Hospitals Birmingham Charities, and the Mayo Clinic Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A strategy that includes a urine steroid test along with imaging characteristics and tumor size criteria can significantly improve the challenging diagnosis of adrenocortical cancer, helping to avoid unnecessary, and often unsuccessful, further imaging and even surgery, new research shows.

“A triple-test strategy of tumor diameter, imaging characteristics, and urine steroid metabolomics improves detection of adrenocortical carcinoma, which could shorten time to surgery for patients with ... carcinoma and help to avoid unnecessary surgery in patients with benign tumors,” the authors say in research published online July 23 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The triple-test strategy can be expected to make its way into international guidelines, notes joint lead author Irina Bancos, MD, an associate professor of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in a press statement issued by the University of Birmingham (England), which also had a number of researchers involved in the study.

“The findings of this study will feed into the next international guidelines on the management of adrenal tumors and the implementation of the new test will hopefully improve the overall outlook for patients diagnosed with adrenal tumors,” Dr. Bancos emphasized.

More imaging has led to detection of more adrenal tumors

Advances in CT and MRI imaging have increased the ability to detect adrenal incidentalomas, which are now picked up on about 5% of scans, and the widespread use of imaging has compounded the prevalence of such findings, particularly in older people.

Adrenocortical carcinomas represent only about 2%-12% of adrenal incidentalomas, but the prognosis is very poor, and early detection and surgery can improve outcomes, so findings of any adrenal tumor typically trigger additional multimodal imaging to rule out malignancy.

Evidence is lacking on the accuracy of imaging in determining whether such masses are truly cancerous, or benign, and such procedures add costs, as well as expose patients to radiation that may ultimately have no benefit. However, a previous proof-of-concept study from the same authors did show that the presence of excess adrenal steroid hormones in the urine is a key indicator of adrenal tumors, and other research has supported the findings.

All three tests together give best predictive value: EURINE-ACT

To further validate this work, the authors conducted the EURINE-ACT trial, a prospective 14-center study that is the first of its kind to evaluate the efficacy of a screening strategy for adrenocortical carcinoma that combines urine steroid profiling with tumor size and imaging characteristics.

The study of 2,017 participants with newly diagnosed adrenal masses, recruited from January 2011 to July 2016 from specialist centers in 11 different countries, assessed the diagnostic accuracy of three components: maximum tumor diameter (≥4 cm vs. <4 cm), imaging characteristics (positive vs. negative), and urine steroid metabolomics (low, medium, or high risk of adrenocortical carcinoma), separately and in combination.

Of the patients, 98 (4.9%) had adrenocortical carcinoma confirmed clinically, histopathologically, or biochemically.

Tumors with diameters of 4 cm or larger were identified in 488 patients (24.2%) and were observed in the vast majority of patients with adrenocortical carcinoma (96 of 98), for a positive predictive value (PPV) of 19.7%.

Likewise, the PPV for imaging characteristics was 19.7%. However, increasing the unenhanced CT tumor attenuation threshold to 20 Hounsfield units (HU) from the recommended 10 HU increased specificity for adrenocortical carcinoma (80.0% vs. 64.0%) while maintaining sensitivity (99.0% vs. 100.0%).

Comparatively, a urine steroid metabolomics result suggesting a high risk of adrenocortical carcinoma had a PPV of 34.6%.

A total of 106 patients (5.3%) met the criteria for all three measures, and the PPV for all three was 76.4%.

Using the criteria, 70 patients (3.5%) were classified as being at moderate risk of adrenocortical carcinoma and 1,841 (91.3%) at low risk, for a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.7%.

“Use of radiation-free, noninvasive urine steroid metabolomics has a higher PPV than two standard imaging tests, and best performance was seen with the combination of all three tests,” the authors state.

Limit urine test to patients with larger tumors

They note that the use of the combined diagnostic strategy would have led to additional imaging in only 488 (24.2%) of the study’s 2,017 patients, compared with the 2,737 scans that were actually conducted before reaching a diagnostic decision.

“Implementation of urine steroid metabolomics in the routine diagnostic assessment of newly discovered adrenal masses could reduce the number of imaging procedures required to diagnose adrenocortical carcinoma and avoid unnecessary surgery of benign adrenal tumors, potentially yielding beneficial effects with respect to patient burden and health care costs,” they stress.

And regarding imaging parameters, “we also showed that using a cutoff of 20 HU for unenhanced CT tumor attenuation increases the accuracy of imaging characteristic assessment for exclusion of adrenocortical carcinoma, compared with the currently recommended cutoff of 10 HU, which has immediate implications for clinical practice,” they emphasize.

In an accompanying editorial, Adina F. Turcu, MD, of the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and diabetes, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Axel K. Walch, MD, of the Helmholtz Zentrum München–German Research Centre for Environmental Health, agree. “The introduction of urine steroid metabolomics into routine clinical practice would provide major advantages,” they state.

However, they point out that, although the overall negative predictive value of the test was excellent, the specificity was weak.

“Thus, urine steroid metabolomics should be limited to patients who have adrenal nodules larger than 4 cm and have qualitative imaging characteristics suggestive of malignancy,” say Dr. Turcu and Dr. Walch.

The EURINE-ACT study results suggest this subgroup would represent roughly only 12% of all patients with adrenal incidentalomas, they add.

Issues that remain to be addressed with regard to the implementation of the screening strategy include how to best respond to patients who are classified as having intermediate or moderate risk of malignancy, and whether the diagnostic value of steroid metabolomics could be refined by adding analytes or parameters, the editorialists conclude.

The study was funded by the European Commission, U.K. Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, U.K. National Institute for Health Research, U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Claire Khan Trust Fund at University Hospitals Birmingham Charities, and the Mayo Clinic Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher continence rates were seen after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) than after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the two surgical approaches.

At 3 months, 54.3% of prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP and 45.6% of those who had LRP were continent after catheter removal (P = .027).

“We did use a very strong definition for continence, meaning no pad or safety pad; patients wearing one pad per day we’re not classified as continent,” said study investigator Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, MD, PhD, professor and head of urology at the University of Leipzig Hospital in Germany.

Dr. Stolzenburg presented these findings at the European Association of Urology virtual annual congress.

The findings fit with previous research showing higher continence rates with RARP (69%-80%) than with LRP (62%-63%), although those studies did not always find the difference to be statistically significant, and higher quality evidence was needed (J Sex Med. 2011 May;8[5]:1503-12; Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63[4]:606-14). “Up to now, there are only two randomized studies published in the literature comparing robotic and classical laparoscopic prostatectomy, and my point of view is that there are strong limitations of both studies,” Dr. Stolzenburg said.

“First of all, both studies are based on the single experience of surgeons, so only one surgeon has performed surgery. The second limitation is the limited numbers of patients included,” he observed. One study had 64 patients in each arm, and the other had 60 patients in each arm.
 

Providing higher quality evidence

Dr. Stolzenburg presented results of the LAP-01 study, which was designed to close the knowledge gap and determine if there really was an advantage for RARP over LRP for preserving continence.

The trial was conducted at three academic centers and one public hospital in Germany. The final analysis included 718 patients with prostate cancer referred for prostate surgery. They were randomized, in a ratio of three to one, to undergo RARP (n = 530) or LRP (n = 188), being unaware themselves of which surgery they would be having until the 3-month primary endpoint.

In addition to improved continence over LRP, RARP was associated with significantly better erectile function at 3 months (P = .016), as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

That said, erectile function was still severely affected by both surgical procedures. Total IIEF scores were 6.0 with RARP and 4.7 with LRP, compared with 15.9 and 16.2, respectively, at baseline.

A higher percentage of men who had nerve-sparing procedures reported having an erection suitable for sexual intercourse at 2 months in the RARP group than in the LRP group (17.7% vs. 6.7%, P = .007).

The complication rate was “a little bit higher” in the LRP group than in the RARP group, “but the difference was not statistically significant,” Dr. Stolzenburg said. He added that “the most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage, and most complications overall were low-grade complications in both groups.”
 

Multicenter experience

The potential for prostatectomy to have effects on urinary continence and sexual function are important issues that need to be discussed upfront with patients, observed Alexandre de la Taille, MD, PhD, who was invited to discuss the study.

Current European guidance says “there is no surgical approach – open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy – that has proven superiority in terms of functional or oncological results,” he said. However, the LAP-01 study “found that the continence rate was better when we use a robotic approach compared to a laparoscopic approach.”

Dr. de la Taille, who is professor and chair of the urology service at CHU Mondor in Cretéil, France, also highlighted that this result was achieved with no increase in the morbidity profile or compromise of cancer control.

“My very first impression is that we are missing a little bit, some granularity of the data in terms of one key question, which is volume of surgery,” said the chair of the session Alberto Briganti, MD, PhD, associate professor of urology at Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, and deputy director of the Urological Research Institute of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, both in Milan.

“We know that recovery of outcomes is volume-dependent, both in the laparoscopic and robotic setting,” Dr. Briganti added.

“This is really a multicenter study including a lot of surgeons,” Dr. de la Taille countered, agreeing that the volume of surgeries might be something the LAP-01 study investigators could look at in a sub-analysis.

“Of course, some of them have a huge experience in the robotic approach and some of them a lower experience of the robotic approach, but when you put all together, there is a better continence recovery at 3 months when compared to the laparoscopic approach,” Dr. de la Taille said.

Calling the study a “real-life practice study,” he noted that urinary continence at 12 months might be a stronger endpoint, and the difference between the two surgical approaches may become less with time.

“But for the patient, again, daily practice, it’s better to have early urinary continence recovery compared to a late recovery,” Dr. de la Taille said.

This study was funded by the University of Leipzig via a German Cancer Aid grant. All speakers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stolzenburg J-E. EAU20, Abstract.

Higher continence rates were seen after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) than after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the two surgical approaches.

At 3 months, 54.3% of prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP and 45.6% of those who had LRP were continent after catheter removal (P = .027).

“We did use a very strong definition for continence, meaning no pad or safety pad; patients wearing one pad per day we’re not classified as continent,” said study investigator Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, MD, PhD, professor and head of urology at the University of Leipzig Hospital in Germany.

Dr. Stolzenburg presented these findings at the European Association of Urology virtual annual congress.

The findings fit with previous research showing higher continence rates with RARP (69%-80%) than with LRP (62%-63%), although those studies did not always find the difference to be statistically significant, and higher quality evidence was needed (J Sex Med. 2011 May;8[5]:1503-12; Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63[4]:606-14). “Up to now, there are only two randomized studies published in the literature comparing robotic and classical laparoscopic prostatectomy, and my point of view is that there are strong limitations of both studies,” Dr. Stolzenburg said.

“First of all, both studies are based on the single experience of surgeons, so only one surgeon has performed surgery. The second limitation is the limited numbers of patients included,” he observed. One study had 64 patients in each arm, and the other had 60 patients in each arm.
 

Providing higher quality evidence

Dr. Stolzenburg presented results of the LAP-01 study, which was designed to close the knowledge gap and determine if there really was an advantage for RARP over LRP for preserving continence.

The trial was conducted at three academic centers and one public hospital in Germany. The final analysis included 718 patients with prostate cancer referred for prostate surgery. They were randomized, in a ratio of three to one, to undergo RARP (n = 530) or LRP (n = 188), being unaware themselves of which surgery they would be having until the 3-month primary endpoint.

In addition to improved continence over LRP, RARP was associated with significantly better erectile function at 3 months (P = .016), as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

That said, erectile function was still severely affected by both surgical procedures. Total IIEF scores were 6.0 with RARP and 4.7 with LRP, compared with 15.9 and 16.2, respectively, at baseline.

A higher percentage of men who had nerve-sparing procedures reported having an erection suitable for sexual intercourse at 2 months in the RARP group than in the LRP group (17.7% vs. 6.7%, P = .007).

The complication rate was “a little bit higher” in the LRP group than in the RARP group, “but the difference was not statistically significant,” Dr. Stolzenburg said. He added that “the most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage, and most complications overall were low-grade complications in both groups.”
 

Multicenter experience

The potential for prostatectomy to have effects on urinary continence and sexual function are important issues that need to be discussed upfront with patients, observed Alexandre de la Taille, MD, PhD, who was invited to discuss the study.

Current European guidance says “there is no surgical approach – open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy – that has proven superiority in terms of functional or oncological results,” he said. However, the LAP-01 study “found that the continence rate was better when we use a robotic approach compared to a laparoscopic approach.”

Dr. de la Taille, who is professor and chair of the urology service at CHU Mondor in Cretéil, France, also highlighted that this result was achieved with no increase in the morbidity profile or compromise of cancer control.

“My very first impression is that we are missing a little bit, some granularity of the data in terms of one key question, which is volume of surgery,” said the chair of the session Alberto Briganti, MD, PhD, associate professor of urology at Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, and deputy director of the Urological Research Institute of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, both in Milan.

“We know that recovery of outcomes is volume-dependent, both in the laparoscopic and robotic setting,” Dr. Briganti added.

“This is really a multicenter study including a lot of surgeons,” Dr. de la Taille countered, agreeing that the volume of surgeries might be something the LAP-01 study investigators could look at in a sub-analysis.

“Of course, some of them have a huge experience in the robotic approach and some of them a lower experience of the robotic approach, but when you put all together, there is a better continence recovery at 3 months when compared to the laparoscopic approach,” Dr. de la Taille said.

Calling the study a “real-life practice study,” he noted that urinary continence at 12 months might be a stronger endpoint, and the difference between the two surgical approaches may become less with time.

“But for the patient, again, daily practice, it’s better to have early urinary continence recovery compared to a late recovery,” Dr. de la Taille said.

This study was funded by the University of Leipzig via a German Cancer Aid grant. All speakers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stolzenburg J-E. EAU20, Abstract.

Higher continence rates were seen after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) than after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the two surgical approaches.

At 3 months, 54.3% of prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP and 45.6% of those who had LRP were continent after catheter removal (P = .027).

“We did use a very strong definition for continence, meaning no pad or safety pad; patients wearing one pad per day we’re not classified as continent,” said study investigator Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, MD, PhD, professor and head of urology at the University of Leipzig Hospital in Germany.

Dr. Stolzenburg presented these findings at the European Association of Urology virtual annual congress.

The findings fit with previous research showing higher continence rates with RARP (69%-80%) than with LRP (62%-63%), although those studies did not always find the difference to be statistically significant, and higher quality evidence was needed (J Sex Med. 2011 May;8[5]:1503-12; Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63[4]:606-14). “Up to now, there are only two randomized studies published in the literature comparing robotic and classical laparoscopic prostatectomy, and my point of view is that there are strong limitations of both studies,” Dr. Stolzenburg said.

“First of all, both studies are based on the single experience of surgeons, so only one surgeon has performed surgery. The second limitation is the limited numbers of patients included,” he observed. One study had 64 patients in each arm, and the other had 60 patients in each arm.
 

Providing higher quality evidence

Dr. Stolzenburg presented results of the LAP-01 study, which was designed to close the knowledge gap and determine if there really was an advantage for RARP over LRP for preserving continence.

The trial was conducted at three academic centers and one public hospital in Germany. The final analysis included 718 patients with prostate cancer referred for prostate surgery. They were randomized, in a ratio of three to one, to undergo RARP (n = 530) or LRP (n = 188), being unaware themselves of which surgery they would be having until the 3-month primary endpoint.

In addition to improved continence over LRP, RARP was associated with significantly better erectile function at 3 months (P = .016), as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

That said, erectile function was still severely affected by both surgical procedures. Total IIEF scores were 6.0 with RARP and 4.7 with LRP, compared with 15.9 and 16.2, respectively, at baseline.

A higher percentage of men who had nerve-sparing procedures reported having an erection suitable for sexual intercourse at 2 months in the RARP group than in the LRP group (17.7% vs. 6.7%, P = .007).

The complication rate was “a little bit higher” in the LRP group than in the RARP group, “but the difference was not statistically significant,” Dr. Stolzenburg said. He added that “the most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage, and most complications overall were low-grade complications in both groups.”
 

Multicenter experience

The potential for prostatectomy to have effects on urinary continence and sexual function are important issues that need to be discussed upfront with patients, observed Alexandre de la Taille, MD, PhD, who was invited to discuss the study.

Current European guidance says “there is no surgical approach – open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy – that has proven superiority in terms of functional or oncological results,” he said. However, the LAP-01 study “found that the continence rate was better when we use a robotic approach compared to a laparoscopic approach.”

Dr. de la Taille, who is professor and chair of the urology service at CHU Mondor in Cretéil, France, also highlighted that this result was achieved with no increase in the morbidity profile or compromise of cancer control.

“My very first impression is that we are missing a little bit, some granularity of the data in terms of one key question, which is volume of surgery,” said the chair of the session Alberto Briganti, MD, PhD, associate professor of urology at Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, and deputy director of the Urological Research Institute of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, both in Milan.

“We know that recovery of outcomes is volume-dependent, both in the laparoscopic and robotic setting,” Dr. Briganti added.

“This is really a multicenter study including a lot of surgeons,” Dr. de la Taille countered, agreeing that the volume of surgeries might be something the LAP-01 study investigators could look at in a sub-analysis.

“Of course, some of them have a huge experience in the robotic approach and some of them a lower experience of the robotic approach, but when you put all together, there is a better continence recovery at 3 months when compared to the laparoscopic approach,” Dr. de la Taille said.

Calling the study a “real-life practice study,” he noted that urinary continence at 12 months might be a stronger endpoint, and the difference between the two surgical approaches may become less with time.

“But for the patient, again, daily practice, it’s better to have early urinary continence recovery compared to a late recovery,” Dr. de la Taille said.

This study was funded by the University of Leipzig via a German Cancer Aid grant. All speakers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stolzenburg J-E. EAU20, Abstract.

Hospitalized cancer patients have a high risk of nosocomial COVID-19 that is associated with increased mortality, so these patients should be treated in COVID-free zones, according to researchers.

In an observational study of patients with COVID-19 and cancer, 19% of patients had COVID-19 acquired during a non-COVID-related hospital stay, and 81% had community-acquired COVID-19.

At a median follow-up of 23 days, the overall mortality rate was 28%. However, the all-cause mortality rate in patients with nosocomial COVID-19 was more than double that of patients with community-acquired COVID-19, at 47% and 23%, respectively.

Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the University of Montreal, reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

“This is the first report that describes a high rate of hospital-acquired COVID-19 in patients with cancer, at a rate of 19%,” Dr. Elkrief said. “This was associated with high mortality in both univariate and multivariate analyses.”

The study included 250 adults and 3 children with COVID-19 and cancer who were identified between March 3 and May 23, 2020. They ranged in age from 4 to 95 years, but the median age was 73 years.

All patients had either laboratory-confirmed (95%) or presumed COVID-19 (5%) and invasive cancer. The most common cancer types were similar to those seen in the general population. Lung and breast cancer were the most common, followed by lymphoma, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. Most patients were on active anticancer therapy, most often chemotherapy.

Most patients (n = 236) were residents of Quebec, but 17 patients were residents of British Columbia.

“It is important to note that Quebec was one of the most heavily affected areas in North America at the time of the study,” Dr. Elkrief said.
 

Outcomes by group

There were 206 patients (81%) who had community-acquired COVID-19 and 47 (19%) who had nosocomial COVID-19. The two groups were similar with respect to sex, performance status, and cancer stage. A small trend toward more patients on active therapy was seen in the nosocomial group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

The median overall survival was 27 days in the nosocomial group and 71 days in the community-acquired group (hazard ratio, 2.2; P = .002).

A multivariate analysis showed that nosocomial infection was “strongly and independently associated with death,” Dr. Elkrief said. “Other risk factors for poor prognosis included age, poor [performance] status, and advanced stage of cancer.”

There were no significant differences between the hospital-acquired and community-acquired groups for other outcomes, including oxygen requirements (43% and 47%, respectively), ICU admission (13% and 11%), need for mechanical ventilation (6% and 5%), or length of stay (median, 9.5 days and 8.5 days).

The low rate of ICU admission, considering the mortality rate of 28%, “could reflect that patients with cancer are less likely to be admitted to the ICU,” Dr. Elkrief noted.
 

Applying the findings to practice

The findings reinforce the importance of adherence to stringent infection control guidelines to protect vulnerable patients, such as those with cancer, Dr. Elkrief said.

In ambulatory settings, this means decreasing in-person visits through increased use of teleconsultations, and for those who need to be seen in person, screening for symptoms or use of polymerase chain reaction testing should be used when resources are available, she said.

“Similar principles apply to chemotherapy treatment units,” Dr. Elkrief said. She added that staff must avoid cross-contamination between COVID and COVID-free zones, and that “dedicated personnel and equipment should be maintained and separate between these two zones.

“Adequate protective personal equipment and strict hand hygiene protocols are also of utmost importance,” Dr. Elkrief said. “The threat of COVID-19 is not behind us, and so we continue to enforce these strategies to protect our patients.”

Session moderator Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, raised the question of whether the high nosocomial infection and death rate in this study was related to patients having more severe disease because of underlying comorbidities.

Dr. Elkrief explained that the overall mortality rate was indeed higher than the 13% reported in other studies, and it may reflect an overrepresentation of hospitalized or more severely ill patients in the cohort.

However, the investigators made every effort to include all patients with both cancer and COVID-19 by using systematic screening of inpatient and outpatients lists and registries.

Further, the multivariate analysis included both inpatients and outpatients and adjusted for known negative prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes. These included increasing age, poor performance status, and different comorbidities.

The finding that nosocomial infection was an independent predictor of death “pushed us to look at nosocomial infection as a new independent risk factor,” Dr. Elkrief said.

Dr. Elkrief reported grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. D’Souza did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Elkrief A et al. AACR: COVID and Cancer, Abstract S12-01.

Hospitalized cancer patients have a high risk of nosocomial COVID-19 that is associated with increased mortality, so these patients should be treated in COVID-free zones, according to researchers.

In an observational study of patients with COVID-19 and cancer, 19% of patients had COVID-19 acquired during a non-COVID-related hospital stay, and 81% had community-acquired COVID-19.

At a median follow-up of 23 days, the overall mortality rate was 28%. However, the all-cause mortality rate in patients with nosocomial COVID-19 was more than double that of patients with community-acquired COVID-19, at 47% and 23%, respectively.

Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the University of Montreal, reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

“This is the first report that describes a high rate of hospital-acquired COVID-19 in patients with cancer, at a rate of 19%,” Dr. Elkrief said. “This was associated with high mortality in both univariate and multivariate analyses.”

The study included 250 adults and 3 children with COVID-19 and cancer who were identified between March 3 and May 23, 2020. They ranged in age from 4 to 95 years, but the median age was 73 years.

All patients had either laboratory-confirmed (95%) or presumed COVID-19 (5%) and invasive cancer. The most common cancer types were similar to those seen in the general population. Lung and breast cancer were the most common, followed by lymphoma, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. Most patients were on active anticancer therapy, most often chemotherapy.

Most patients (n = 236) were residents of Quebec, but 17 patients were residents of British Columbia.

“It is important to note that Quebec was one of the most heavily affected areas in North America at the time of the study,” Dr. Elkrief said.
 

Outcomes by group

There were 206 patients (81%) who had community-acquired COVID-19 and 47 (19%) who had nosocomial COVID-19. The two groups were similar with respect to sex, performance status, and cancer stage. A small trend toward more patients on active therapy was seen in the nosocomial group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

The median overall survival was 27 days in the nosocomial group and 71 days in the community-acquired group (hazard ratio, 2.2; P = .002).

A multivariate analysis showed that nosocomial infection was “strongly and independently associated with death,” Dr. Elkrief said. “Other risk factors for poor prognosis included age, poor [performance] status, and advanced stage of cancer.”

There were no significant differences between the hospital-acquired and community-acquired groups for other outcomes, including oxygen requirements (43% and 47%, respectively), ICU admission (13% and 11%), need for mechanical ventilation (6% and 5%), or length of stay (median, 9.5 days and 8.5 days).

The low rate of ICU admission, considering the mortality rate of 28%, “could reflect that patients with cancer are less likely to be admitted to the ICU,” Dr. Elkrief noted.
 

Applying the findings to practice

The findings reinforce the importance of adherence to stringent infection control guidelines to protect vulnerable patients, such as those with cancer, Dr. Elkrief said.

In ambulatory settings, this means decreasing in-person visits through increased use of teleconsultations, and for those who need to be seen in person, screening for symptoms or use of polymerase chain reaction testing should be used when resources are available, she said.

“Similar principles apply to chemotherapy treatment units,” Dr. Elkrief said. She added that staff must avoid cross-contamination between COVID and COVID-free zones, and that “dedicated personnel and equipment should be maintained and separate between these two zones.

“Adequate protective personal equipment and strict hand hygiene protocols are also of utmost importance,” Dr. Elkrief said. “The threat of COVID-19 is not behind us, and so we continue to enforce these strategies to protect our patients.”

Session moderator Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, raised the question of whether the high nosocomial infection and death rate in this study was related to patients having more severe disease because of underlying comorbidities.

Dr. Elkrief explained that the overall mortality rate was indeed higher than the 13% reported in other studies, and it may reflect an overrepresentation of hospitalized or more severely ill patients in the cohort.

However, the investigators made every effort to include all patients with both cancer and COVID-19 by using systematic screening of inpatient and outpatients lists and registries.

Further, the multivariate analysis included both inpatients and outpatients and adjusted for known negative prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes. These included increasing age, poor performance status, and different comorbidities.

The finding that nosocomial infection was an independent predictor of death “pushed us to look at nosocomial infection as a new independent risk factor,” Dr. Elkrief said.

Dr. Elkrief reported grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. D’Souza did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Elkrief A et al. AACR: COVID and Cancer, Abstract S12-01.

Hospitalized cancer patients have a high risk of nosocomial COVID-19 that is associated with increased mortality, so these patients should be treated in COVID-free zones, according to researchers.

In an observational study of patients with COVID-19 and cancer, 19% of patients had COVID-19 acquired during a non-COVID-related hospital stay, and 81% had community-acquired COVID-19.

At a median follow-up of 23 days, the overall mortality rate was 28%. However, the all-cause mortality rate in patients with nosocomial COVID-19 was more than double that of patients with community-acquired COVID-19, at 47% and 23%, respectively.

Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the University of Montreal, reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

“This is the first report that describes a high rate of hospital-acquired COVID-19 in patients with cancer, at a rate of 19%,” Dr. Elkrief said. “This was associated with high mortality in both univariate and multivariate analyses.”

The study included 250 adults and 3 children with COVID-19 and cancer who were identified between March 3 and May 23, 2020. They ranged in age from 4 to 95 years, but the median age was 73 years.

All patients had either laboratory-confirmed (95%) or presumed COVID-19 (5%) and invasive cancer. The most common cancer types were similar to those seen in the general population. Lung and breast cancer were the most common, followed by lymphoma, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. Most patients were on active anticancer therapy, most often chemotherapy.

Most patients (n = 236) were residents of Quebec, but 17 patients were residents of British Columbia.

“It is important to note that Quebec was one of the most heavily affected areas in North America at the time of the study,” Dr. Elkrief said.
 

Outcomes by group

There were 206 patients (81%) who had community-acquired COVID-19 and 47 (19%) who had nosocomial COVID-19. The two groups were similar with respect to sex, performance status, and cancer stage. A small trend toward more patients on active therapy was seen in the nosocomial group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

The median overall survival was 27 days in the nosocomial group and 71 days in the community-acquired group (hazard ratio, 2.2; P = .002).

A multivariate analysis showed that nosocomial infection was “strongly and independently associated with death,” Dr. Elkrief said. “Other risk factors for poor prognosis included age, poor [performance] status, and advanced stage of cancer.”

There were no significant differences between the hospital-acquired and community-acquired groups for other outcomes, including oxygen requirements (43% and 47%, respectively), ICU admission (13% and 11%), need for mechanical ventilation (6% and 5%), or length of stay (median, 9.5 days and 8.5 days).

The low rate of ICU admission, considering the mortality rate of 28%, “could reflect that patients with cancer are less likely to be admitted to the ICU,” Dr. Elkrief noted.
 

Applying the findings to practice

The findings reinforce the importance of adherence to stringent infection control guidelines to protect vulnerable patients, such as those with cancer, Dr. Elkrief said.

In ambulatory settings, this means decreasing in-person visits through increased use of teleconsultations, and for those who need to be seen in person, screening for symptoms or use of polymerase chain reaction testing should be used when resources are available, she said.

“Similar principles apply to chemotherapy treatment units,” Dr. Elkrief said. She added that staff must avoid cross-contamination between COVID and COVID-free zones, and that “dedicated personnel and equipment should be maintained and separate between these two zones.

“Adequate protective personal equipment and strict hand hygiene protocols are also of utmost importance,” Dr. Elkrief said. “The threat of COVID-19 is not behind us, and so we continue to enforce these strategies to protect our patients.”

Session moderator Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, raised the question of whether the high nosocomial infection and death rate in this study was related to patients having more severe disease because of underlying comorbidities.

Dr. Elkrief explained that the overall mortality rate was indeed higher than the 13% reported in other studies, and it may reflect an overrepresentation of hospitalized or more severely ill patients in the cohort.

However, the investigators made every effort to include all patients with both cancer and COVID-19 by using systematic screening of inpatient and outpatients lists and registries.

Further, the multivariate analysis included both inpatients and outpatients and adjusted for known negative prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes. These included increasing age, poor performance status, and different comorbidities.

The finding that nosocomial infection was an independent predictor of death “pushed us to look at nosocomial infection as a new independent risk factor,” Dr. Elkrief said.

Dr. Elkrief reported grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. D’Souza did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Elkrief A et al. AACR: COVID and Cancer, Abstract S12-01.

While SARS-CoV-2 causes frequent and potentially severe pulmonary disease, extrapulmonary manifestations may be a prominent part of the clinical spectrum, according to a review published in Nature Medicine.

In this comprehensive literature review, Aakriti Gupta, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and colleagues detailed the epidemiologic and clinical multisystem effects of COVID-19. The authors explained what is known and/or suspected about the pathophysiology of those effects and outlined the resultant management considerations.

Key mechanisms for multiorgan injury include direct viral toxicity, endothelial cell damage with inflammatory mediation of thrombosis, aberrant immune response, and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

The relative importance of each pathway in the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and the mechanism for extrapulmonary spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection are imperfectly understood, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted.

As for the hematologic effects of COVID-19, patients may present with several laboratory abnormalities, but the most clinically relevant complications are thromboembolic.
 

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy

Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) is accompanied by elevated levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen, with minor abnormalities in prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts in the initial stage of infection.

Elevated D-dimer levels have been reported in up to 46% of hospitalized patients, and a longitudinal increase while hospitalized is associated with higher mortality.

In initial reports from China and the Netherlands, thrombotic complications were seen in up to 30% of COVID-19 patients in ICUs. Thromboembolic events have been reported in 17%-22% of critically ill COVID-19 patients in studies from Italy and France.

Globally, in severely affected COVID-19 patients, there have been reports of thromboses in intravenous catheters and extracorporeal circuits as well as arterial vascular occlusive events, including myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, and stroke.

There have been multiple small studies in which critically ill COVID-19 patients were routinely screened for thrombotic disease. In these studies, rates of thrombotic complications ranged from 69% to 85%, despite thromboprophylaxis. Variability in prophylactic and screening protocols explain discrepancies in event rates.
 

Pathophysiology

The abnormally high blood levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection are reflective of excessive inflammation rather than overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which may develop in later stages of illness, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues. The authors theorized that uninhibited inflammation, along with hypoxia and direct viral-mediated cellular injury, contribute to thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients.

“The increased expression of ACE2 in endothelial cells after infection with SARS-CoV-2 may perpetuate a vicious cycle of endothelialitis that promotes thromboinflammation,” the authors wrote. “Collectively, hemostatic and inflammatory changes, which reflect endothelial damage and activation as well as critical illness, constitute a prothrombotic milieu.”

The authors noted that small autopsy series have shown high rates of microvascular and macrovascular thromboses, particularly in the pulmonary circulation, in COVID-19 patients.
 

Management considerations

Dr. Gupta and colleagues referenced interim guidelines from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that recommend serial complete blood counts, with white blood cell differential and assessment of D-dimer, prothrombin time, and fibrinogen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The authors also cited guidelines published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that recommend routine risk assessment for venous thromboembolism in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the consideration of standard-dose pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients who lack absolute contraindications.

Empiric use of higher-than-routine prophylactic-dose or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in ICU patients in the absence of proven thromboses has been implemented in some institutions, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted. Parenteral anticoagulants (such as low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin) are preferred to oral anticoagulants because of short half-life, available reversal agents, and the potential for drug interactions between oral agents and antiviral and/or antibacterial treatment, according to the authors.

They wrote that randomized clinical trials “will be crucial to establishing effective and safe strategies” for anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. To this point, few randomized trials have been published to guide management of COVID-19–associated extrapulmonary manifestations, including CAC.
 

Research priorities

A more complete understanding of the organ-specific pathophysiology of this multisystem disease is vital, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues.

“Regional, national, and international collaborations of clinicians and scientists focused on high-quality, transparent, ethical, and evidence-based research practices would help propel the global community toward achieving success against this pandemic,” the authors wrote.

They noted that common definitions and data standards for research are key for cross-institutional and international collaborations.

Initial attention to high-quality prospective scientific documentation standards would have been valuable and will be required for dedicated trials to address the multisystem effects of COVID-19.
 

Community of learners

As much as at any prior time in their careers, during the COVID-19 pandemic, health care providers have been enveloped in a community of learners – a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another.

Through a patchwork of sources – news media, social media, traditional medical journals, general and COVID-focused meetings, and, most importantly, patients – we have been living in a learning-centered environment. Academicians, clinicians, practicing physicians, researchers, patients, family members, and caregivers have been actively and intentionally building a knowledge base together.

Through their published review, Dr. Gupta and colleagues have contributed meaningfully to the understanding our learning community has of the various extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The authors have provided a nice template for further research and clinical advances.

Dr. Gupta and colleagues disclosed financial relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gupta A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1017-32.

While SARS-CoV-2 causes frequent and potentially severe pulmonary disease, extrapulmonary manifestations may be a prominent part of the clinical spectrum, according to a review published in Nature Medicine.

In this comprehensive literature review, Aakriti Gupta, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and colleagues detailed the epidemiologic and clinical multisystem effects of COVID-19. The authors explained what is known and/or suspected about the pathophysiology of those effects and outlined the resultant management considerations.

Key mechanisms for multiorgan injury include direct viral toxicity, endothelial cell damage with inflammatory mediation of thrombosis, aberrant immune response, and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

The relative importance of each pathway in the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and the mechanism for extrapulmonary spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection are imperfectly understood, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted.

As for the hematologic effects of COVID-19, patients may present with several laboratory abnormalities, but the most clinically relevant complications are thromboembolic.
 

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy

Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) is accompanied by elevated levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen, with minor abnormalities in prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts in the initial stage of infection.

Elevated D-dimer levels have been reported in up to 46% of hospitalized patients, and a longitudinal increase while hospitalized is associated with higher mortality.

In initial reports from China and the Netherlands, thrombotic complications were seen in up to 30% of COVID-19 patients in ICUs. Thromboembolic events have been reported in 17%-22% of critically ill COVID-19 patients in studies from Italy and France.

Globally, in severely affected COVID-19 patients, there have been reports of thromboses in intravenous catheters and extracorporeal circuits as well as arterial vascular occlusive events, including myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, and stroke.

There have been multiple small studies in which critically ill COVID-19 patients were routinely screened for thrombotic disease. In these studies, rates of thrombotic complications ranged from 69% to 85%, despite thromboprophylaxis. Variability in prophylactic and screening protocols explain discrepancies in event rates.
 

Pathophysiology

The abnormally high blood levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection are reflective of excessive inflammation rather than overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which may develop in later stages of illness, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues. The authors theorized that uninhibited inflammation, along with hypoxia and direct viral-mediated cellular injury, contribute to thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients.

“The increased expression of ACE2 in endothelial cells after infection with SARS-CoV-2 may perpetuate a vicious cycle of endothelialitis that promotes thromboinflammation,” the authors wrote. “Collectively, hemostatic and inflammatory changes, which reflect endothelial damage and activation as well as critical illness, constitute a prothrombotic milieu.”

The authors noted that small autopsy series have shown high rates of microvascular and macrovascular thromboses, particularly in the pulmonary circulation, in COVID-19 patients.
 

Management considerations

Dr. Gupta and colleagues referenced interim guidelines from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that recommend serial complete blood counts, with white blood cell differential and assessment of D-dimer, prothrombin time, and fibrinogen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The authors also cited guidelines published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that recommend routine risk assessment for venous thromboembolism in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the consideration of standard-dose pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients who lack absolute contraindications.

Empiric use of higher-than-routine prophylactic-dose or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in ICU patients in the absence of proven thromboses has been implemented in some institutions, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted. Parenteral anticoagulants (such as low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin) are preferred to oral anticoagulants because of short half-life, available reversal agents, and the potential for drug interactions between oral agents and antiviral and/or antibacterial treatment, according to the authors.

They wrote that randomized clinical trials “will be crucial to establishing effective and safe strategies” for anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. To this point, few randomized trials have been published to guide management of COVID-19–associated extrapulmonary manifestations, including CAC.
 

Research priorities

A more complete understanding of the organ-specific pathophysiology of this multisystem disease is vital, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues.

“Regional, national, and international collaborations of clinicians and scientists focused on high-quality, transparent, ethical, and evidence-based research practices would help propel the global community toward achieving success against this pandemic,” the authors wrote.

They noted that common definitions and data standards for research are key for cross-institutional and international collaborations.

Initial attention to high-quality prospective scientific documentation standards would have been valuable and will be required for dedicated trials to address the multisystem effects of COVID-19.
 

Community of learners

As much as at any prior time in their careers, during the COVID-19 pandemic, health care providers have been enveloped in a community of learners – a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another.

Through a patchwork of sources – news media, social media, traditional medical journals, general and COVID-focused meetings, and, most importantly, patients – we have been living in a learning-centered environment. Academicians, clinicians, practicing physicians, researchers, patients, family members, and caregivers have been actively and intentionally building a knowledge base together.

Through their published review, Dr. Gupta and colleagues have contributed meaningfully to the understanding our learning community has of the various extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The authors have provided a nice template for further research and clinical advances.

Dr. Gupta and colleagues disclosed financial relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gupta A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1017-32.

While SARS-CoV-2 causes frequent and potentially severe pulmonary disease, extrapulmonary manifestations may be a prominent part of the clinical spectrum, according to a review published in Nature Medicine.

In this comprehensive literature review, Aakriti Gupta, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and colleagues detailed the epidemiologic and clinical multisystem effects of COVID-19. The authors explained what is known and/or suspected about the pathophysiology of those effects and outlined the resultant management considerations.

Key mechanisms for multiorgan injury include direct viral toxicity, endothelial cell damage with inflammatory mediation of thrombosis, aberrant immune response, and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

The relative importance of each pathway in the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and the mechanism for extrapulmonary spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection are imperfectly understood, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted.

As for the hematologic effects of COVID-19, patients may present with several laboratory abnormalities, but the most clinically relevant complications are thromboembolic.
 

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy

Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) is accompanied by elevated levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen, with minor abnormalities in prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts in the initial stage of infection.

Elevated D-dimer levels have been reported in up to 46% of hospitalized patients, and a longitudinal increase while hospitalized is associated with higher mortality.

In initial reports from China and the Netherlands, thrombotic complications were seen in up to 30% of COVID-19 patients in ICUs. Thromboembolic events have been reported in 17%-22% of critically ill COVID-19 patients in studies from Italy and France.

Globally, in severely affected COVID-19 patients, there have been reports of thromboses in intravenous catheters and extracorporeal circuits as well as arterial vascular occlusive events, including myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, and stroke.

There have been multiple small studies in which critically ill COVID-19 patients were routinely screened for thrombotic disease. In these studies, rates of thrombotic complications ranged from 69% to 85%, despite thromboprophylaxis. Variability in prophylactic and screening protocols explain discrepancies in event rates.
 

Pathophysiology

The abnormally high blood levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection are reflective of excessive inflammation rather than overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which may develop in later stages of illness, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues. The authors theorized that uninhibited inflammation, along with hypoxia and direct viral-mediated cellular injury, contribute to thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients.

“The increased expression of ACE2 in endothelial cells after infection with SARS-CoV-2 may perpetuate a vicious cycle of endothelialitis that promotes thromboinflammation,” the authors wrote. “Collectively, hemostatic and inflammatory changes, which reflect endothelial damage and activation as well as critical illness, constitute a prothrombotic milieu.”

The authors noted that small autopsy series have shown high rates of microvascular and macrovascular thromboses, particularly in the pulmonary circulation, in COVID-19 patients.
 

Management considerations

Dr. Gupta and colleagues referenced interim guidelines from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that recommend serial complete blood counts, with white blood cell differential and assessment of D-dimer, prothrombin time, and fibrinogen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The authors also cited guidelines published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that recommend routine risk assessment for venous thromboembolism in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the consideration of standard-dose pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients who lack absolute contraindications.

Empiric use of higher-than-routine prophylactic-dose or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in ICU patients in the absence of proven thromboses has been implemented in some institutions, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted. Parenteral anticoagulants (such as low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin) are preferred to oral anticoagulants because of short half-life, available reversal agents, and the potential for drug interactions between oral agents and antiviral and/or antibacterial treatment, according to the authors.

They wrote that randomized clinical trials “will be crucial to establishing effective and safe strategies” for anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. To this point, few randomized trials have been published to guide management of COVID-19–associated extrapulmonary manifestations, including CAC.
 

Research priorities

A more complete understanding of the organ-specific pathophysiology of this multisystem disease is vital, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues.

“Regional, national, and international collaborations of clinicians and scientists focused on high-quality, transparent, ethical, and evidence-based research practices would help propel the global community toward achieving success against this pandemic,” the authors wrote.

They noted that common definitions and data standards for research are key for cross-institutional and international collaborations.

Initial attention to high-quality prospective scientific documentation standards would have been valuable and will be required for dedicated trials to address the multisystem effects of COVID-19.
 

Community of learners

As much as at any prior time in their careers, during the COVID-19 pandemic, health care providers have been enveloped in a community of learners – a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another.

Through a patchwork of sources – news media, social media, traditional medical journals, general and COVID-focused meetings, and, most importantly, patients – we have been living in a learning-centered environment. Academicians, clinicians, practicing physicians, researchers, patients, family members, and caregivers have been actively and intentionally building a knowledge base together.

Through their published review, Dr. Gupta and colleagues have contributed meaningfully to the understanding our learning community has of the various extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The authors have provided a nice template for further research and clinical advances.

Dr. Gupta and colleagues disclosed financial relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gupta A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1017-32.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus, Kite Pharma), the first approved chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The new agent is the second approved CAR T cell product developed by Kite and follows the 2017 approval of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

“Despite promising advances, there are still major gaps in treatment for patients with MCL who progress following initial therapy,” investigator Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in a company statement. “Many patients have high-risk disease and are more likely to keep progressing, even after subsequent treatments.”

In the same press statement, Meghan Gutierrez, chief executive officer, Lymphoma Research Foundation, said: “This approval marks the first CAR T cell therapy approved for mantle cell lymphoma patients and represents a new frontier in the treatment of this disease.”

The approval of the single-infusion therapy is based on efficacy and safety data from the ongoing, single-arm ZUMA-2 pivotal trial, which enrolled 74 adult patients. All patients had previously received anthracycline- or bendamustine-containing chemotherapy, an anti-CD20 antibody therapy and a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib or acalabrutinib).

In the trial, there was an objective response rate, which was the primary outcome measure, of 87% among 60 patients who were evaluable for efficacy analysis; 62% had a complete response. 

Among all patients, follow-up was at least 6 months after their first objective disease response. Median duration of response has not yet been reached.

In terms of adverse events, 18% of the 82 patients evaluable for safety experienced > grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 37% experienced neurologic events, per the company statement. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3 or higher adverse reactions were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypotension, hypophosphatemia, encephalopathy, leukopenia, hypoxia, pyrexia, hyponatremia, hypertension, infection-pathogen unspecified, pneumonia, hypocalcemia, and lymphopenia.

Brexucabtagene autoleucel will be manufactured in Kite’s facility in California. In the pivotal trial, there was a 96% manufacturing success rate and a median manufacturing turnaround time of 15 days from leukapheresis to product delivery.  
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus, Kite Pharma), the first approved chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The new agent is the second approved CAR T cell product developed by Kite and follows the 2017 approval of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

“Despite promising advances, there are still major gaps in treatment for patients with MCL who progress following initial therapy,” investigator Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in a company statement. “Many patients have high-risk disease and are more likely to keep progressing, even after subsequent treatments.”

In the same press statement, Meghan Gutierrez, chief executive officer, Lymphoma Research Foundation, said: “This approval marks the first CAR T cell therapy approved for mantle cell lymphoma patients and represents a new frontier in the treatment of this disease.”

The approval of the single-infusion therapy is based on efficacy and safety data from the ongoing, single-arm ZUMA-2 pivotal trial, which enrolled 74 adult patients. All patients had previously received anthracycline- or bendamustine-containing chemotherapy, an anti-CD20 antibody therapy and a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib or acalabrutinib).

In the trial, there was an objective response rate, which was the primary outcome measure, of 87% among 60 patients who were evaluable for efficacy analysis; 62% had a complete response. 

Among all patients, follow-up was at least 6 months after their first objective disease response. Median duration of response has not yet been reached.

In terms of adverse events, 18% of the 82 patients evaluable for safety experienced > grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 37% experienced neurologic events, per the company statement. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3 or higher adverse reactions were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypotension, hypophosphatemia, encephalopathy, leukopenia, hypoxia, pyrexia, hyponatremia, hypertension, infection-pathogen unspecified, pneumonia, hypocalcemia, and lymphopenia.

Brexucabtagene autoleucel will be manufactured in Kite’s facility in California. In the pivotal trial, there was a 96% manufacturing success rate and a median manufacturing turnaround time of 15 days from leukapheresis to product delivery.  
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus, Kite Pharma), the first approved chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The new agent is the second approved CAR T cell product developed by Kite and follows the 2017 approval of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

“Despite promising advances, there are still major gaps in treatment for patients with MCL who progress following initial therapy,” investigator Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in a company statement. “Many patients have high-risk disease and are more likely to keep progressing, even after subsequent treatments.”

In the same press statement, Meghan Gutierrez, chief executive officer, Lymphoma Research Foundation, said: “This approval marks the first CAR T cell therapy approved for mantle cell lymphoma patients and represents a new frontier in the treatment of this disease.”

The approval of the single-infusion therapy is based on efficacy and safety data from the ongoing, single-arm ZUMA-2 pivotal trial, which enrolled 74 adult patients. All patients had previously received anthracycline- or bendamustine-containing chemotherapy, an anti-CD20 antibody therapy and a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib or acalabrutinib).

In the trial, there was an objective response rate, which was the primary outcome measure, of 87% among 60 patients who were evaluable for efficacy analysis; 62% had a complete response. 

Among all patients, follow-up was at least 6 months after their first objective disease response. Median duration of response has not yet been reached.

In terms of adverse events, 18% of the 82 patients evaluable for safety experienced > grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 37% experienced neurologic events, per the company statement. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3 or higher adverse reactions were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypotension, hypophosphatemia, encephalopathy, leukopenia, hypoxia, pyrexia, hyponatremia, hypertension, infection-pathogen unspecified, pneumonia, hypocalcemia, and lymphopenia.

Brexucabtagene autoleucel will be manufactured in Kite’s facility in California. In the pivotal trial, there was a 96% manufacturing success rate and a median manufacturing turnaround time of 15 days from leukapheresis to product delivery.  
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

Non-Hispanic black patients with cancer and patients with hematologic malignancies have a significantly increased risk of death if they develop COVID-19, according to the latest data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Initial results from the CCC19 registry were reported as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program and published in The Lancet (Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395[10241]:1907-18).

The latest data were presented at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer by Brian I. Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. They were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery (Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul 22;CD-20-0941).

The CCC19 registry was launched in March by a few institutions as part of “a grassroots idea ... to collect granular data regarding cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID,” Dr. Rini said.

Within a few months of its inception, the registry had partnered with more than 100 institutions worldwide and accrued data from more than 2,000 patients.

The reports in The Lancet and at ASCO included outcomes for the first 928 patients and showed a 13% mortality rate as well as a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality among patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer.

The data also showed an increased mortality risk among older patients, men, former smokers, those with poor performance status, those with multiple comorbidities, and those treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The latest data

The CCC19 registry has grown to include 114 sites worldwide, including major comprehensive cancer centers and community sites. As of June 26, there were 2,749 patients enrolled.

Since the last data were reported, the mortality rate increased from 13% to 16% (versus 5% globally). In addition, the increased mortality risk among non-Hispanic black patients and patients with hematologic malignancies reached statistical significance, Dr. Rini said. He noted that the increase in mortality rate was largely attributable to improved follow-up.

Mechanical ventilation was required in 12% of patients, ICU admission was required in 16%, oxygen was required in 45%, and hospitalization was required in 60%. The composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation was reached in 29% of patients, Dr. Rini said.

Mortality rates across cancer types ranged from 3% to 26%, with thyroid and breast cancer patients having the lowest rates (3% and 8%, respectively), and with lymphoma and lung cancer patients having the highest (22% and 26%, respectively), Dr. Rini said.

He noted that the TERAVOLT registry, a COVID-19 registry for patients with thoracic cancers, also showed a very high mortality rate in this subgroup of patients.

Results from TERAVOLT were reported at the AACR virtual meeting I, presented at ASCO, and published in The Lancet (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21[7]:914-22). The most recent results showed a mortality rate of nearly 36% and reinforce the high mortality rate seen in lung cancer patients in CCC19, Dr. Rini said.
 

Increased mortality risk

After adjustment for several demographic and disease characteristics, the updated CCC19 data showed a significantly increased risk of mortality among:

• Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per decade of age, 1.52).
• Men (aOR, 1.43).
• Current or former smokers vs. never smokers (aOR, 1.28).
• Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 1 vs. 0 (aOR of 1.80) or 2 vs. 0 (aOR, 4.22).
• Stable cancer vs. remission (aOR, 1.47).
• Progressive cancer vs. remission (aOR, 2.96).
• Non-Hispanic Black vs. White patients (aOR, 1.56).
• Hematologic malignancies vs. solid tumors (aOR, 1.80).

“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” Dr. Rini said. These include obesity (aOR, 1.23), recent surgery (aOR, 1.05), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 1.14), and receipt of noncytotoxic chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (aOR, 0.75).

“I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients,” Dr. Rini said.

He noted, however, that in TERAVOLT, chemotherapy with or without other treatment was a risk factor for mortality in lung cancer patients when compared with no chemotherapy (OR, 1.71) and when compared with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (OR, 1.64).
 

NCCAPS and other registries

Dr. Rini discussed a number of registries looking at outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cancer, and he said the findings to date appear to confirm a higher mortality rate among cancer patients, particularly those with lung cancer.

Several factors are emerging that appear to be related to risk, including both cancer-related and non–cancer-related factors, he added.

The ongoing prospective National Cancer Institute COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS) “will provide much needed longitudinal data and, importantly, biospecimen collection in a large cohort of patients who have active cancer and are receiving treatment, said Dr. Rini, who is the study’s protocol chair. NCCAPS is a natural history study in that population, he said.

The planned accrual is about 2,000 patients who will be followed for up to 2 years for data collection, imaging scans, and research specimens.

The use of specimens is “a unique and special part of this study,” Dr. Rini said, explaining that the specimens will be used to look for development of antibodies over time, to describe the trajectory of cytokine abnormalities – especially in patients with more acute inpatient courses – to perform DNA-based genome-wide association studies, and to assess coagulation parameters.

NCCAPS is activated at 546 sties, 10 patients were enrolled as of June 21, and rapid accrual is expected over the next several months, he said.

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, session moderator and an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, acknowledged the challenge that registry administrators face when trying to balance the need to get data out against the desire to ask the right questions and to have the right comparison groups, stratification, and analyses, especially amid a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rini said it has indeed been a bit of a struggle with CCC19 to determine what information should be published and when, and what constitutes an important update.

“It’s been a learning experience, and frankly, I think we’re still learning,” he said. “This has been such a unique time in terms of a rush to get data out, balanced against making sure that there’s quality data and that you’re actually answering important questions.”

In fact, a number of ongoing registries “should start to produce great data [that will be presented] at upcoming big conferences,” Dr. Rini said. He added that those data “will help piece together different important aspects of this and different hypotheses, and hopefully complement the clinical data that’s starting to come out.”

The CCC19 registry is sponsored by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Dr. Rini disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, Arrowhead, and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. D’Souza did not disclose any conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rini BI. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer. Abstract IA26.

There are genetic differences when comparing prostate tumors from African American men and European-American men, but none of these differences are of clinical significance for the genetically targeted treatments available to date, according to an analysis published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“[N]o significant differences were seen in clinically actionable DNA repair genes, MSI-high [microsatellite instability–high] status, and tumor mutation burden, suggesting that current therapeutic strategies may be equally beneficial in both populations,” wrote study author Yusuke Koga, of the Boston University, and colleagues.

“Since these findings suggest that the frequency of targetable genetic alterations is similar in patients of predominantly African versus European ancestry, offering comprehensive genomic profiling and biomarker-based therapies to all patients, including African American patients, is a critical component of promoting equity in the management of metastatic prostate cancer,” said Atish D. Choudhury, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

Mr. Koga and colleagues noted that, when compared with European-American men, African American men have a higher incidence of prostate cancer, present with more advanced disease at an earlier age, and have increased mortality. These differences persist even after adjustment for socioeconomic covariates. That raises the question of the role of genetics.

“There is emerging evidence that, across some clinical trials and equal-access health systems, outcomes between AFR [African-American] men and European-American men with prostate cancer are similar,” the investigators wrote. “Although these data suggest that disparities can be ameliorated, there is limited knowledge of the genomic alterations that differ between groups and that could impact clinical outcomes.”
 

Study details and results

To get a handle on the issue, the investigators performed a meta-analysis of tumors from 250 African American men and 611 European-American men to compare the frequencies of somatic alterations across datasets from the Cancer Genome Atlas, the African Ancestry prostate cancer cohort, and the Memorial Sloan Kettering–Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets panel.

The team also compared prostate cancer sequencing data from a commercial platform, the Foundation Medicine assay, from 436 African-American men and 3,018 European-American men.

In the meta-analysis, mutations in ZFHX3 and focal deletions in ETV3 were more common in tumors from African American men than in tumors from European-American men. Both genes are putative prostate cancer tumor suppressors, the investigators noted.

TP53 mutations, meanwhile, were associated with increasing Gleason scores in both groups, suggesting “that if TP53 mutations are found in low-grade disease, they may potentially indicate a more aggressive clinical trajectory,” the investigators wrote.

In the analysis with the commercial assay, MYC amplifications were more frequent in African American men with metastatic disease, raising “the possibility that MYC amplifications may also contribute to high-risk disease in this population,” the team wrote.

Deletions in PTEN and rearrangements in TMPRSS2-ERG were less frequent in tumors from African American men, but KMT2D truncations and CCND1 amplifications were more frequent.

“Higher expression of CCND1 has been implicated with perineural invasion in prostate cancer, an aggressive histological feature in prostate cancer. Truncating mutations in KMT2D have been reported in both localized and metastatic prostate cancer patients with unclear clinical significance,” the investigators noted.

“The genomic differences seen in genes such as MYC, ZFHX3, PTEN, and TMPRSS2-ERG suggest that different pathways of carcinogenesis may be active in AFR [African American] men, which could lead to further disparities if targeted therapies for some of these alterations become available,” the team wrote.

They noted that the meta-analysis was limited by the fact that some cohorts lacked matched tumors from European-American men, which limited the investigators’ ability to control for differences in region, clinical setting, or sequencing assay. Furthermore, age, tumor stage, and Gleason grade were unavailable in the cohort analyzed with the commercial assay.

This research was funded by the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Two authors are employees of Foundation Medicine.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Koga Y et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-4112.

There are genetic differences when comparing prostate tumors from African American men and European-American men, but none of these differences are of clinical significance for the genetically targeted treatments available to date, according to an analysis published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“[N]o significant differences were seen in clinically actionable DNA repair genes, MSI-high [microsatellite instability–high] status, and tumor mutation burden, suggesting that current therapeutic strategies may be equally beneficial in both populations,” wrote study author Yusuke Koga, of the Boston University, and colleagues.

“Since these findings suggest that the frequency of targetable genetic alterations is similar in patients of predominantly African versus European ancestry, offering comprehensive genomic profiling and biomarker-based therapies to all patients, including African American patients, is a critical component of promoting equity in the management of metastatic prostate cancer,” said Atish D. Choudhury, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

Mr. Koga and colleagues noted that, when compared with European-American men, African American men have a higher incidence of prostate cancer, present with more advanced disease at an earlier age, and have increased mortality. These differences persist even after adjustment for socioeconomic covariates. That raises the question of the role of genetics.

“There is emerging evidence that, across some clinical trials and equal-access health systems, outcomes between AFR [African-American] men and European-American men with prostate cancer are similar,” the investigators wrote. “Although these data suggest that disparities can be ameliorated, there is limited knowledge of the genomic alterations that differ between groups and that could impact clinical outcomes.”
 

Study details and results

To get a handle on the issue, the investigators performed a meta-analysis of tumors from 250 African American men and 611 European-American men to compare the frequencies of somatic alterations across datasets from the Cancer Genome Atlas, the African Ancestry prostate cancer cohort, and the Memorial Sloan Kettering–Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets panel.

The team also compared prostate cancer sequencing data from a commercial platform, the Foundation Medicine assay, from 436 African-American men and 3,018 European-American men.

In the meta-analysis, mutations in ZFHX3 and focal deletions in ETV3 were more common in tumors from African American men than in tumors from European-American men. Both genes are putative prostate cancer tumor suppressors, the investigators noted.

TP53 mutations, meanwhile, were associated with increasing Gleason scores in both groups, suggesting “that if TP53 mutations are found in low-grade disease, they may potentially indicate a more aggressive clinical trajectory,” the investigators wrote.

In the analysis with the commercial assay, MYC amplifications were more frequent in African American men with metastatic disease, raising “the possibility that MYC amplifications may also contribute to high-risk disease in this population,” the team wrote.

Deletions in PTEN and rearrangements in TMPRSS2-ERG were less frequent in tumors from African American men, but KMT2D truncations and CCND1 amplifications were more frequent.

“Higher expression of CCND1 has been implicated with perineural invasion in prostate cancer, an aggressive histological feature in prostate cancer. Truncating mutations in KMT2D have been reported in both localized and metastatic prostate cancer patients with unclear clinical significance,” the investigators noted.

“The genomic differences seen in genes such as MYC, ZFHX3, PTEN, and TMPRSS2-ERG suggest that different pathways of carcinogenesis may be active in AFR [African American] men, which could lead to further disparities if targeted therapies for some of these alterations become available,” the team wrote.

They noted that the meta-analysis was limited by the fact that some cohorts lacked matched tumors from European-American men, which limited the investigators’ ability to control for differences in region, clinical setting, or sequencing assay. Furthermore, age, tumor stage, and Gleason grade were unavailable in the cohort analyzed with the commercial assay.

This research was funded by the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Two authors are employees of Foundation Medicine.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Koga Y et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-4112.

There are genetic differences when comparing prostate tumors from African American men and European-American men, but none of these differences are of clinical significance for the genetically targeted treatments available to date, according to an analysis published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“[N]o significant differences were seen in clinically actionable DNA repair genes, MSI-high [microsatellite instability–high] status, and tumor mutation burden, suggesting that current therapeutic strategies may be equally beneficial in both populations,” wrote study author Yusuke Koga, of the Boston University, and colleagues.

“Since these findings suggest that the frequency of targetable genetic alterations is similar in patients of predominantly African versus European ancestry, offering comprehensive genomic profiling and biomarker-based therapies to all patients, including African American patients, is a critical component of promoting equity in the management of metastatic prostate cancer,” said Atish D. Choudhury, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

Mr. Koga and colleagues noted that, when compared with European-American men, African American men have a higher incidence of prostate cancer, present with more advanced disease at an earlier age, and have increased mortality. These differences persist even after adjustment for socioeconomic covariates. That raises the question of the role of genetics.

“There is emerging evidence that, across some clinical trials and equal-access health systems, outcomes between AFR [African-American] men and European-American men with prostate cancer are similar,” the investigators wrote. “Although these data suggest that disparities can be ameliorated, there is limited knowledge of the genomic alterations that differ between groups and that could impact clinical outcomes.”
 

Study details and results

To get a handle on the issue, the investigators performed a meta-analysis of tumors from 250 African American men and 611 European-American men to compare the frequencies of somatic alterations across datasets from the Cancer Genome Atlas, the African Ancestry prostate cancer cohort, and the Memorial Sloan Kettering–Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets panel.

The team also compared prostate cancer sequencing data from a commercial platform, the Foundation Medicine assay, from 436 African-American men and 3,018 European-American men.

In the meta-analysis, mutations in ZFHX3 and focal deletions in ETV3 were more common in tumors from African American men than in tumors from European-American men. Both genes are putative prostate cancer tumor suppressors, the investigators noted.

TP53 mutations, meanwhile, were associated with increasing Gleason scores in both groups, suggesting “that if TP53 mutations are found in low-grade disease, they may potentially indicate a more aggressive clinical trajectory,” the investigators wrote.

In the analysis with the commercial assay, MYC amplifications were more frequent in African American men with metastatic disease, raising “the possibility that MYC amplifications may also contribute to high-risk disease in this population,” the team wrote.

Deletions in PTEN and rearrangements in TMPRSS2-ERG were less frequent in tumors from African American men, but KMT2D truncations and CCND1 amplifications were more frequent.

“Higher expression of CCND1 has been implicated with perineural invasion in prostate cancer, an aggressive histological feature in prostate cancer. Truncating mutations in KMT2D have been reported in both localized and metastatic prostate cancer patients with unclear clinical significance,” the investigators noted.

“The genomic differences seen in genes such as MYC, ZFHX3, PTEN, and TMPRSS2-ERG suggest that different pathways of carcinogenesis may be active in AFR [African American] men, which could lead to further disparities if targeted therapies for some of these alterations become available,” the team wrote.

They noted that the meta-analysis was limited by the fact that some cohorts lacked matched tumors from European-American men, which limited the investigators’ ability to control for differences in region, clinical setting, or sequencing assay. Furthermore, age, tumor stage, and Gleason grade were unavailable in the cohort analyzed with the commercial assay.

This research was funded by the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Two authors are employees of Foundation Medicine.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Koga Y et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-4112.

Most U.S. oncologists live within in their means and save their money, and a large proportion have a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, according to the new Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The average annual income for oncologists surveyed was $377,000, which was 5% higher than the $359,000 reported for 2018. This put oncologists in eleventh place among 29 specialties.

However, this information was obtained prior to February 11, 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States, and the financial situation has changed for many physicians.

For example, primary care physicians have reported a 55% decrease in revenue along with a 20% to 30% reduction in patient volume. The decline has even led some to shutter their physical offices, according to the larger survey of all physicians, the Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. This full survey included 17, 461 physicians and represented 30 specialties.

Physicians in specialty practices may be facing even greater reductions. “Specialists are currently having more troubles than PCPs because they’re largely dependent on elective cases, which can’t be directly addressed by telemedicine,” commented Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in the survey.

Community oncology clinics and practices have reported a substantial decline in office visits and new patients because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, clinics had been closing in recent years as a result of being acquired, merging, or because of financial struggles, although that trend has been plateauing, according to the latest report from the Community Oncology Alliance.
 

Oncologists’ net worth

With regard to net worth, 42% of the oncologists surveyed reported having assets totaling from $1 million to $5 million, which is about the same for physicians in general. Only 15% reported a net worth of $5 million or higher; a quarter reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Wealth is more evenly divided when it comes to gender in comparison with other specialties. For all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth of more than $1 million. For oncologists, that ratio is 59% of men and 54% of women.

Not surprisingly, net worth also increased by age. Only about a quarter (27%) of oncologists younger than age 45 reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, compared to 48% aged 45-54 and 56% of physicians aged 55-64. This makes sense, inasmuch as earnings generally increase over time and early-career debt is paid down. However, net worth does appear to decline somewhat after the age of 65, presumably because of a decrease in income on retirement.
 

Debts and expenses

For debts and expenses that are currently being paid off, mortgage on a primary residence (59%) topped the list. More than half of oncologists reported living in a home that is 3,000 sq ft or larger, and nearly half (49%) have a mortgage of $300,000 or higher. About a third of the oncologists surveyed have no mortgage or one that has been paid off.

Car loan payments (35%) and college education/medical school loans (25%) were the second and third most common sources of debt. As compared with other specialties, oncologists land right in the middle of those still paying off school loans. Only 15% reported that they had no debts or expenses to be paid off.
 

Savings and living within one’s means

The average American has four credit cards. About half of oncologists surveyed reported having four or fewer, although about a fifth (22%) have seven or more. But the vast majority reported living within their means (49%) or below their means (46%). Only 6% reported living above their means.

Surveyed oncologists also reported putting money aside in a tax-deferred retirement account or college savings account. Almost half (48%) are putting aside more than $2000 every month, and 28% save from $1000 to $2000. A small percentage (8%) reported not doing this on a regular basis.

A smaller percentage (40%) responded that they put more than $2000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account; 18% reported not doing this on a regular basis. More than two thirds also reported either having a written budget or a mental one for their personal expenses.

In 2019, most oncologists (77%) did not experience a financial loss. For those who did, bad investments on the stock market (14%) were the main cause. A smaller number reported real estate losses, problems with their practice, or job loss.

Nearly half (49%) reported that they currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most U.S. oncologists live within in their means and save their money, and a large proportion have a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, according to the new Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The average annual income for oncologists surveyed was $377,000, which was 5% higher than the $359,000 reported for 2018. This put oncologists in eleventh place among 29 specialties.

However, this information was obtained prior to February 11, 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States, and the financial situation has changed for many physicians.

For example, primary care physicians have reported a 55% decrease in revenue along with a 20% to 30% reduction in patient volume. The decline has even led some to shutter their physical offices, according to the larger survey of all physicians, the Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. This full survey included 17, 461 physicians and represented 30 specialties.

Physicians in specialty practices may be facing even greater reductions. “Specialists are currently having more troubles than PCPs because they’re largely dependent on elective cases, which can’t be directly addressed by telemedicine,” commented Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in the survey.

Community oncology clinics and practices have reported a substantial decline in office visits and new patients because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, clinics had been closing in recent years as a result of being acquired, merging, or because of financial struggles, although that trend has been plateauing, according to the latest report from the Community Oncology Alliance.
 

Oncologists’ net worth

With regard to net worth, 42% of the oncologists surveyed reported having assets totaling from $1 million to $5 million, which is about the same for physicians in general. Only 15% reported a net worth of $5 million or higher; a quarter reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Wealth is more evenly divided when it comes to gender in comparison with other specialties. For all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth of more than $1 million. For oncologists, that ratio is 59% of men and 54% of women.

Not surprisingly, net worth also increased by age. Only about a quarter (27%) of oncologists younger than age 45 reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, compared to 48% aged 45-54 and 56% of physicians aged 55-64. This makes sense, inasmuch as earnings generally increase over time and early-career debt is paid down. However, net worth does appear to decline somewhat after the age of 65, presumably because of a decrease in income on retirement.
 

Debts and expenses

For debts and expenses that are currently being paid off, mortgage on a primary residence (59%) topped the list. More than half of oncologists reported living in a home that is 3,000 sq ft or larger, and nearly half (49%) have a mortgage of $300,000 or higher. About a third of the oncologists surveyed have no mortgage or one that has been paid off.

Car loan payments (35%) and college education/medical school loans (25%) were the second and third most common sources of debt. As compared with other specialties, oncologists land right in the middle of those still paying off school loans. Only 15% reported that they had no debts or expenses to be paid off.
 

Savings and living within one’s means

The average American has four credit cards. About half of oncologists surveyed reported having four or fewer, although about a fifth (22%) have seven or more. But the vast majority reported living within their means (49%) or below their means (46%). Only 6% reported living above their means.

Surveyed oncologists also reported putting money aside in a tax-deferred retirement account or college savings account. Almost half (48%) are putting aside more than $2000 every month, and 28% save from $1000 to $2000. A small percentage (8%) reported not doing this on a regular basis.

A smaller percentage (40%) responded that they put more than $2000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account; 18% reported not doing this on a regular basis. More than two thirds also reported either having a written budget or a mental one for their personal expenses.

In 2019, most oncologists (77%) did not experience a financial loss. For those who did, bad investments on the stock market (14%) were the main cause. A smaller number reported real estate losses, problems with their practice, or job loss.

Nearly half (49%) reported that they currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most U.S. oncologists live within in their means and save their money, and a large proportion have a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, according to the new Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The average annual income for oncologists surveyed was $377,000, which was 5% higher than the $359,000 reported for 2018. This put oncologists in eleventh place among 29 specialties.

However, this information was obtained prior to February 11, 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States, and the financial situation has changed for many physicians.

For example, primary care physicians have reported a 55% decrease in revenue along with a 20% to 30% reduction in patient volume. The decline has even led some to shutter their physical offices, according to the larger survey of all physicians, the Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. This full survey included 17, 461 physicians and represented 30 specialties.

Physicians in specialty practices may be facing even greater reductions. “Specialists are currently having more troubles than PCPs because they’re largely dependent on elective cases, which can’t be directly addressed by telemedicine,” commented Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in the survey.

Community oncology clinics and practices have reported a substantial decline in office visits and new patients because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, clinics had been closing in recent years as a result of being acquired, merging, or because of financial struggles, although that trend has been plateauing, according to the latest report from the Community Oncology Alliance.
 

Oncologists’ net worth

With regard to net worth, 42% of the oncologists surveyed reported having assets totaling from $1 million to $5 million, which is about the same for physicians in general. Only 15% reported a net worth of $5 million or higher; a quarter reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Wealth is more evenly divided when it comes to gender in comparison with other specialties. For all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth of more than $1 million. For oncologists, that ratio is 59% of men and 54% of women.

Not surprisingly, net worth also increased by age. Only about a quarter (27%) of oncologists younger than age 45 reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, compared to 48% aged 45-54 and 56% of physicians aged 55-64. This makes sense, inasmuch as earnings generally increase over time and early-career debt is paid down. However, net worth does appear to decline somewhat after the age of 65, presumably because of a decrease in income on retirement.
 

Debts and expenses

For debts and expenses that are currently being paid off, mortgage on a primary residence (59%) topped the list. More than half of oncologists reported living in a home that is 3,000 sq ft or larger, and nearly half (49%) have a mortgage of $300,000 or higher. About a third of the oncologists surveyed have no mortgage or one that has been paid off.

Car loan payments (35%) and college education/medical school loans (25%) were the second and third most common sources of debt. As compared with other specialties, oncologists land right in the middle of those still paying off school loans. Only 15% reported that they had no debts or expenses to be paid off.
 

Savings and living within one’s means

The average American has four credit cards. About half of oncologists surveyed reported having four or fewer, although about a fifth (22%) have seven or more. But the vast majority reported living within their means (49%) or below their means (46%). Only 6% reported living above their means.

Surveyed oncologists also reported putting money aside in a tax-deferred retirement account or college savings account. Almost half (48%) are putting aside more than $2000 every month, and 28% save from $1000 to $2000. A small percentage (8%) reported not doing this on a regular basis.

A smaller percentage (40%) responded that they put more than $2000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account; 18% reported not doing this on a regular basis. More than two thirds also reported either having a written budget or a mental one for their personal expenses.

In 2019, most oncologists (77%) did not experience a financial loss. For those who did, bad investments on the stock market (14%) were the main cause. A smaller number reported real estate losses, problems with their practice, or job loss.

Nearly half (49%) reported that they currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.