Original Research

According to National Institutes of Health estimates, more than 90,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in 2018.¹ Overall 5-year survival for patients with melanoma exceeds 90%, but individual survival estimates are highly dependent on stage at diagnosis, and survival decreases markedly with metastasis. Therefore, early and accurate diagnosis is critical.

Diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms usually is performed by dermatopathologists through microscopic examination of stained tissue biopsy sections, a technically simple and effective method that enables a definitive diagnosis of benign nevus or malignant melanoma to be made in most cases. However, approximately 15% of all biopsied melanocytic lesions will exhibit some degree of histopathologic ambiguity,^2-4 meaning that some of their microscopic features will be characteristic of a benign nevus while others will suggest the possibility of malignant melanoma. Diagnostic interpretations often vary in these cases, even among experts, and a definitive diagnosis of benign or malignant may be difficult to achieve by microscopy alone.^2-4 Because of the marked reduction in survival once a melanoma has metastasized, these diagnostically ambiguous lesions often are treated as possible malignant melanomas with complete surgical excision (or re-excision). However, some experts suggest that many histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms are, in fact, benign,⁵ a notion supported by epidemiologic evidence.^6,7 Therefore, excision of many ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms might be avoided if definitive diagnosis could be achieved.

A gene expression signature was developed and validated for use as an adjunct to traditional methods of differentiating malignant melanocytic neoplasms from their benign counterparts.^8-11 This test quantifies the RNA transcripts produced by 14 genes known to be overexpressed in malignant melanomas by comparison to benign nevi. These values are then combined algorithmically with measurements of 9 reference genes to produce an objective numerical score that is classified as benign, malignant, or indeterminate. When used by board-certified dermatopathologists and dermatologists confronting ambiguous melanocytic lesions, the test produces substantial increases in definitive diagnoses and prompts changes in treatment recommendations.^12,13 However, the long-term consequences of foregoing surgical excision of melanocytic neoplasms that are diagnostically ambiguous but classified as benign by this test have not yet been formally assessed. In the current study, prospectively tested patients whose ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms were classified as benign by the gene expression signature were followed for up to 4.5 years to evaluate the long-term safety of treatment decisions aligned with benign test results.

Methods

Study Population
As part of a prior study,¹² US-based dermatopathologists submitted tissue sections from biopsied melanocytic neoplasms determined to be diagnostically ambiguous by histopathology for analysis with the gene expression signature (Myriad Genetics, Inc). Diagnostically ambiguous lesions were those lesions that were described as ambiguous, uncertain, equivocal, indeterminate, or other synonymous terms by the submitting dermatopathologist and therefore lacked a confident diagnosis of benign or malignant prior to testing. Patients initially were tested between May 2014 and August 2014, with samples submitted through a prospective clinical experience study designed to assess the impact of the test on diagnosis and treatment decisions. This study was performed under an institutional review board waiver of consent (Quorum #33403/1).

Patients were eligible for inclusion in the current study if their biopsy specimens (1) had an uncertain preliminary diagnosis according to the submitting dermatopathologist (pretest diagnosis of indeterminate); (2) received a negative (benign) score from the gene expression test; (3) were treated as benign by the dermatologist(s) involved in follow-up care; and (4) were submitted by a single site (St. Joseph Medical Center, Houston, Texas). Although a single dermatopathology site was used for this study, multiple dermatologists were involved in the final treatment of these patients. Patients with benign scores who received additional intervention were excluded, as they may have a lower rate of adverse events (ie, metastasis) than those who did not receive intervention and would therefore skew the analysis population. A total of 25 patients from the prior study met these inclusion criteria. The previously collected¹² pretest and posttest de-identified data were compiled from the commercial laboratory databases, and the patients were followed from the time of testing via medical record review performed by the dermatology providers at participating sites. Clinical follow-up data were collected using study-specific case report forms (CRFs) that captured the following: (1) the dates and results of clinical follow-up visits; (2) the type(s) of treatment and interventions (if any) performed at those visits; (3) the specific indication for any intervention performed; (4) any evidence of persistent, locally recurrent, and/or distant melanocytic neoplasia (whether definitively attributable to the tested lesion or not); and (5) death from any cause. The CRF assigned interventions to 1 of 5 categories: excision, excision with sentinel lymph node biopsy, referral to dermatologic or other surgeon, examination only (without surgical intervention), and other. Selection of other required a free-text description of the treatment and indications. Pertinent information not otherwise captured by the CRF also was recordable as free text.

Gene Expression Testing
Gene expression testing was carried out at the time of specimen submission in the prior study¹² as described previously.¹⁴ Briefly, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, unstained tissue sections and/or tissue blocks were submitted for testing along with a single hematoxylin and eosin–stained slide used to identify and designate the representative portion(s) of the lesion to be tested. These areas were macrodissected from unstained tissue sections and pooled for RNA extraction. Expression of 14 biomarker genes and 9 reference genes was measured via quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, performed in triplicate for each individual gene. The assay score was generated through application of a weighted algorithm to the expression values generated through quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. Scores were plotted on a scale ranging from −16.7 to 11.1, with scores from 0.0 to 11.1 classified as malignant, scores from −16.7 to −2.1 as benign, and scores from −2.1 to −0.1 as indeterminate.

Statistical Analysis
Demographic and other baseline characteristics of the patient population were summarized. Follow-up time was calculated as the interval between the date a patient’s gene expression test result was first issued to the provider and the date of the patient’s last recorded visit during the study period. All patient dermatology office visits within the designated follow-up period were documented, with a nonstandard number of visits and follow-up time across all study patients. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc), R software version 3.5.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), and IBM SPSS Statistics software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25).

 

Results

Patient Sample
A total of 25 ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms from 25 patients met the study inclusion criteria of a benign gene expression result with subsequent treatment as a benign neoplasm during follow-up. The patient sample statistics are summarized in Table 1. Most patients were younger than 65 years, with an average age at the time of biopsy of 48.4 years. All 25 neoplasms produced negative (benign) gene expression signature scores, all were diagnosed as benign nevi posttest by the submitting dermatopathologist, and all patients were initially treated in accordance with the benign diagnosis by the dermatologist(s) involved in clinical follow-up care. Prior to testing with the gene expression signature, most of these histopathologically indeterminate lesions received differential diagnoses, the most common of which were dysplastic nevus (84%), melanoma arising from a nevus (72%), and superficial spreading melanoma (64%; eTable). After testing with the gene expression signature and receiving a benign score, most lesions received a single differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus (88%).

Follow-up and Survival
Clinical follow-up time ranged from 0.6 to 53.3 months, with a mean duration (SD) of 38.5 (16.6) months, and patients attended an average of 4 postbiopsy dermatology appointments (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.6]). According to the participating dermatology care providers, none of the 25 patients developed any indication during follow-up that the diagnosis of benign nevus was inaccurate. No patient had evidence of locally recurrent or metastatic melanoma, and none died during the study period.

Treatment/Interventions
The treatment recorded in the CRF was examination only for 21 of 25 patients, excision for 3, and other for 1 (Table 2). Because the explanation for the selection of other in this case described an excision performed at the same anatomic location as the biopsy, this treatment also was considered an excision for purposes of the study analyses. The 3 excisions all occurred at the first postbiopsy dermatology encounter. Across all follow-up visits, no additional surgical interventions occurred (Table 2).

The first excision (case 1) involved a 67-year-old woman with a lesion on the mid pubic region described clinically as an atypical nevus that generated a pretest histopathologic differential diagnosis including dysplastic nevus, superficial spreading melanoma, and melanoma arising within a nevus (Table 3; Figure, A and B). The gene expression test result was benign (score, −5.4), and the final pathology report diagnosis was nevus with junctional dysplasia, moderate. Surgical excision was performed at the patient’s first return visit, 505 days after initial diagnosis, with moderately dysplastic nevus as the recorded indication for removal. No repigmentation or other evidence of local recurrence or progression was detected, and the treating dermatologist indicated no suspicion that the original diagnosis of benign nevus was incorrect during the 23-month follow-up period.

The second excision (case 2) involved a 27-year-old woman with a pigmented neoplasm on the mid upper back (Figure, C and D) biopsied to rule out dysplastic nevus that resulted in a pretest histopathologic differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus vs superficial spreading melanoma or melanoma arising within a nevus. The gene expression test result classified the lesion as benign (score, −2.9), and the final pathology diagnosis was nevus, compound, with moderate dysplasia. Despite the benign diagnosis, residual neoplasm (or pigmentation) at the biopsy site prompted the patient to request excision at her first postbiopsy visit, 22 days after testing (Table 3). The CRF completed by the dermatologist reported no indication that the benign diagnosis was inaccurate, but the patient was subsequently lost to follow-up.

The third excision (case 3) involved a 32-year-old woman with a pigmented lesion on the abdomen (Table 3; Figure, E and F). The clinical description was irregular-appearing black papule, nevus with atypia, and the histopathologic differential diagnosis again included dysplastic nevus, superficial spreading melanoma, and melanoma arising within a preexisting nevus. The gene expression signature result was benign (score, −7.2), and the final diagnosis issued within the accompanying pathology report was nevus with moderate junctional dysplasia. Despite the benign diagnosis, excision was performed 89 days after test result availability, with apparent residual pigmentation as the specified indication. As with the other 2 cases, the treating dermatologist confirmed that neither clinical features nor follow-up events suggested malignancy.

Comment

This study followed a cohort of 25 patients with histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms that were classified as benign by a diagnostic gene expression test with the intent of determining the outcomes of patients whose treatment aligned with their benign test result. All patients initially were managed according to their test result. During an average posttest clinical follow-up time of more than 3 years (38.5 months), the 25 biopsied lesions, most of which received a differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus, were regarded as benign nevi by their dermatologists, and the vast majority (88%) received no further surgical intervention. Three patients underwent subsequent excision of the biopsied lesion, with patient or physician preference as the indication in each instance. None of the 25 patients developed evidence of local recurrence, metastasis, or other findings that prompted doubt of the benign diagnosis. The absence of adverse events during clinical follow-up, particularly given that most lesions were not subjected to further intervention, supports use of the gene expression test as a safe and effective adjunct to the diagnosis and treatment of ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms by dermatologists and dermatopathologists.

 

Ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms evaluated without the aid of molecular adjuncts often result in equivocal or less-than-definitive diagnoses, and further surgical intervention is commonly undertaken to mitigate against the possibility of a missed melanoma.¹³ In this study, treatment that was aligned with the benign test result allowed most patients to avoid further surgical intervention, which suggests that adjunctive use of the gene signature can contribute to reductions in the physical and economic burdens imposed by unnecessary surgical interventions.^15,16 Moreover, any means of increasing accurate and definitive diagnoses may produce an immediate impact on health outcomes by reducing the anxiety that uncertainty often provokes in patients and health care providers alike.

Study Limitations
This study must be interpreted within the context of its limitations. Obtaining meaningful patient outcome data is a common challenge in health care research due to the requisite length of follow-up and sometimes the lack of definitive evidence of adverse events. This is particularly difficult for melanocytic neoplasms because of an apparent inclination for patients with benign diagnoses to abandon follow-up and an increasing tendency for even minimal diagnostic uncertainty to prompt complete excision. Additionally, the only definitive clinical outcome for melanocytic neoplasms is distant metastasis, which (fortunately for patients) is relatively rare. Not surprisingly, studies documenting clinical outcomes of patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms tested prospectively with diagnostic adjuncts are scarce, and this study’s sample size and clinical follow-up compare favorably with the few that exist.^17,18 Although most melanomas declare themselves through recurrence or metastasis within several years of initial biopsy,^1,19 some are clinically dormant for as long as 10 years after initial detection.^20,21 This may be particularly true for the small or early-stage lesions that now comprise the majority of biopsied neoplasms, and such events would go undetected by this study and many others. It also must be recognized that uneventful follow-up, regardless of duration, cannot prove that a biopsied melanocytic neoplasm was benign. Although only 5 patients had a follow-up time of less than 2 years (the time frame in which most recurrence or metastasis will occur), it cannot be definitively proven that a minimum of 2 years recurrence- or metastasis-free survival indicates a benign lesion. Many early-stage malignant melanomas are eradicated by complete excision or even by the initial biopsy if margins are uninvolved.

Because these limitations are intrinsic to melanocytic neoplasms and current management strategies, they pertain to all investigations seeking insights into biological potential through clinical outcomes. Similarly, all current diagnostic tools and procedures have the potential for sampling error, including histopathology. The rarity of adverse outcomes (recurrence and metastasis) in patients with benign test results within this cohort indicates that false-negative results are uncommon, which is further evidenced by a similar rarity of adverse events in prior studies of the gene expression signature.^8-10,22 A particular strength of this study is that most of the ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms followed did not undergo excision after the initial biopsy, an increasingly uncommon situation that may increase their likelihood to be informative.

It must be emphasized that the gene expression test, similar to other diagnostic adjuncts, is neither a replacement for histopathologic interpretation nor a substitute for judgment. As with all tests, it can produce false-positive and false-negative results. Therefore, it should always be interpreted within the constellation of the many other data points that must be considered when making a distinction between benign nevus and malignant melanoma, including but not limited to patient age, family and personal history of melanoma, anatomic location, clinical features, and histopathologic findings. As is the case for many diseases, careful consideration of all relevant input is necessary to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis that might occur should any single data point prove inaccurate, including the results of adjunctive molecular tests.

Conclusion

Ancillary methods are emerging as useful tools for the diagnostic evaluation of melanocytic neoplasms that cannot be assigned definitive diagnoses using traditional techniques alone. This study suggests that patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms may benefit from diagnoses and treatment decisions aligned with the results of a gene expression test, and that for those with a benign result, simple observation may be a safe alternative to surgical excision. This expands upon prior observations of the test’s influence on diagnoses and treatment decisions and supports its role as part of dermatopathologists’ and dermatologists’ decision-making process for histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic lesions.

According to National Institutes of Health estimates, more than 90,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in 2018.¹ Overall 5-year survival for patients with melanoma exceeds 90%, but individual survival estimates are highly dependent on stage at diagnosis, and survival decreases markedly with metastasis. Therefore, early and accurate diagnosis is critical.

Diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms usually is performed by dermatopathologists through microscopic examination of stained tissue biopsy sections, a technically simple and effective method that enables a definitive diagnosis of benign nevus or malignant melanoma to be made in most cases. However, approximately 15% of all biopsied melanocytic lesions will exhibit some degree of histopathologic ambiguity,^2-4 meaning that some of their microscopic features will be characteristic of a benign nevus while others will suggest the possibility of malignant melanoma. Diagnostic interpretations often vary in these cases, even among experts, and a definitive diagnosis of benign or malignant may be difficult to achieve by microscopy alone.^2-4 Because of the marked reduction in survival once a melanoma has metastasized, these diagnostically ambiguous lesions often are treated as possible malignant melanomas with complete surgical excision (or re-excision). However, some experts suggest that many histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms are, in fact, benign,⁵ a notion supported by epidemiologic evidence.^6,7 Therefore, excision of many ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms might be avoided if definitive diagnosis could be achieved.

A gene expression signature was developed and validated for use as an adjunct to traditional methods of differentiating malignant melanocytic neoplasms from their benign counterparts.^8-11 This test quantifies the RNA transcripts produced by 14 genes known to be overexpressed in malignant melanomas by comparison to benign nevi. These values are then combined algorithmically with measurements of 9 reference genes to produce an objective numerical score that is classified as benign, malignant, or indeterminate. When used by board-certified dermatopathologists and dermatologists confronting ambiguous melanocytic lesions, the test produces substantial increases in definitive diagnoses and prompts changes in treatment recommendations.^12,13 However, the long-term consequences of foregoing surgical excision of melanocytic neoplasms that are diagnostically ambiguous but classified as benign by this test have not yet been formally assessed. In the current study, prospectively tested patients whose ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms were classified as benign by the gene expression signature were followed for up to 4.5 years to evaluate the long-term safety of treatment decisions aligned with benign test results.

Methods

Study Population
As part of a prior study,¹² US-based dermatopathologists submitted tissue sections from biopsied melanocytic neoplasms determined to be diagnostically ambiguous by histopathology for analysis with the gene expression signature (Myriad Genetics, Inc). Diagnostically ambiguous lesions were those lesions that were described as ambiguous, uncertain, equivocal, indeterminate, or other synonymous terms by the submitting dermatopathologist and therefore lacked a confident diagnosis of benign or malignant prior to testing. Patients initially were tested between May 2014 and August 2014, with samples submitted through a prospective clinical experience study designed to assess the impact of the test on diagnosis and treatment decisions. This study was performed under an institutional review board waiver of consent (Quorum #33403/1).

Patients were eligible for inclusion in the current study if their biopsy specimens (1) had an uncertain preliminary diagnosis according to the submitting dermatopathologist (pretest diagnosis of indeterminate); (2) received a negative (benign) score from the gene expression test; (3) were treated as benign by the dermatologist(s) involved in follow-up care; and (4) were submitted by a single site (St. Joseph Medical Center, Houston, Texas). Although a single dermatopathology site was used for this study, multiple dermatologists were involved in the final treatment of these patients. Patients with benign scores who received additional intervention were excluded, as they may have a lower rate of adverse events (ie, metastasis) than those who did not receive intervention and would therefore skew the analysis population. A total of 25 patients from the prior study met these inclusion criteria. The previously collected¹² pretest and posttest de-identified data were compiled from the commercial laboratory databases, and the patients were followed from the time of testing via medical record review performed by the dermatology providers at participating sites. Clinical follow-up data were collected using study-specific case report forms (CRFs) that captured the following: (1) the dates and results of clinical follow-up visits; (2) the type(s) of treatment and interventions (if any) performed at those visits; (3) the specific indication for any intervention performed; (4) any evidence of persistent, locally recurrent, and/or distant melanocytic neoplasia (whether definitively attributable to the tested lesion or not); and (5) death from any cause. The CRF assigned interventions to 1 of 5 categories: excision, excision with sentinel lymph node biopsy, referral to dermatologic or other surgeon, examination only (without surgical intervention), and other. Selection of other required a free-text description of the treatment and indications. Pertinent information not otherwise captured by the CRF also was recordable as free text.

Gene Expression Testing
Gene expression testing was carried out at the time of specimen submission in the prior study¹² as described previously.¹⁴ Briefly, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, unstained tissue sections and/or tissue blocks were submitted for testing along with a single hematoxylin and eosin–stained slide used to identify and designate the representative portion(s) of the lesion to be tested. These areas were macrodissected from unstained tissue sections and pooled for RNA extraction. Expression of 14 biomarker genes and 9 reference genes was measured via quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, performed in triplicate for each individual gene. The assay score was generated through application of a weighted algorithm to the expression values generated through quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. Scores were plotted on a scale ranging from −16.7 to 11.1, with scores from 0.0 to 11.1 classified as malignant, scores from −16.7 to −2.1 as benign, and scores from −2.1 to −0.1 as indeterminate.

Statistical Analysis
Demographic and other baseline characteristics of the patient population were summarized. Follow-up time was calculated as the interval between the date a patient’s gene expression test result was first issued to the provider and the date of the patient’s last recorded visit during the study period. All patient dermatology office visits within the designated follow-up period were documented, with a nonstandard number of visits and follow-up time across all study patients. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc), R software version 3.5.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), and IBM SPSS Statistics software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25).

 

Results

Patient Sample
A total of 25 ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms from 25 patients met the study inclusion criteria of a benign gene expression result with subsequent treatment as a benign neoplasm during follow-up. The patient sample statistics are summarized in Table 1. Most patients were younger than 65 years, with an average age at the time of biopsy of 48.4 years. All 25 neoplasms produced negative (benign) gene expression signature scores, all were diagnosed as benign nevi posttest by the submitting dermatopathologist, and all patients were initially treated in accordance with the benign diagnosis by the dermatologist(s) involved in clinical follow-up care. Prior to testing with the gene expression signature, most of these histopathologically indeterminate lesions received differential diagnoses, the most common of which were dysplastic nevus (84%), melanoma arising from a nevus (72%), and superficial spreading melanoma (64%; eTable). After testing with the gene expression signature and receiving a benign score, most lesions received a single differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus (88%).

Follow-up and Survival
Clinical follow-up time ranged from 0.6 to 53.3 months, with a mean duration (SD) of 38.5 (16.6) months, and patients attended an average of 4 postbiopsy dermatology appointments (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.6]). According to the participating dermatology care providers, none of the 25 patients developed any indication during follow-up that the diagnosis of benign nevus was inaccurate. No patient had evidence of locally recurrent or metastatic melanoma, and none died during the study period.

Treatment/Interventions
The treatment recorded in the CRF was examination only for 21 of 25 patients, excision for 3, and other for 1 (Table 2). Because the explanation for the selection of other in this case described an excision performed at the same anatomic location as the biopsy, this treatment also was considered an excision for purposes of the study analyses. The 3 excisions all occurred at the first postbiopsy dermatology encounter. Across all follow-up visits, no additional surgical interventions occurred (Table 2).

The first excision (case 1) involved a 67-year-old woman with a lesion on the mid pubic region described clinically as an atypical nevus that generated a pretest histopathologic differential diagnosis including dysplastic nevus, superficial spreading melanoma, and melanoma arising within a nevus (Table 3; Figure, A and B). The gene expression test result was benign (score, −5.4), and the final pathology report diagnosis was nevus with junctional dysplasia, moderate. Surgical excision was performed at the patient’s first return visit, 505 days after initial diagnosis, with moderately dysplastic nevus as the recorded indication for removal. No repigmentation or other evidence of local recurrence or progression was detected, and the treating dermatologist indicated no suspicion that the original diagnosis of benign nevus was incorrect during the 23-month follow-up period.

The second excision (case 2) involved a 27-year-old woman with a pigmented neoplasm on the mid upper back (Figure, C and D) biopsied to rule out dysplastic nevus that resulted in a pretest histopathologic differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus vs superficial spreading melanoma or melanoma arising within a nevus. The gene expression test result classified the lesion as benign (score, −2.9), and the final pathology diagnosis was nevus, compound, with moderate dysplasia. Despite the benign diagnosis, residual neoplasm (or pigmentation) at the biopsy site prompted the patient to request excision at her first postbiopsy visit, 22 days after testing (Table 3). The CRF completed by the dermatologist reported no indication that the benign diagnosis was inaccurate, but the patient was subsequently lost to follow-up.

The third excision (case 3) involved a 32-year-old woman with a pigmented lesion on the abdomen (Table 3; Figure, E and F). The clinical description was irregular-appearing black papule, nevus with atypia, and the histopathologic differential diagnosis again included dysplastic nevus, superficial spreading melanoma, and melanoma arising within a preexisting nevus. The gene expression signature result was benign (score, −7.2), and the final diagnosis issued within the accompanying pathology report was nevus with moderate junctional dysplasia. Despite the benign diagnosis, excision was performed 89 days after test result availability, with apparent residual pigmentation as the specified indication. As with the other 2 cases, the treating dermatologist confirmed that neither clinical features nor follow-up events suggested malignancy.

Comment

This study followed a cohort of 25 patients with histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms that were classified as benign by a diagnostic gene expression test with the intent of determining the outcomes of patients whose treatment aligned with their benign test result. All patients initially were managed according to their test result. During an average posttest clinical follow-up time of more than 3 years (38.5 months), the 25 biopsied lesions, most of which received a differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus, were regarded as benign nevi by their dermatologists, and the vast majority (88%) received no further surgical intervention. Three patients underwent subsequent excision of the biopsied lesion, with patient or physician preference as the indication in each instance. None of the 25 patients developed evidence of local recurrence, metastasis, or other findings that prompted doubt of the benign diagnosis. The absence of adverse events during clinical follow-up, particularly given that most lesions were not subjected to further intervention, supports use of the gene expression test as a safe and effective adjunct to the diagnosis and treatment of ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms by dermatologists and dermatopathologists.

 

Ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms evaluated without the aid of molecular adjuncts often result in equivocal or less-than-definitive diagnoses, and further surgical intervention is commonly undertaken to mitigate against the possibility of a missed melanoma.¹³ In this study, treatment that was aligned with the benign test result allowed most patients to avoid further surgical intervention, which suggests that adjunctive use of the gene signature can contribute to reductions in the physical and economic burdens imposed by unnecessary surgical interventions.^15,16 Moreover, any means of increasing accurate and definitive diagnoses may produce an immediate impact on health outcomes by reducing the anxiety that uncertainty often provokes in patients and health care providers alike.

Study Limitations
This study must be interpreted within the context of its limitations. Obtaining meaningful patient outcome data is a common challenge in health care research due to the requisite length of follow-up and sometimes the lack of definitive evidence of adverse events. This is particularly difficult for melanocytic neoplasms because of an apparent inclination for patients with benign diagnoses to abandon follow-up and an increasing tendency for even minimal diagnostic uncertainty to prompt complete excision. Additionally, the only definitive clinical outcome for melanocytic neoplasms is distant metastasis, which (fortunately for patients) is relatively rare. Not surprisingly, studies documenting clinical outcomes of patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms tested prospectively with diagnostic adjuncts are scarce, and this study’s sample size and clinical follow-up compare favorably with the few that exist.^17,18 Although most melanomas declare themselves through recurrence or metastasis within several years of initial biopsy,^1,19 some are clinically dormant for as long as 10 years after initial detection.^20,21 This may be particularly true for the small or early-stage lesions that now comprise the majority of biopsied neoplasms, and such events would go undetected by this study and many others. It also must be recognized that uneventful follow-up, regardless of duration, cannot prove that a biopsied melanocytic neoplasm was benign. Although only 5 patients had a follow-up time of less than 2 years (the time frame in which most recurrence or metastasis will occur), it cannot be definitively proven that a minimum of 2 years recurrence- or metastasis-free survival indicates a benign lesion. Many early-stage malignant melanomas are eradicated by complete excision or even by the initial biopsy if margins are uninvolved.

Because these limitations are intrinsic to melanocytic neoplasms and current management strategies, they pertain to all investigations seeking insights into biological potential through clinical outcomes. Similarly, all current diagnostic tools and procedures have the potential for sampling error, including histopathology. The rarity of adverse outcomes (recurrence and metastasis) in patients with benign test results within this cohort indicates that false-negative results are uncommon, which is further evidenced by a similar rarity of adverse events in prior studies of the gene expression signature.^8-10,22 A particular strength of this study is that most of the ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms followed did not undergo excision after the initial biopsy, an increasingly uncommon situation that may increase their likelihood to be informative.

It must be emphasized that the gene expression test, similar to other diagnostic adjuncts, is neither a replacement for histopathologic interpretation nor a substitute for judgment. As with all tests, it can produce false-positive and false-negative results. Therefore, it should always be interpreted within the constellation of the many other data points that must be considered when making a distinction between benign nevus and malignant melanoma, including but not limited to patient age, family and personal history of melanoma, anatomic location, clinical features, and histopathologic findings. As is the case for many diseases, careful consideration of all relevant input is necessary to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis that might occur should any single data point prove inaccurate, including the results of adjunctive molecular tests.

Conclusion

Ancillary methods are emerging as useful tools for the diagnostic evaluation of melanocytic neoplasms that cannot be assigned definitive diagnoses using traditional techniques alone. This study suggests that patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms may benefit from diagnoses and treatment decisions aligned with the results of a gene expression test, and that for those with a benign result, simple observation may be a safe alternative to surgical excision. This expands upon prior observations of the test’s influence on diagnoses and treatment decisions and supports its role as part of dermatopathologists’ and dermatologists’ decision-making process for histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic lesions.

According to National Institutes of Health estimates, more than 90,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in 2018.¹ Overall 5-year survival for patients with melanoma exceeds 90%, but individual survival estimates are highly dependent on stage at diagnosis, and survival decreases markedly with metastasis. Therefore, early and accurate diagnosis is critical.

Diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms usually is performed by dermatopathologists through microscopic examination of stained tissue biopsy sections, a technically simple and effective method that enables a definitive diagnosis of benign nevus or malignant melanoma to be made in most cases. However, approximately 15% of all biopsied melanocytic lesions will exhibit some degree of histopathologic ambiguity,^2-4 meaning that some of their microscopic features will be characteristic of a benign nevus while others will suggest the possibility of malignant melanoma. Diagnostic interpretations often vary in these cases, even among experts, and a definitive diagnosis of benign or malignant may be difficult to achieve by microscopy alone.^2-4 Because of the marked reduction in survival once a melanoma has metastasized, these diagnostically ambiguous lesions often are treated as possible malignant melanomas with complete surgical excision (or re-excision). However, some experts suggest that many histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms are, in fact, benign,⁵ a notion supported by epidemiologic evidence.^6,7 Therefore, excision of many ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms might be avoided if definitive diagnosis could be achieved.

A gene expression signature was developed and validated for use as an adjunct to traditional methods of differentiating malignant melanocytic neoplasms from their benign counterparts.^8-11 This test quantifies the RNA transcripts produced by 14 genes known to be overexpressed in malignant melanomas by comparison to benign nevi. These values are then combined algorithmically with measurements of 9 reference genes to produce an objective numerical score that is classified as benign, malignant, or indeterminate. When used by board-certified dermatopathologists and dermatologists confronting ambiguous melanocytic lesions, the test produces substantial increases in definitive diagnoses and prompts changes in treatment recommendations.^12,13 However, the long-term consequences of foregoing surgical excision of melanocytic neoplasms that are diagnostically ambiguous but classified as benign by this test have not yet been formally assessed. In the current study, prospectively tested patients whose ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms were classified as benign by the gene expression signature were followed for up to 4.5 years to evaluate the long-term safety of treatment decisions aligned with benign test results.

Methods

Study Population
As part of a prior study,¹² US-based dermatopathologists submitted tissue sections from biopsied melanocytic neoplasms determined to be diagnostically ambiguous by histopathology for analysis with the gene expression signature (Myriad Genetics, Inc). Diagnostically ambiguous lesions were those lesions that were described as ambiguous, uncertain, equivocal, indeterminate, or other synonymous terms by the submitting dermatopathologist and therefore lacked a confident diagnosis of benign or malignant prior to testing. Patients initially were tested between May 2014 and August 2014, with samples submitted through a prospective clinical experience study designed to assess the impact of the test on diagnosis and treatment decisions. This study was performed under an institutional review board waiver of consent (Quorum #33403/1).

Patients were eligible for inclusion in the current study if their biopsy specimens (1) had an uncertain preliminary diagnosis according to the submitting dermatopathologist (pretest diagnosis of indeterminate); (2) received a negative (benign) score from the gene expression test; (3) were treated as benign by the dermatologist(s) involved in follow-up care; and (4) were submitted by a single site (St. Joseph Medical Center, Houston, Texas). Although a single dermatopathology site was used for this study, multiple dermatologists were involved in the final treatment of these patients. Patients with benign scores who received additional intervention were excluded, as they may have a lower rate of adverse events (ie, metastasis) than those who did not receive intervention and would therefore skew the analysis population. A total of 25 patients from the prior study met these inclusion criteria. The previously collected¹² pretest and posttest de-identified data were compiled from the commercial laboratory databases, and the patients were followed from the time of testing via medical record review performed by the dermatology providers at participating sites. Clinical follow-up data were collected using study-specific case report forms (CRFs) that captured the following: (1) the dates and results of clinical follow-up visits; (2) the type(s) of treatment and interventions (if any) performed at those visits; (3) the specific indication for any intervention performed; (4) any evidence of persistent, locally recurrent, and/or distant melanocytic neoplasia (whether definitively attributable to the tested lesion or not); and (5) death from any cause. The CRF assigned interventions to 1 of 5 categories: excision, excision with sentinel lymph node biopsy, referral to dermatologic or other surgeon, examination only (without surgical intervention), and other. Selection of other required a free-text description of the treatment and indications. Pertinent information not otherwise captured by the CRF also was recordable as free text.

Gene Expression Testing
Gene expression testing was carried out at the time of specimen submission in the prior study¹² as described previously.¹⁴ Briefly, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, unstained tissue sections and/or tissue blocks were submitted for testing along with a single hematoxylin and eosin–stained slide used to identify and designate the representative portion(s) of the lesion to be tested. These areas were macrodissected from unstained tissue sections and pooled for RNA extraction. Expression of 14 biomarker genes and 9 reference genes was measured via quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, performed in triplicate for each individual gene. The assay score was generated through application of a weighted algorithm to the expression values generated through quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. Scores were plotted on a scale ranging from −16.7 to 11.1, with scores from 0.0 to 11.1 classified as malignant, scores from −16.7 to −2.1 as benign, and scores from −2.1 to −0.1 as indeterminate.

Statistical Analysis
Demographic and other baseline characteristics of the patient population were summarized. Follow-up time was calculated as the interval between the date a patient’s gene expression test result was first issued to the provider and the date of the patient’s last recorded visit during the study period. All patient dermatology office visits within the designated follow-up period were documented, with a nonstandard number of visits and follow-up time across all study patients. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc), R software version 3.5.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), and IBM SPSS Statistics software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25).

 

Results

Patient Sample
A total of 25 ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms from 25 patients met the study inclusion criteria of a benign gene expression result with subsequent treatment as a benign neoplasm during follow-up. The patient sample statistics are summarized in Table 1. Most patients were younger than 65 years, with an average age at the time of biopsy of 48.4 years. All 25 neoplasms produced negative (benign) gene expression signature scores, all were diagnosed as benign nevi posttest by the submitting dermatopathologist, and all patients were initially treated in accordance with the benign diagnosis by the dermatologist(s) involved in clinical follow-up care. Prior to testing with the gene expression signature, most of these histopathologically indeterminate lesions received differential diagnoses, the most common of which were dysplastic nevus (84%), melanoma arising from a nevus (72%), and superficial spreading melanoma (64%; eTable). After testing with the gene expression signature and receiving a benign score, most lesions received a single differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus (88%).

Follow-up and Survival
Clinical follow-up time ranged from 0.6 to 53.3 months, with a mean duration (SD) of 38.5 (16.6) months, and patients attended an average of 4 postbiopsy dermatology appointments (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.6]). According to the participating dermatology care providers, none of the 25 patients developed any indication during follow-up that the diagnosis of benign nevus was inaccurate. No patient had evidence of locally recurrent or metastatic melanoma, and none died during the study period.

Treatment/Interventions
The treatment recorded in the CRF was examination only for 21 of 25 patients, excision for 3, and other for 1 (Table 2). Because the explanation for the selection of other in this case described an excision performed at the same anatomic location as the biopsy, this treatment also was considered an excision for purposes of the study analyses. The 3 excisions all occurred at the first postbiopsy dermatology encounter. Across all follow-up visits, no additional surgical interventions occurred (Table 2).

The first excision (case 1) involved a 67-year-old woman with a lesion on the mid pubic region described clinically as an atypical nevus that generated a pretest histopathologic differential diagnosis including dysplastic nevus, superficial spreading melanoma, and melanoma arising within a nevus (Table 3; Figure, A and B). The gene expression test result was benign (score, −5.4), and the final pathology report diagnosis was nevus with junctional dysplasia, moderate. Surgical excision was performed at the patient’s first return visit, 505 days after initial diagnosis, with moderately dysplastic nevus as the recorded indication for removal. No repigmentation or other evidence of local recurrence or progression was detected, and the treating dermatologist indicated no suspicion that the original diagnosis of benign nevus was incorrect during the 23-month follow-up period.

The second excision (case 2) involved a 27-year-old woman with a pigmented neoplasm on the mid upper back (Figure, C and D) biopsied to rule out dysplastic nevus that resulted in a pretest histopathologic differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus vs superficial spreading melanoma or melanoma arising within a nevus. The gene expression test result classified the lesion as benign (score, −2.9), and the final pathology diagnosis was nevus, compound, with moderate dysplasia. Despite the benign diagnosis, residual neoplasm (or pigmentation) at the biopsy site prompted the patient to request excision at her first postbiopsy visit, 22 days after testing (Table 3). The CRF completed by the dermatologist reported no indication that the benign diagnosis was inaccurate, but the patient was subsequently lost to follow-up.

The third excision (case 3) involved a 32-year-old woman with a pigmented lesion on the abdomen (Table 3; Figure, E and F). The clinical description was irregular-appearing black papule, nevus with atypia, and the histopathologic differential diagnosis again included dysplastic nevus, superficial spreading melanoma, and melanoma arising within a preexisting nevus. The gene expression signature result was benign (score, −7.2), and the final diagnosis issued within the accompanying pathology report was nevus with moderate junctional dysplasia. Despite the benign diagnosis, excision was performed 89 days after test result availability, with apparent residual pigmentation as the specified indication. As with the other 2 cases, the treating dermatologist confirmed that neither clinical features nor follow-up events suggested malignancy.

Comment

This study followed a cohort of 25 patients with histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms that were classified as benign by a diagnostic gene expression test with the intent of determining the outcomes of patients whose treatment aligned with their benign test result. All patients initially were managed according to their test result. During an average posttest clinical follow-up time of more than 3 years (38.5 months), the 25 biopsied lesions, most of which received a differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus, were regarded as benign nevi by their dermatologists, and the vast majority (88%) received no further surgical intervention. Three patients underwent subsequent excision of the biopsied lesion, with patient or physician preference as the indication in each instance. None of the 25 patients developed evidence of local recurrence, metastasis, or other findings that prompted doubt of the benign diagnosis. The absence of adverse events during clinical follow-up, particularly given that most lesions were not subjected to further intervention, supports use of the gene expression test as a safe and effective adjunct to the diagnosis and treatment of ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms by dermatologists and dermatopathologists.

 

Ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms evaluated without the aid of molecular adjuncts often result in equivocal or less-than-definitive diagnoses, and further surgical intervention is commonly undertaken to mitigate against the possibility of a missed melanoma.¹³ In this study, treatment that was aligned with the benign test result allowed most patients to avoid further surgical intervention, which suggests that adjunctive use of the gene signature can contribute to reductions in the physical and economic burdens imposed by unnecessary surgical interventions.^15,16 Moreover, any means of increasing accurate and definitive diagnoses may produce an immediate impact on health outcomes by reducing the anxiety that uncertainty often provokes in patients and health care providers alike.

Study Limitations
This study must be interpreted within the context of its limitations. Obtaining meaningful patient outcome data is a common challenge in health care research due to the requisite length of follow-up and sometimes the lack of definitive evidence of adverse events. This is particularly difficult for melanocytic neoplasms because of an apparent inclination for patients with benign diagnoses to abandon follow-up and an increasing tendency for even minimal diagnostic uncertainty to prompt complete excision. Additionally, the only definitive clinical outcome for melanocytic neoplasms is distant metastasis, which (fortunately for patients) is relatively rare. Not surprisingly, studies documenting clinical outcomes of patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms tested prospectively with diagnostic adjuncts are scarce, and this study’s sample size and clinical follow-up compare favorably with the few that exist.^17,18 Although most melanomas declare themselves through recurrence or metastasis within several years of initial biopsy,^1,19 some are clinically dormant for as long as 10 years after initial detection.^20,21 This may be particularly true for the small or early-stage lesions that now comprise the majority of biopsied neoplasms, and such events would go undetected by this study and many others. It also must be recognized that uneventful follow-up, regardless of duration, cannot prove that a biopsied melanocytic neoplasm was benign. Although only 5 patients had a follow-up time of less than 2 years (the time frame in which most recurrence or metastasis will occur), it cannot be definitively proven that a minimum of 2 years recurrence- or metastasis-free survival indicates a benign lesion. Many early-stage malignant melanomas are eradicated by complete excision or even by the initial biopsy if margins are uninvolved.

Because these limitations are intrinsic to melanocytic neoplasms and current management strategies, they pertain to all investigations seeking insights into biological potential through clinical outcomes. Similarly, all current diagnostic tools and procedures have the potential for sampling error, including histopathology. The rarity of adverse outcomes (recurrence and metastasis) in patients with benign test results within this cohort indicates that false-negative results are uncommon, which is further evidenced by a similar rarity of adverse events in prior studies of the gene expression signature.^8-10,22 A particular strength of this study is that most of the ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms followed did not undergo excision after the initial biopsy, an increasingly uncommon situation that may increase their likelihood to be informative.

It must be emphasized that the gene expression test, similar to other diagnostic adjuncts, is neither a replacement for histopathologic interpretation nor a substitute for judgment. As with all tests, it can produce false-positive and false-negative results. Therefore, it should always be interpreted within the constellation of the many other data points that must be considered when making a distinction between benign nevus and malignant melanoma, including but not limited to patient age, family and personal history of melanoma, anatomic location, clinical features, and histopathologic findings. As is the case for many diseases, careful consideration of all relevant input is necessary to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis that might occur should any single data point prove inaccurate, including the results of adjunctive molecular tests.

Conclusion

Ancillary methods are emerging as useful tools for the diagnostic evaluation of melanocytic neoplasms that cannot be assigned definitive diagnoses using traditional techniques alone. This study suggests that patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms may benefit from diagnoses and treatment decisions aligned with the results of a gene expression test, and that for those with a benign result, simple observation may be a safe alternative to surgical excision. This expands upon prior observations of the test’s influence on diagnoses and treatment decisions and supports its role as part of dermatopathologists’ and dermatologists’ decision-making process for histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic lesions.

Intentional tanning—through sun exposure and tanning beds—is an easily avoidable contributor to skin cancer development and an important area for public education. Since the advent of social media, a correlation between social media use and increased indoor tanning behaviors has been reported.¹ In 2010, 11.3% of US adults aged 18 to 29 years reported using a tanning bed in the last 12 months.² The American Academy of Dermatology first published their “Position Statement on Indoor Tanning” in 1998, endorsing a ban on the sale of indoor tanning equipment for nonmedical purposes.³

Although there has been no outright ban on indoor tanning, regulations have been put in place in many states—including Texas, where (as of 2013) a person younger than 18 years must have written consent from their parent(s) to use a tanning bed. Despite efforts of organizations including the American Academy of Dermatology and the government to educate the public on skin cancer prevention and sun safety, the skin cancer rate has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years.

There is a constant campaign among dermatologists to educate their patients on how to reduce or avoid the risk for skin cancer, including the use of sunscreen and avoidance of tanning. Adolescents and young adults are an especially important demographic to reach and educate because increased UV light exposure during these years leads to a greatly increased risk for skin cancer later in life.⁴ Data on the overall prevalence of tanning and the demographics of participation in tanning activities are important to capture and can be used to efficiently target higher-risk populations.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the attitudes and behaviors of adolescents and young adults regarding sun protection and tanning. We also aimed to determine which avenues, including social media, would be most effective at educating about skin cancer awareness and sun protection to the higher-risk younger population.

Materials and Methods

We developed an institutional review board–approved protocol for the prospective collection of data from registered patients at the dermatology clinic of the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health at San Antonio. A paper survey containing 15 rating-scale questions was administered to 60 patients aged 13 to 27 years. Surveys were administered during intake, prior to the patients’ visit with a dermatologist; all visits were of a functional (not cosmetic) nature. Data collection spanned June to August 2018. Survey results were entered into Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software for qualitative analysis.

Results

Sixty patients responded to the survey. The mean age of respondents was 19.5 years. No surveys were excluded from the data set. Table 1 provides baseline characteristics of respondents. Some respondents left questions unanswered, resulting in questions with fewer than 60 responses.

Among respondents to the survey, 70% (42/60) reported it is very important to protect their skin from sun exposure, and 30% (18/60) reported it is somewhat important. Regarding sunscreen use, 70% (42/60) indicated they use sunscreen only before outdoor activities, 12% (7/60) use sunscreen daily, and 17% (10/60) never use sunscreen. Of those who use sunscreen, 52% (28/54) do so to prevent skin damage and aging and 44% (24/54) to prevent skin cancer. Twenty-three percent (13/56) of respondents reported finding tanned skin attractive; 26% (14/55) reported wanting to be tan. Looking at race, 28% (10/36) of Whites, 25% (5/20) of Spanish/Hispanic/Latinos, and 22% (2/9) of Asians found tanned skin attractive; no Black respondents found tanned skin attractive.

 

Regarding tanning, 12% (7/57) reported using a tanning bed in their lifetime and 4% (2/57) in the last year; 34% (19/56) reported deliberately tanning outdoors; and 9% (5/56) reported using sunless or spray-on tanning. Dermatologists (75% [42/56]), primary care physicians (69.6% [39/56]), and parents (46.4% [26/56]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education; among media modalities, television (33.9% [19/56]), Instagram (30.4% [17/60]), and YouTube (23.2% [13/60]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education (Table 2).

Comment

Perceptions of Tanning
Almost one-quarter of respondents found tanned skin attractive, which might reflect a shift from prior generations. Compared to the 11% of respondents in the 2010 survey,² only 3.5% (2/57) of our respondents reported using a tanning bed in the last year, which could reflect the results of recent Texas legislation restricting the use of tanning beds by adolescents.

An alarming number of respondents reported going outdoors with the intention of tanning; although it appears that indoor tanning education has been successful, this finding shows that there is still a need for sun protection education because outdoor tanning is not a suitable alternative. A small number of respondents reported getting a sunless or spray-on tan, which is a risk-free alternative to indoor tanning.

Despite all respondents stating that protecting skin from the sun is important, most respondents surveyed do not use sunscreen daily. More respondents use sunscreen to prevent damage and aging than to prevent skin cancer. Young people might be more alarmed by the threat of early aging and losing their “youthful appearance” than by the possibility of developing skin cancer in the distant future. This discrepancy might indicate a lack of knowledge and be an important focus for future education efforts.

Perceptions of Trustworthiness of Education Sources
Our findings show dermatologists and primary care physicians are important educators on skin protection. Primary care physicians should remain vigilant to recognize at-risk patients who would benefit from skin protection education, especially those who do not see a dermatologist. Education of young people focusing on their concern over maintaining a youthful appearance instead of the possibility of developing skin cancer in the future might be more effective.

Although education provided by a physician is effective, using media—particularly social media—might be more efficient. Television, Instagram, and YouTube were listed by respondents as the 3 most preferred media outlets for skin health education, which shows important areas of focus for future advertising. Facebook was listed at a surprisingly low level, possibly showing the change in use of certain social media websites among this age group. According to the Pew Research Center, the most widely used social media apps among young adults aged 18 to 29 years are YouTube (91%), Facebook (63%), Instagram (67%), and Snapchat (62%). More than half of the same demographic visit Facebook (74%), Instagram (63%), Snapchat (61%), and YouTube (51%) daily.⁵ Although respondents to our survey were not specifically asked about the frequency of their use of social media and our data set includes patients younger than 18 years, we know that social media use has been increasing over the last decade among adolescents.¹ Therefore, we assume that more than one-half of respondents to our survey use their reported social media platforms daily.

Social media is an underused medium for skin cancer prevention education and can reach those who do not regularly see a dermatologist. Unlike printed pamphlets and posters, advertisements through social media can use metrics such as age, race, gender, and interests to target high-risk individuals.

Study Limitations
This was a single-site study of currently enrolled dermatology patients who might be more aware of skin protection than the general population because they are being treated by a dermatologist. Survey questions regarding demographics, required by our institution, could not effectively differentiate Hispanic and White patients. Respondents could have been subject to the Hawthorne effect—awareness that their behavior is being observed—when responding to the survey because it was administered in the office prior to being seen by a dermatologist.

Intentional tanning—through sun exposure and tanning beds—is an easily avoidable contributor to skin cancer development and an important area for public education. Since the advent of social media, a correlation between social media use and increased indoor tanning behaviors has been reported.¹ In 2010, 11.3% of US adults aged 18 to 29 years reported using a tanning bed in the last 12 months.² The American Academy of Dermatology first published their “Position Statement on Indoor Tanning” in 1998, endorsing a ban on the sale of indoor tanning equipment for nonmedical purposes.³

Although there has been no outright ban on indoor tanning, regulations have been put in place in many states—including Texas, where (as of 2013) a person younger than 18 years must have written consent from their parent(s) to use a tanning bed. Despite efforts of organizations including the American Academy of Dermatology and the government to educate the public on skin cancer prevention and sun safety, the skin cancer rate has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years.

There is a constant campaign among dermatologists to educate their patients on how to reduce or avoid the risk for skin cancer, including the use of sunscreen and avoidance of tanning. Adolescents and young adults are an especially important demographic to reach and educate because increased UV light exposure during these years leads to a greatly increased risk for skin cancer later in life.⁴ Data on the overall prevalence of tanning and the demographics of participation in tanning activities are important to capture and can be used to efficiently target higher-risk populations.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the attitudes and behaviors of adolescents and young adults regarding sun protection and tanning. We also aimed to determine which avenues, including social media, would be most effective at educating about skin cancer awareness and sun protection to the higher-risk younger population.

Materials and Methods

We developed an institutional review board–approved protocol for the prospective collection of data from registered patients at the dermatology clinic of the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health at San Antonio. A paper survey containing 15 rating-scale questions was administered to 60 patients aged 13 to 27 years. Surveys were administered during intake, prior to the patients’ visit with a dermatologist; all visits were of a functional (not cosmetic) nature. Data collection spanned June to August 2018. Survey results were entered into Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software for qualitative analysis.

Results

Sixty patients responded to the survey. The mean age of respondents was 19.5 years. No surveys were excluded from the data set. Table 1 provides baseline characteristics of respondents. Some respondents left questions unanswered, resulting in questions with fewer than 60 responses.

Among respondents to the survey, 70% (42/60) reported it is very important to protect their skin from sun exposure, and 30% (18/60) reported it is somewhat important. Regarding sunscreen use, 70% (42/60) indicated they use sunscreen only before outdoor activities, 12% (7/60) use sunscreen daily, and 17% (10/60) never use sunscreen. Of those who use sunscreen, 52% (28/54) do so to prevent skin damage and aging and 44% (24/54) to prevent skin cancer. Twenty-three percent (13/56) of respondents reported finding tanned skin attractive; 26% (14/55) reported wanting to be tan. Looking at race, 28% (10/36) of Whites, 25% (5/20) of Spanish/Hispanic/Latinos, and 22% (2/9) of Asians found tanned skin attractive; no Black respondents found tanned skin attractive.

 

Regarding tanning, 12% (7/57) reported using a tanning bed in their lifetime and 4% (2/57) in the last year; 34% (19/56) reported deliberately tanning outdoors; and 9% (5/56) reported using sunless or spray-on tanning. Dermatologists (75% [42/56]), primary care physicians (69.6% [39/56]), and parents (46.4% [26/56]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education; among media modalities, television (33.9% [19/56]), Instagram (30.4% [17/60]), and YouTube (23.2% [13/60]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education (Table 2).

Comment

Perceptions of Tanning
Almost one-quarter of respondents found tanned skin attractive, which might reflect a shift from prior generations. Compared to the 11% of respondents in the 2010 survey,² only 3.5% (2/57) of our respondents reported using a tanning bed in the last year, which could reflect the results of recent Texas legislation restricting the use of tanning beds by adolescents.

An alarming number of respondents reported going outdoors with the intention of tanning; although it appears that indoor tanning education has been successful, this finding shows that there is still a need for sun protection education because outdoor tanning is not a suitable alternative. A small number of respondents reported getting a sunless or spray-on tan, which is a risk-free alternative to indoor tanning.

Despite all respondents stating that protecting skin from the sun is important, most respondents surveyed do not use sunscreen daily. More respondents use sunscreen to prevent damage and aging than to prevent skin cancer. Young people might be more alarmed by the threat of early aging and losing their “youthful appearance” than by the possibility of developing skin cancer in the distant future. This discrepancy might indicate a lack of knowledge and be an important focus for future education efforts.

Perceptions of Trustworthiness of Education Sources
Our findings show dermatologists and primary care physicians are important educators on skin protection. Primary care physicians should remain vigilant to recognize at-risk patients who would benefit from skin protection education, especially those who do not see a dermatologist. Education of young people focusing on their concern over maintaining a youthful appearance instead of the possibility of developing skin cancer in the future might be more effective.

Although education provided by a physician is effective, using media—particularly social media—might be more efficient. Television, Instagram, and YouTube were listed by respondents as the 3 most preferred media outlets for skin health education, which shows important areas of focus for future advertising. Facebook was listed at a surprisingly low level, possibly showing the change in use of certain social media websites among this age group. According to the Pew Research Center, the most widely used social media apps among young adults aged 18 to 29 years are YouTube (91%), Facebook (63%), Instagram (67%), and Snapchat (62%). More than half of the same demographic visit Facebook (74%), Instagram (63%), Snapchat (61%), and YouTube (51%) daily.⁵ Although respondents to our survey were not specifically asked about the frequency of their use of social media and our data set includes patients younger than 18 years, we know that social media use has been increasing over the last decade among adolescents.¹ Therefore, we assume that more than one-half of respondents to our survey use their reported social media platforms daily.

Social media is an underused medium for skin cancer prevention education and can reach those who do not regularly see a dermatologist. Unlike printed pamphlets and posters, advertisements through social media can use metrics such as age, race, gender, and interests to target high-risk individuals.

Study Limitations
This was a single-site study of currently enrolled dermatology patients who might be more aware of skin protection than the general population because they are being treated by a dermatologist. Survey questions regarding demographics, required by our institution, could not effectively differentiate Hispanic and White patients. Respondents could have been subject to the Hawthorne effect—awareness that their behavior is being observed—when responding to the survey because it was administered in the office prior to being seen by a dermatologist.

Intentional tanning—through sun exposure and tanning beds—is an easily avoidable contributor to skin cancer development and an important area for public education. Since the advent of social media, a correlation between social media use and increased indoor tanning behaviors has been reported.¹ In 2010, 11.3% of US adults aged 18 to 29 years reported using a tanning bed in the last 12 months.² The American Academy of Dermatology first published their “Position Statement on Indoor Tanning” in 1998, endorsing a ban on the sale of indoor tanning equipment for nonmedical purposes.³

Although there has been no outright ban on indoor tanning, regulations have been put in place in many states—including Texas, where (as of 2013) a person younger than 18 years must have written consent from their parent(s) to use a tanning bed. Despite efforts of organizations including the American Academy of Dermatology and the government to educate the public on skin cancer prevention and sun safety, the skin cancer rate has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years.

There is a constant campaign among dermatologists to educate their patients on how to reduce or avoid the risk for skin cancer, including the use of sunscreen and avoidance of tanning. Adolescents and young adults are an especially important demographic to reach and educate because increased UV light exposure during these years leads to a greatly increased risk for skin cancer later in life.⁴ Data on the overall prevalence of tanning and the demographics of participation in tanning activities are important to capture and can be used to efficiently target higher-risk populations.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the attitudes and behaviors of adolescents and young adults regarding sun protection and tanning. We also aimed to determine which avenues, including social media, would be most effective at educating about skin cancer awareness and sun protection to the higher-risk younger population.

Materials and Methods

We developed an institutional review board–approved protocol for the prospective collection of data from registered patients at the dermatology clinic of the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health at San Antonio. A paper survey containing 15 rating-scale questions was administered to 60 patients aged 13 to 27 years. Surveys were administered during intake, prior to the patients’ visit with a dermatologist; all visits were of a functional (not cosmetic) nature. Data collection spanned June to August 2018. Survey results were entered into Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software for qualitative analysis.

Results

Sixty patients responded to the survey. The mean age of respondents was 19.5 years. No surveys were excluded from the data set. Table 1 provides baseline characteristics of respondents. Some respondents left questions unanswered, resulting in questions with fewer than 60 responses.

Among respondents to the survey, 70% (42/60) reported it is very important to protect their skin from sun exposure, and 30% (18/60) reported it is somewhat important. Regarding sunscreen use, 70% (42/60) indicated they use sunscreen only before outdoor activities, 12% (7/60) use sunscreen daily, and 17% (10/60) never use sunscreen. Of those who use sunscreen, 52% (28/54) do so to prevent skin damage and aging and 44% (24/54) to prevent skin cancer. Twenty-three percent (13/56) of respondents reported finding tanned skin attractive; 26% (14/55) reported wanting to be tan. Looking at race, 28% (10/36) of Whites, 25% (5/20) of Spanish/Hispanic/Latinos, and 22% (2/9) of Asians found tanned skin attractive; no Black respondents found tanned skin attractive.

 

Regarding tanning, 12% (7/57) reported using a tanning bed in their lifetime and 4% (2/57) in the last year; 34% (19/56) reported deliberately tanning outdoors; and 9% (5/56) reported using sunless or spray-on tanning. Dermatologists (75% [42/56]), primary care physicians (69.6% [39/56]), and parents (46.4% [26/56]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education; among media modalities, television (33.9% [19/56]), Instagram (30.4% [17/60]), and YouTube (23.2% [13/60]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education (Table 2).

Comment

Perceptions of Tanning
Almost one-quarter of respondents found tanned skin attractive, which might reflect a shift from prior generations. Compared to the 11% of respondents in the 2010 survey,² only 3.5% (2/57) of our respondents reported using a tanning bed in the last year, which could reflect the results of recent Texas legislation restricting the use of tanning beds by adolescents.

An alarming number of respondents reported going outdoors with the intention of tanning; although it appears that indoor tanning education has been successful, this finding shows that there is still a need for sun protection education because outdoor tanning is not a suitable alternative. A small number of respondents reported getting a sunless or spray-on tan, which is a risk-free alternative to indoor tanning.

Despite all respondents stating that protecting skin from the sun is important, most respondents surveyed do not use sunscreen daily. More respondents use sunscreen to prevent damage and aging than to prevent skin cancer. Young people might be more alarmed by the threat of early aging and losing their “youthful appearance” than by the possibility of developing skin cancer in the distant future. This discrepancy might indicate a lack of knowledge and be an important focus for future education efforts.

Perceptions of Trustworthiness of Education Sources
Our findings show dermatologists and primary care physicians are important educators on skin protection. Primary care physicians should remain vigilant to recognize at-risk patients who would benefit from skin protection education, especially those who do not see a dermatologist. Education of young people focusing on their concern over maintaining a youthful appearance instead of the possibility of developing skin cancer in the future might be more effective.

Although education provided by a physician is effective, using media—particularly social media—might be more efficient. Television, Instagram, and YouTube were listed by respondents as the 3 most preferred media outlets for skin health education, which shows important areas of focus for future advertising. Facebook was listed at a surprisingly low level, possibly showing the change in use of certain social media websites among this age group. According to the Pew Research Center, the most widely used social media apps among young adults aged 18 to 29 years are YouTube (91%), Facebook (63%), Instagram (67%), and Snapchat (62%). More than half of the same demographic visit Facebook (74%), Instagram (63%), Snapchat (61%), and YouTube (51%) daily.⁵ Although respondents to our survey were not specifically asked about the frequency of their use of social media and our data set includes patients younger than 18 years, we know that social media use has been increasing over the last decade among adolescents.¹ Therefore, we assume that more than one-half of respondents to our survey use their reported social media platforms daily.

Social media is an underused medium for skin cancer prevention education and can reach those who do not regularly see a dermatologist. Unlike printed pamphlets and posters, advertisements through social media can use metrics such as age, race, gender, and interests to target high-risk individuals.

Study Limitations
This was a single-site study of currently enrolled dermatology patients who might be more aware of skin protection than the general population because they are being treated by a dermatologist. Survey questions regarding demographics, required by our institution, could not effectively differentiate Hispanic and White patients. Respondents could have been subject to the Hawthorne effect—awareness that their behavior is being observed—when responding to the survey because it was administered in the office prior to being seen by a dermatologist.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) entails multiple time-consuming surgical and histological examinations for each patient. As surgical stages are performed and histological sections are processed, an efficient communication method among providers, medical assistants, histotechnologists, and patients is necessary to avoid delays. To address these and other communication issues, providers have focused on ways to increase clinic efficiency and improve patient-reported outcomes by utilizing new or repurposed communication technologies in their Mohs practice. 

Prior reports have highlighted the utility of hands-free headsets that allow real-time communication among staff members as a means of increasing clinic efficiency and decreasing patient wait times.^1-4 These systems may mediate a more rapid turnover between stages by mitigating the need for surgeons and support staff to assemble within a designated workspace.^1,3,4 However, there is no single or standardized communication method that best suits all surgical suites and MMS practices. Our study aimed to identify the current communication strategies employed by Mohs surgeons and thereby ascertain which method(s) portend(s) the highest benefit in average daily time savings and provider-perceived patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Survey Instrument
A new 10-question electronic survey was published on the SurveyMonkey website, and a link to the survey was provided in a quarterly email that originated from the American College of Mohs Surgery and was distributed to all 1735 active members. Responses were obtained from January 2019 to February 2019.

Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was done to determine any significant associations among the providers’ responses. P<.05 was used to determine statistical significance. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to identify significant associations between the number of rooms and the communication systems that were used. Thus, 7 total tests—1 for each device (whiteboard, light system, flag system, wired intercom, wireless intercom, walkie-talkie, or headset)—were conducted. The Cochran-Armitage test also was used to determine whether the probability of using the device was affected by the number of stations/surgical rooms that were attended by the Mohs surgeons. To determine whether the communication devices used were associated with higher patient satisfaction, a χ² test was conducted for each device (7 total tests), testing the categories of using that device (yes/no) and patient satisfaction (yes/no). A Fisher exact test of independence was used in any case where the proportion for the device and patient satisfaction was 25% or higher. To determine whether the communication method was associated with increased time savings, 7 total Cochran-Armitage tests were conducted, 1 for each device. A logistic regression model was used to determine whether there was a significant association between the number of stations and the likelihood of reporting patient satisfaction.

Results

Eighty-eight surgeons responded to the survey, with a response rate of 5% (88/1735). A total of 55 surgeons completed the survey in its entirety and were included in the data analysis. The most commonly used communication mediums were whiteboards (29/55 [53%]), followed by a flag system (16/55 [29%]) and a light system (13/55 [24%]). Most Mohs surgeons (52/55 [95%]) used the communication media to communicate with their staff only, and 76% (42/55) of Mohs surgeons believed that their communication media contributed to higher patient satisfaction. Overall, 58% (32/55) of Mohs surgeons stated that their communication media saved more than 15 minutes (on average) per day. The use of a whiteboard and/or flag system was reported as the least efficient method, with average daily time savings of 13 minutes. With the introduction of newer technology (wired or wireless intercoms, headsets, walkie-talkies, or internal messaging systems such as Skype) to the whiteboard and/or flag system, the time savings increased by 10 minutes per day. Nearly 25% (14/55) of surgeons utilized more than 1 communication system.

As the number of stations in an MMS suite increased, the probability of using a whiteboard to track the progress of the cases decreased. There were no statistically significant associations identified between the number of stations and the use of other communication devices (ie, flag system, light system, wireless intercom, wired intercom, walkie-talkie, headset). The stratified percentages of the amount of time savings for each communication modality are presented in the Figure (whiteboards and headsets were excluded because they did not increase time savings). The use of a light system was the only communication modality found to be statistically associated with an increase in provider-reported time savings (P=.0482; Figure). In addition, our analysis did not show an improvement in provider-reported patient satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics.

Comment

The process of transmitting information among the medical team during MMS is a complex interplay involving the relay of crucial information, with many opportunities for the introduction of distraction and error. Despite numerous improvements in the efficiency of the preparation of histological specimens and implementation of various time-saving and tissue-saving surgical interventions, relatively little attention has been given to address the sometimes chaotic and challenging process of organizing results from each stage of multiple patients in an MMS surgical suite.⁵

As demonstrated by our survey, incorporation of a light-based system into an MMS clinic may improve workplace efficiency by decreasing the redundant use of support staff and allowing Mohs surgeons to transition from one station to the next seamlessly. Light-based communication systems provide an immediate notification for support staff via color-coded and/or numerically coded indicators on input switches located outside and inside the examination/surgery rooms. The switch indicators can be depressed with minimal disruption from station to station, thereby foregoing the need to interrupt an ongoing excision or closure to convey the status of the case. These systems may then permit enhanced clinic and workflow efficiency, which may help to shorten patient wait times.

Study Limitation
Although all members of the American College of Mohs Surgery were invited to participate in this online survey, only a small number (N=55) completed it in its entirety. Moreover, sample sizes for some of the communication devices were small. As a result, many of the tests might be lacking sufficient power to detect possible relationships, which might be identified in future larger-scale studies.

Conclusion

Our study supports the use of light-based communication systems in MMS suites to improve efficiency in the clinic. Based on our analysis, light-based communication methods were significantly associated with improved time savings (P=.0482). Our study did not show an improvement in provider-reported satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics. We hope that this information will help guide providers in implementing new communication techniques to improve clinic efficiency. 



Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ms. Kathy Kyler (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) for her assistance in preparing this manuscript. Support for Dr. Chen and Mr. Stubblefield was provided through National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences [Grant 2U54GM104938-06, PI Judith James].

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) entails multiple time-consuming surgical and histological examinations for each patient. As surgical stages are performed and histological sections are processed, an efficient communication method among providers, medical assistants, histotechnologists, and patients is necessary to avoid delays. To address these and other communication issues, providers have focused on ways to increase clinic efficiency and improve patient-reported outcomes by utilizing new or repurposed communication technologies in their Mohs practice. 

Prior reports have highlighted the utility of hands-free headsets that allow real-time communication among staff members as a means of increasing clinic efficiency and decreasing patient wait times.^1-4 These systems may mediate a more rapid turnover between stages by mitigating the need for surgeons and support staff to assemble within a designated workspace.^1,3,4 However, there is no single or standardized communication method that best suits all surgical suites and MMS practices. Our study aimed to identify the current communication strategies employed by Mohs surgeons and thereby ascertain which method(s) portend(s) the highest benefit in average daily time savings and provider-perceived patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Survey Instrument
A new 10-question electronic survey was published on the SurveyMonkey website, and a link to the survey was provided in a quarterly email that originated from the American College of Mohs Surgery and was distributed to all 1735 active members. Responses were obtained from January 2019 to February 2019.

Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was done to determine any significant associations among the providers’ responses. P<.05 was used to determine statistical significance. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to identify significant associations between the number of rooms and the communication systems that were used. Thus, 7 total tests—1 for each device (whiteboard, light system, flag system, wired intercom, wireless intercom, walkie-talkie, or headset)—were conducted. The Cochran-Armitage test also was used to determine whether the probability of using the device was affected by the number of stations/surgical rooms that were attended by the Mohs surgeons. To determine whether the communication devices used were associated with higher patient satisfaction, a χ² test was conducted for each device (7 total tests), testing the categories of using that device (yes/no) and patient satisfaction (yes/no). A Fisher exact test of independence was used in any case where the proportion for the device and patient satisfaction was 25% or higher. To determine whether the communication method was associated with increased time savings, 7 total Cochran-Armitage tests were conducted, 1 for each device. A logistic regression model was used to determine whether there was a significant association between the number of stations and the likelihood of reporting patient satisfaction.

Results

Eighty-eight surgeons responded to the survey, with a response rate of 5% (88/1735). A total of 55 surgeons completed the survey in its entirety and were included in the data analysis. The most commonly used communication mediums were whiteboards (29/55 [53%]), followed by a flag system (16/55 [29%]) and a light system (13/55 [24%]). Most Mohs surgeons (52/55 [95%]) used the communication media to communicate with their staff only, and 76% (42/55) of Mohs surgeons believed that their communication media contributed to higher patient satisfaction. Overall, 58% (32/55) of Mohs surgeons stated that their communication media saved more than 15 minutes (on average) per day. The use of a whiteboard and/or flag system was reported as the least efficient method, with average daily time savings of 13 minutes. With the introduction of newer technology (wired or wireless intercoms, headsets, walkie-talkies, or internal messaging systems such as Skype) to the whiteboard and/or flag system, the time savings increased by 10 minutes per day. Nearly 25% (14/55) of surgeons utilized more than 1 communication system.

As the number of stations in an MMS suite increased, the probability of using a whiteboard to track the progress of the cases decreased. There were no statistically significant associations identified between the number of stations and the use of other communication devices (ie, flag system, light system, wireless intercom, wired intercom, walkie-talkie, headset). The stratified percentages of the amount of time savings for each communication modality are presented in the Figure (whiteboards and headsets were excluded because they did not increase time savings). The use of a light system was the only communication modality found to be statistically associated with an increase in provider-reported time savings (P=.0482; Figure). In addition, our analysis did not show an improvement in provider-reported patient satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics.

Comment

The process of transmitting information among the medical team during MMS is a complex interplay involving the relay of crucial information, with many opportunities for the introduction of distraction and error. Despite numerous improvements in the efficiency of the preparation of histological specimens and implementation of various time-saving and tissue-saving surgical interventions, relatively little attention has been given to address the sometimes chaotic and challenging process of organizing results from each stage of multiple patients in an MMS surgical suite.⁵

As demonstrated by our survey, incorporation of a light-based system into an MMS clinic may improve workplace efficiency by decreasing the redundant use of support staff and allowing Mohs surgeons to transition from one station to the next seamlessly. Light-based communication systems provide an immediate notification for support staff via color-coded and/or numerically coded indicators on input switches located outside and inside the examination/surgery rooms. The switch indicators can be depressed with minimal disruption from station to station, thereby foregoing the need to interrupt an ongoing excision or closure to convey the status of the case. These systems may then permit enhanced clinic and workflow efficiency, which may help to shorten patient wait times.

Study Limitation
Although all members of the American College of Mohs Surgery were invited to participate in this online survey, only a small number (N=55) completed it in its entirety. Moreover, sample sizes for some of the communication devices were small. As a result, many of the tests might be lacking sufficient power to detect possible relationships, which might be identified in future larger-scale studies.

Conclusion

Our study supports the use of light-based communication systems in MMS suites to improve efficiency in the clinic. Based on our analysis, light-based communication methods were significantly associated with improved time savings (P=.0482). Our study did not show an improvement in provider-reported satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics. We hope that this information will help guide providers in implementing new communication techniques to improve clinic efficiency. 



Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ms. Kathy Kyler (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) for her assistance in preparing this manuscript. Support for Dr. Chen and Mr. Stubblefield was provided through National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences [Grant 2U54GM104938-06, PI Judith James].

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) entails multiple time-consuming surgical and histological examinations for each patient. As surgical stages are performed and histological sections are processed, an efficient communication method among providers, medical assistants, histotechnologists, and patients is necessary to avoid delays. To address these and other communication issues, providers have focused on ways to increase clinic efficiency and improve patient-reported outcomes by utilizing new or repurposed communication technologies in their Mohs practice. 

Prior reports have highlighted the utility of hands-free headsets that allow real-time communication among staff members as a means of increasing clinic efficiency and decreasing patient wait times.^1-4 These systems may mediate a more rapid turnover between stages by mitigating the need for surgeons and support staff to assemble within a designated workspace.^1,3,4 However, there is no single or standardized communication method that best suits all surgical suites and MMS practices. Our study aimed to identify the current communication strategies employed by Mohs surgeons and thereby ascertain which method(s) portend(s) the highest benefit in average daily time savings and provider-perceived patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Survey Instrument
A new 10-question electronic survey was published on the SurveyMonkey website, and a link to the survey was provided in a quarterly email that originated from the American College of Mohs Surgery and was distributed to all 1735 active members. Responses were obtained from January 2019 to February 2019.

Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was done to determine any significant associations among the providers’ responses. P<.05 was used to determine statistical significance. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to identify significant associations between the number of rooms and the communication systems that were used. Thus, 7 total tests—1 for each device (whiteboard, light system, flag system, wired intercom, wireless intercom, walkie-talkie, or headset)—were conducted. The Cochran-Armitage test also was used to determine whether the probability of using the device was affected by the number of stations/surgical rooms that were attended by the Mohs surgeons. To determine whether the communication devices used were associated with higher patient satisfaction, a χ² test was conducted for each device (7 total tests), testing the categories of using that device (yes/no) and patient satisfaction (yes/no). A Fisher exact test of independence was used in any case where the proportion for the device and patient satisfaction was 25% or higher. To determine whether the communication method was associated with increased time savings, 7 total Cochran-Armitage tests were conducted, 1 for each device. A logistic regression model was used to determine whether there was a significant association between the number of stations and the likelihood of reporting patient satisfaction.

Results

Eighty-eight surgeons responded to the survey, with a response rate of 5% (88/1735). A total of 55 surgeons completed the survey in its entirety and were included in the data analysis. The most commonly used communication mediums were whiteboards (29/55 [53%]), followed by a flag system (16/55 [29%]) and a light system (13/55 [24%]). Most Mohs surgeons (52/55 [95%]) used the communication media to communicate with their staff only, and 76% (42/55) of Mohs surgeons believed that their communication media contributed to higher patient satisfaction. Overall, 58% (32/55) of Mohs surgeons stated that their communication media saved more than 15 minutes (on average) per day. The use of a whiteboard and/or flag system was reported as the least efficient method, with average daily time savings of 13 minutes. With the introduction of newer technology (wired or wireless intercoms, headsets, walkie-talkies, or internal messaging systems such as Skype) to the whiteboard and/or flag system, the time savings increased by 10 minutes per day. Nearly 25% (14/55) of surgeons utilized more than 1 communication system.

As the number of stations in an MMS suite increased, the probability of using a whiteboard to track the progress of the cases decreased. There were no statistically significant associations identified between the number of stations and the use of other communication devices (ie, flag system, light system, wireless intercom, wired intercom, walkie-talkie, headset). The stratified percentages of the amount of time savings for each communication modality are presented in the Figure (whiteboards and headsets were excluded because they did not increase time savings). The use of a light system was the only communication modality found to be statistically associated with an increase in provider-reported time savings (P=.0482; Figure). In addition, our analysis did not show an improvement in provider-reported patient satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics.

Comment

The process of transmitting information among the medical team during MMS is a complex interplay involving the relay of crucial information, with many opportunities for the introduction of distraction and error. Despite numerous improvements in the efficiency of the preparation of histological specimens and implementation of various time-saving and tissue-saving surgical interventions, relatively little attention has been given to address the sometimes chaotic and challenging process of organizing results from each stage of multiple patients in an MMS surgical suite.⁵

As demonstrated by our survey, incorporation of a light-based system into an MMS clinic may improve workplace efficiency by decreasing the redundant use of support staff and allowing Mohs surgeons to transition from one station to the next seamlessly. Light-based communication systems provide an immediate notification for support staff via color-coded and/or numerically coded indicators on input switches located outside and inside the examination/surgery rooms. The switch indicators can be depressed with minimal disruption from station to station, thereby foregoing the need to interrupt an ongoing excision or closure to convey the status of the case. These systems may then permit enhanced clinic and workflow efficiency, which may help to shorten patient wait times.

Study Limitation
Although all members of the American College of Mohs Surgery were invited to participate in this online survey, only a small number (N=55) completed it in its entirety. Moreover, sample sizes for some of the communication devices were small. As a result, many of the tests might be lacking sufficient power to detect possible relationships, which might be identified in future larger-scale studies.

Conclusion

Our study supports the use of light-based communication systems in MMS suites to improve efficiency in the clinic. Based on our analysis, light-based communication methods were significantly associated with improved time savings (P=.0482). Our study did not show an improvement in provider-reported satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics. We hope that this information will help guide providers in implementing new communication techniques to improve clinic efficiency. 



Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ms. Kathy Kyler (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) for her assistance in preparing this manuscript. Support for Dr. Chen and Mr. Stubblefield was provided through National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences [Grant 2U54GM104938-06, PI Judith James].

Rapid advances in imaging technology have led to better spatial resolution with lower radiation doses to patients. These advances have helped to increase the use of diagnostic chest imaging, particularly in emergency departments and oncology centers, and in screening for coronary artery disease. As a result, there has been an explosion of incidental findings on chest imaging—including indeterminate lung nodules.^1,2

Lung nodules are rounded and well-circumscribed lung opacities (≤ 3 cm in diameter) that may present as solitary or multiple lesions in usually asymptomatic patients. Most lung nodules are benign, the result of an infectious or inflammatory process. Nodules that are ≤ 8 mm in diameter, unless they show increase in size over time, often can be safely followed with imaging surveillance. In contrast, lung nodules > 8 mm could represent an early-stage lung cancer, especially among patients with high-risk for developing lung cancer (ie, those with advanced age, heavy tobacco abuse, or emphysema) and should be further assessed with close imaging surveillance, either chest computed tomography (CT) alone or positron-emission tomography (PET)/CT, or tissue biopsy, based on the underlying likelihood of malignancy.

Patients who receive an early-stage lung cancer diagnosis can be offered curative treatments leading to improved 5-year survival rates.^3,4 Consequently, health care systems need to be able to identify these nodules accurately, in order to categorize and manage them accordingly to the Fleischner radiographic and American College of Chest Physicians clinical guidelines.^5,6 Unfortunately, many hospitals struggle to identify patients with incidental lung nodules found during diagnostic chest and abdominal imaging, due in part to poor adherence to Fleischner guidelines among radiologists for categorizing pulmonary nodules.^7,8

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system is interested in effectively detecting patients with incidental lung nodules. Veterans have a higher risk of developing lung cancer when compared with the entire US population, mainly due to a higher incidence of tobacco use.⁶ The prevalence of lung nodules among veterans with significant risk factors for lung cancer is about 60% nationwide, and up to 85% in the Midwest, due to the high prevalence of histoplasmosis.⁷ However, only a small percentage of these nodules represent an early stage primary lung cancer.

Several Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) in the VHA use a radiology diagnostic code to systematically identify imaging studies with presence of lung nodules. In VISN 23, which includes Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and portions of neighboring states, the code used to identify these radiology studies is 44. However, there is high variability in the reporting and coding of imaging studies among radiologists, which could lead to misclassifying patients with lung nodules.⁸

Some studies suggest that using an automated text search algorithm within radiology reports can be a highly effective strategy to identify patients with lung nodules.^9,10 In this study, we compared the diagnostic performance of a newly developed text search algorithm applied to radiology reports with the current standard practice of using a radiology diagnostic code for identifying patients with lung nodules at the Iowa City US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System (ICVAHCS) hospital in Iowa.

 

Methods

Since 2014, The ICVAHCS has used a radiology diagnostic code to identify any imaging studies with lung nodules. The radiologist enters “44” at the end of the reading process using the Nuance Powerscribe 360 radiation reporting system. The code is uploaded into the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), and it is located within the radiology exam domain. This strategy was created and implemented by the Minneapolis VA Health Care System in Minnesota for all the VA hospitals in VISN 23. A lung nodule registry nurse was provided with a list of radiology studies flagged with this radiology diagnostic code every 2 weeks. A chart review was then performed for all these studies to determine the presence of a lung nodule. When detected, the ordering health care provider was alerted and given recommendations for managing the nodule.

We initially searched for the radiology studies with a presumptive lung nodule using the radiology code 44 within the CDW. Separately, we applied the text search strategy only to radiology reports from chest and abdomen studies (ie, X-rays, CT, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and PET) that contained any of the keyword phrases. The text search strategy was modeled based on a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm developed by the Puget Sound VA Healthcare System in Seattle, Washington to identify lung nodules on radiology reports.⁹ Our algorithm included a series of text searches using Microsoft SQL. After several simulations using a random group of radiology reports, we chose the keywords: “lung AND nodul”; “pulm AND nodul”; “pulm AND mass”; “lung AND mass”; and “ground glass”. We selected only chest and abdomen studies because on several simulations using a random group of radiology reports, the vast majority of lung nodules were identified on chest and abdomen imaging studies. Also, it would not have been feasible to chart review the approximately 30,000 total radiology reports that were generated during the study period.

From January 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016, we applied both search strategies independently: radiology diagnostic code for lung nodules to all imaging studies, and text search to all radiology reports of chest and abdomen imaging studies in the CDW (Figure). We also collected demographic (eg, age, sex, race, rurality) and clinical (eg, medical comorbidities, tobacco use) information that were uploaded to the database automatically from CDW using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition and demographic codes. The VHA uses the Rural-Urban Commuting Areas (RUCA) system to define rurality, which takes into account population density and how closely a community is linked socioeconomically to larger urban centers.¹¹ The protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of ICVAHCS and the University of Iowa.

The presence of a lung nodule was established by having the lung nodule registry nurse manually review the charts of every patient with a radiology report identified by either code 44 or the text search algorithm. The goal was to ensure that our text search strategy identified all reports with a code 44 to be compliant with VISN expectations. Cases in which a lung nodule was described in the radiology report were considered true positives, and those without a lung nodule description were considered false positives.

We compared the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients with lung nodules between those identified with both code 44 and the text search and those identified with the text search alone. We used χ2 tests for categorical variables (eg, age, gender, RUCA, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), smoking status) and t tests for continuous variables (eg, Charlson comorbidity score). A P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. To assess the yield of each search strategy, we determined the number of patients with lung nodules detected by the text search and the radiology diagnostic code. We also calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and 95% CI of each search strategy.

 

Results

We identified 12,983 radiology studies that required manual review during the study period. We confirmed that 8,516 imaging studies had lung nodules, representing 2,912 patients. Subjects with lung nodules were predominantly male (96%), aged between 60 and 79 years (71%), and lived in a rural area (72%). More than 50% of these patients had COPD and over a third were current smokers (Table 1). The text search algorithm identified all of the patients identified by the radiology diagnostic code (n = 1,251). It also identified an additional 1,661 patients with lung nodules that otherwise would have been missed by the radiology code. Compared with those identified only by the text search, those identified by both the radiology coding and text search were older, had lower Charlson comorbidity scores, and were more likely to be a current smoker.

The text search algorithm identified more than twice as many patients with potential lung nodules compared with the radiology diagnostic code (4,071 vs 1,363) (Table 2). However, the text search algorithm was associated with a much higher number of false positives than was the diagnostic code (1,159 vs 112) and a lower PPV (72% [95% CI, 70.6-73.4] vs 92% [95% CI, 90.6-93.4], respectively). The text search algorithm identified 130 patients with lung nodules of moderate to high risk for malignancy (> 8 mm diameter) that were not identified by the radiology code. When the PPV of each search strategy was calculated based on imaging studies with nodules (most patients had > 1 imaging study), the results remained similar (98% for radiology code and 66% for text search). A larger proportion of the lung nodules detected by code 44 vs the text search algorithm were from CT chest studies.

Discussion

In a population of predominantly older male veterans with significant risk factors for lung cancer and high incidence of incidental lung nodules, applying a text search algorithm on radiology reports identified a substantial number of patients with lung nodules, including some with nodules > 8 mm, that were missed by the radiologist-generated code.^9,10 Improving the yield of detection for lung nodules in a population with high risk for lung cancer would increase the likelihood of detecting patients with potentially curable early-stage lung cancers, decreasing lung cancer mortality.

The reasons for the high number of patients with lung nodules missed by the radiology code are unclear. Potential explanations may include the lack of standardization of imaging reports by the radiologists (ie, only 21% of chest CTs used a standardized template describing a lung nodule in our study), a problem well recognized both within and outside VHA.^8,12

The text search algorithm identified more patients with lung nodules but had a higher rate of false positives when compared with the diagnostic code. The high rate of false positives resulted in more charts to review and an increased workload for the lung nodule registry team. The challenges presented by an increased workload should be balanced against the potential harms of missing nodules that develop into advanced cancer.

 

Text Search Adjustments

Refining the text search criteria algorithm and the chart review process may decrease the rate of false positives significantly without affecting detection of lung nodules. In subsequent simulations, we found that by adding an exclusion criteria to text search algorithm to remove reports with specific keywords we could substantially reduce the number of false positive reports without affecting the detection rate of the lung nodules. These exclusion criteria would exclude any reports that: (1) contain “nodul” within the next 8 words after mentioning “no”; (2) contain “clear” within the next 8 words after mentioning “lung” in the text (eg, “lungs appear to be clear”); (3) contain “clear” within the next 4 words after mentioning “otherwise” in the text (eg, “otherwise appear to be clear”). Based on our study results, we further refined the text search strategy by limiting the search to only chest imaging studies. When we applied the revised algorithm to a random sample of imaging reports, we found all the code 44 radiology reports were still captured, but we were able to reduce the number of radiology reports needing review by about 80%.

Although classification approaches are being refined to improve radiology performance in multiple categories of nodules, this study suggests that alternative approaches based on text algorithms can improve the capture of pulmonary nodules that require surveillance. These algorithms also can be used to augment radiologist reporting systems. This represents an investment in resources to build a team that should include a bioinformatics specialist, lung nodule registry personnel (review charts of the detected imaging studies with lung nodules, populating the lung nodule database, and determining and tracking the need of imaging follow up), a lung nodule clinic nurse coordinator, and a dedicated lung nodule clinic pulmonologist.

Radiology departments could employ this text search approach to identify missed nodules and use an audit and feedback system to train radiologists to code lung nodules consistently at the time of the initial reading to avoid delays in identifying patients with nodules. Alternatively, the more widespread use of a standardized CT chest radiology reports using Fleischner or the American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung RADS) templates might improve the detection of patients with lung nodules.^5,13,14

 

The VHA system should have an effective strategy for identifying incidental lung nodules during routine radiology examinations. Relying only on radiologists to identify and code pulmonary nodules can lead to missing a significant number of patients with lung nodules and some patients with early stage lung cancer who could receive curative therapy.^12,14-16 The use of a standardized algorithm, like a text search strategy, might decrease the risk of variation in the execution and result in a more sensitive detection of patients with lung nodules. The text search strategy might be easily implemented and shared with other hospitals both within and outside the VHA.

Limitations

This study was performed in a single VHA hospital and the findings may not be generalizable to other settings of care. Second, our study design is susceptible to work-up bias because the results of a diagnostic test (eg, chest or abdomen imaging) affected whether the chart review was used to verify the test result. It was not feasible to review the patient records of all radiology studies done at the facility during the study period, consequently complete 2 × 2 tables could not be created to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value.

Conclusion

A text search algorithm of radiology reports increased the detection of patients with lung nodules when compared with radiology diagnostic coding alone. However, the improved detection was associated with a higher rate of false positives, which requires manually reviewing a larger number of patient’s chart reports. Future research and quality improvement should focus on standardizing the radiology reporting process and improving the efficiency and reliability of follow up and tracking of incidental lung nodules.

Acknowledgments

The work reported here was supported by a grant from the Office of Rural Health (N32-FY16Q1-S1-P01577), US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. We also had the support from the Veterans Rural Health Resource Center-Iowa City, and the Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Service through the Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE) Center (REA 09-220).

Rapid advances in imaging technology have led to better spatial resolution with lower radiation doses to patients. These advances have helped to increase the use of diagnostic chest imaging, particularly in emergency departments and oncology centers, and in screening for coronary artery disease. As a result, there has been an explosion of incidental findings on chest imaging—including indeterminate lung nodules.^1,2

Lung nodules are rounded and well-circumscribed lung opacities (≤ 3 cm in diameter) that may present as solitary or multiple lesions in usually asymptomatic patients. Most lung nodules are benign, the result of an infectious or inflammatory process. Nodules that are ≤ 8 mm in diameter, unless they show increase in size over time, often can be safely followed with imaging surveillance. In contrast, lung nodules > 8 mm could represent an early-stage lung cancer, especially among patients with high-risk for developing lung cancer (ie, those with advanced age, heavy tobacco abuse, or emphysema) and should be further assessed with close imaging surveillance, either chest computed tomography (CT) alone or positron-emission tomography (PET)/CT, or tissue biopsy, based on the underlying likelihood of malignancy.

Patients who receive an early-stage lung cancer diagnosis can be offered curative treatments leading to improved 5-year survival rates.^3,4 Consequently, health care systems need to be able to identify these nodules accurately, in order to categorize and manage them accordingly to the Fleischner radiographic and American College of Chest Physicians clinical guidelines.^5,6 Unfortunately, many hospitals struggle to identify patients with incidental lung nodules found during diagnostic chest and abdominal imaging, due in part to poor adherence to Fleischner guidelines among radiologists for categorizing pulmonary nodules.^7,8

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system is interested in effectively detecting patients with incidental lung nodules. Veterans have a higher risk of developing lung cancer when compared with the entire US population, mainly due to a higher incidence of tobacco use.⁶ The prevalence of lung nodules among veterans with significant risk factors for lung cancer is about 60% nationwide, and up to 85% in the Midwest, due to the high prevalence of histoplasmosis.⁷ However, only a small percentage of these nodules represent an early stage primary lung cancer.

Several Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) in the VHA use a radiology diagnostic code to systematically identify imaging studies with presence of lung nodules. In VISN 23, which includes Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and portions of neighboring states, the code used to identify these radiology studies is 44. However, there is high variability in the reporting and coding of imaging studies among radiologists, which could lead to misclassifying patients with lung nodules.⁸

Some studies suggest that using an automated text search algorithm within radiology reports can be a highly effective strategy to identify patients with lung nodules.^9,10 In this study, we compared the diagnostic performance of a newly developed text search algorithm applied to radiology reports with the current standard practice of using a radiology diagnostic code for identifying patients with lung nodules at the Iowa City US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System (ICVAHCS) hospital in Iowa.

 

Methods

Since 2014, The ICVAHCS has used a radiology diagnostic code to identify any imaging studies with lung nodules. The radiologist enters “44” at the end of the reading process using the Nuance Powerscribe 360 radiation reporting system. The code is uploaded into the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), and it is located within the radiology exam domain. This strategy was created and implemented by the Minneapolis VA Health Care System in Minnesota for all the VA hospitals in VISN 23. A lung nodule registry nurse was provided with a list of radiology studies flagged with this radiology diagnostic code every 2 weeks. A chart review was then performed for all these studies to determine the presence of a lung nodule. When detected, the ordering health care provider was alerted and given recommendations for managing the nodule.

We initially searched for the radiology studies with a presumptive lung nodule using the radiology code 44 within the CDW. Separately, we applied the text search strategy only to radiology reports from chest and abdomen studies (ie, X-rays, CT, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and PET) that contained any of the keyword phrases. The text search strategy was modeled based on a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm developed by the Puget Sound VA Healthcare System in Seattle, Washington to identify lung nodules on radiology reports.⁹ Our algorithm included a series of text searches using Microsoft SQL. After several simulations using a random group of radiology reports, we chose the keywords: “lung AND nodul”; “pulm AND nodul”; “pulm AND mass”; “lung AND mass”; and “ground glass”. We selected only chest and abdomen studies because on several simulations using a random group of radiology reports, the vast majority of lung nodules were identified on chest and abdomen imaging studies. Also, it would not have been feasible to chart review the approximately 30,000 total radiology reports that were generated during the study period.

From January 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016, we applied both search strategies independently: radiology diagnostic code for lung nodules to all imaging studies, and text search to all radiology reports of chest and abdomen imaging studies in the CDW (Figure). We also collected demographic (eg, age, sex, race, rurality) and clinical (eg, medical comorbidities, tobacco use) information that were uploaded to the database automatically from CDW using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition and demographic codes. The VHA uses the Rural-Urban Commuting Areas (RUCA) system to define rurality, which takes into account population density and how closely a community is linked socioeconomically to larger urban centers.¹¹ The protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of ICVAHCS and the University of Iowa.

The presence of a lung nodule was established by having the lung nodule registry nurse manually review the charts of every patient with a radiology report identified by either code 44 or the text search algorithm. The goal was to ensure that our text search strategy identified all reports with a code 44 to be compliant with VISN expectations. Cases in which a lung nodule was described in the radiology report were considered true positives, and those without a lung nodule description were considered false positives.

We compared the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients with lung nodules between those identified with both code 44 and the text search and those identified with the text search alone. We used χ2 tests for categorical variables (eg, age, gender, RUCA, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), smoking status) and t tests for continuous variables (eg, Charlson comorbidity score). A P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. To assess the yield of each search strategy, we determined the number of patients with lung nodules detected by the text search and the radiology diagnostic code. We also calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and 95% CI of each search strategy.

 

Results

We identified 12,983 radiology studies that required manual review during the study period. We confirmed that 8,516 imaging studies had lung nodules, representing 2,912 patients. Subjects with lung nodules were predominantly male (96%), aged between 60 and 79 years (71%), and lived in a rural area (72%). More than 50% of these patients had COPD and over a third were current smokers (Table 1). The text search algorithm identified all of the patients identified by the radiology diagnostic code (n = 1,251). It also identified an additional 1,661 patients with lung nodules that otherwise would have been missed by the radiology code. Compared with those identified only by the text search, those identified by both the radiology coding and text search were older, had lower Charlson comorbidity scores, and were more likely to be a current smoker.

The text search algorithm identified more than twice as many patients with potential lung nodules compared with the radiology diagnostic code (4,071 vs 1,363) (Table 2). However, the text search algorithm was associated with a much higher number of false positives than was the diagnostic code (1,159 vs 112) and a lower PPV (72% [95% CI, 70.6-73.4] vs 92% [95% CI, 90.6-93.4], respectively). The text search algorithm identified 130 patients with lung nodules of moderate to high risk for malignancy (> 8 mm diameter) that were not identified by the radiology code. When the PPV of each search strategy was calculated based on imaging studies with nodules (most patients had > 1 imaging study), the results remained similar (98% for radiology code and 66% for text search). A larger proportion of the lung nodules detected by code 44 vs the text search algorithm were from CT chest studies.

Discussion

In a population of predominantly older male veterans with significant risk factors for lung cancer and high incidence of incidental lung nodules, applying a text search algorithm on radiology reports identified a substantial number of patients with lung nodules, including some with nodules > 8 mm, that were missed by the radiologist-generated code.^9,10 Improving the yield of detection for lung nodules in a population with high risk for lung cancer would increase the likelihood of detecting patients with potentially curable early-stage lung cancers, decreasing lung cancer mortality.

The reasons for the high number of patients with lung nodules missed by the radiology code are unclear. Potential explanations may include the lack of standardization of imaging reports by the radiologists (ie, only 21% of chest CTs used a standardized template describing a lung nodule in our study), a problem well recognized both within and outside VHA.^8,12

The text search algorithm identified more patients with lung nodules but had a higher rate of false positives when compared with the diagnostic code. The high rate of false positives resulted in more charts to review and an increased workload for the lung nodule registry team. The challenges presented by an increased workload should be balanced against the potential harms of missing nodules that develop into advanced cancer.

 

Text Search Adjustments

Refining the text search criteria algorithm and the chart review process may decrease the rate of false positives significantly without affecting detection of lung nodules. In subsequent simulations, we found that by adding an exclusion criteria to text search algorithm to remove reports with specific keywords we could substantially reduce the number of false positive reports without affecting the detection rate of the lung nodules. These exclusion criteria would exclude any reports that: (1) contain “nodul” within the next 8 words after mentioning “no”; (2) contain “clear” within the next 8 words after mentioning “lung” in the text (eg, “lungs appear to be clear”); (3) contain “clear” within the next 4 words after mentioning “otherwise” in the text (eg, “otherwise appear to be clear”). Based on our study results, we further refined the text search strategy by limiting the search to only chest imaging studies. When we applied the revised algorithm to a random sample of imaging reports, we found all the code 44 radiology reports were still captured, but we were able to reduce the number of radiology reports needing review by about 80%.

Although classification approaches are being refined to improve radiology performance in multiple categories of nodules, this study suggests that alternative approaches based on text algorithms can improve the capture of pulmonary nodules that require surveillance. These algorithms also can be used to augment radiologist reporting systems. This represents an investment in resources to build a team that should include a bioinformatics specialist, lung nodule registry personnel (review charts of the detected imaging studies with lung nodules, populating the lung nodule database, and determining and tracking the need of imaging follow up), a lung nodule clinic nurse coordinator, and a dedicated lung nodule clinic pulmonologist.

Radiology departments could employ this text search approach to identify missed nodules and use an audit and feedback system to train radiologists to code lung nodules consistently at the time of the initial reading to avoid delays in identifying patients with nodules. Alternatively, the more widespread use of a standardized CT chest radiology reports using Fleischner or the American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung RADS) templates might improve the detection of patients with lung nodules.^5,13,14

 

The VHA system should have an effective strategy for identifying incidental lung nodules during routine radiology examinations. Relying only on radiologists to identify and code pulmonary nodules can lead to missing a significant number of patients with lung nodules and some patients with early stage lung cancer who could receive curative therapy.^12,14-16 The use of a standardized algorithm, like a text search strategy, might decrease the risk of variation in the execution and result in a more sensitive detection of patients with lung nodules. The text search strategy might be easily implemented and shared with other hospitals both within and outside the VHA.

Limitations

This study was performed in a single VHA hospital and the findings may not be generalizable to other settings of care. Second, our study design is susceptible to work-up bias because the results of a diagnostic test (eg, chest or abdomen imaging) affected whether the chart review was used to verify the test result. It was not feasible to review the patient records of all radiology studies done at the facility during the study period, consequently complete 2 × 2 tables could not be created to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value.

Conclusion

A text search algorithm of radiology reports increased the detection of patients with lung nodules when compared with radiology diagnostic coding alone. However, the improved detection was associated with a higher rate of false positives, which requires manually reviewing a larger number of patient’s chart reports. Future research and quality improvement should focus on standardizing the radiology reporting process and improving the efficiency and reliability of follow up and tracking of incidental lung nodules.

Acknowledgments

The work reported here was supported by a grant from the Office of Rural Health (N32-FY16Q1-S1-P01577), US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. We also had the support from the Veterans Rural Health Resource Center-Iowa City, and the Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Service through the Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE) Center (REA 09-220).

Rapid advances in imaging technology have led to better spatial resolution with lower radiation doses to patients. These advances have helped to increase the use of diagnostic chest imaging, particularly in emergency departments and oncology centers, and in screening for coronary artery disease. As a result, there has been an explosion of incidental findings on chest imaging—including indeterminate lung nodules.^1,2

Lung nodules are rounded and well-circumscribed lung opacities (≤ 3 cm in diameter) that may present as solitary or multiple lesions in usually asymptomatic patients. Most lung nodules are benign, the result of an infectious or inflammatory process. Nodules that are ≤ 8 mm in diameter, unless they show increase in size over time, often can be safely followed with imaging surveillance. In contrast, lung nodules > 8 mm could represent an early-stage lung cancer, especially among patients with high-risk for developing lung cancer (ie, those with advanced age, heavy tobacco abuse, or emphysema) and should be further assessed with close imaging surveillance, either chest computed tomography (CT) alone or positron-emission tomography (PET)/CT, or tissue biopsy, based on the underlying likelihood of malignancy.

Patients who receive an early-stage lung cancer diagnosis can be offered curative treatments leading to improved 5-year survival rates.^3,4 Consequently, health care systems need to be able to identify these nodules accurately, in order to categorize and manage them accordingly to the Fleischner radiographic and American College of Chest Physicians clinical guidelines.^5,6 Unfortunately, many hospitals struggle to identify patients with incidental lung nodules found during diagnostic chest and abdominal imaging, due in part to poor adherence to Fleischner guidelines among radiologists for categorizing pulmonary nodules.^7,8

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system is interested in effectively detecting patients with incidental lung nodules. Veterans have a higher risk of developing lung cancer when compared with the entire US population, mainly due to a higher incidence of tobacco use.⁶ The prevalence of lung nodules among veterans with significant risk factors for lung cancer is about 60% nationwide, and up to 85% in the Midwest, due to the high prevalence of histoplasmosis.⁷ However, only a small percentage of these nodules represent an early stage primary lung cancer.

Several Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) in the VHA use a radiology diagnostic code to systematically identify imaging studies with presence of lung nodules. In VISN 23, which includes Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and portions of neighboring states, the code used to identify these radiology studies is 44. However, there is high variability in the reporting and coding of imaging studies among radiologists, which could lead to misclassifying patients with lung nodules.⁸

Some studies suggest that using an automated text search algorithm within radiology reports can be a highly effective strategy to identify patients with lung nodules.^9,10 In this study, we compared the diagnostic performance of a newly developed text search algorithm applied to radiology reports with the current standard practice of using a radiology diagnostic code for identifying patients with lung nodules at the Iowa City US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System (ICVAHCS) hospital in Iowa.

 

Methods

Since 2014, The ICVAHCS has used a radiology diagnostic code to identify any imaging studies with lung nodules. The radiologist enters “44” at the end of the reading process using the Nuance Powerscribe 360 radiation reporting system. The code is uploaded into the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), and it is located within the radiology exam domain. This strategy was created and implemented by the Minneapolis VA Health Care System in Minnesota for all the VA hospitals in VISN 23. A lung nodule registry nurse was provided with a list of radiology studies flagged with this radiology diagnostic code every 2 weeks. A chart review was then performed for all these studies to determine the presence of a lung nodule. When detected, the ordering health care provider was alerted and given recommendations for managing the nodule.

We initially searched for the radiology studies with a presumptive lung nodule using the radiology code 44 within the CDW. Separately, we applied the text search strategy only to radiology reports from chest and abdomen studies (ie, X-rays, CT, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and PET) that contained any of the keyword phrases. The text search strategy was modeled based on a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm developed by the Puget Sound VA Healthcare System in Seattle, Washington to identify lung nodules on radiology reports.⁹ Our algorithm included a series of text searches using Microsoft SQL. After several simulations using a random group of radiology reports, we chose the keywords: “lung AND nodul”; “pulm AND nodul”; “pulm AND mass”; “lung AND mass”; and “ground glass”. We selected only chest and abdomen studies because on several simulations using a random group of radiology reports, the vast majority of lung nodules were identified on chest and abdomen imaging studies. Also, it would not have been feasible to chart review the approximately 30,000 total radiology reports that were generated during the study period.

From January 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016, we applied both search strategies independently: radiology diagnostic code for lung nodules to all imaging studies, and text search to all radiology reports of chest and abdomen imaging studies in the CDW (Figure). We also collected demographic (eg, age, sex, race, rurality) and clinical (eg, medical comorbidities, tobacco use) information that were uploaded to the database automatically from CDW using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition and demographic codes. The VHA uses the Rural-Urban Commuting Areas (RUCA) system to define rurality, which takes into account population density and how closely a community is linked socioeconomically to larger urban centers.¹¹ The protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of ICVAHCS and the University of Iowa.

The presence of a lung nodule was established by having the lung nodule registry nurse manually review the charts of every patient with a radiology report identified by either code 44 or the text search algorithm. The goal was to ensure that our text search strategy identified all reports with a code 44 to be compliant with VISN expectations. Cases in which a lung nodule was described in the radiology report were considered true positives, and those without a lung nodule description were considered false positives.

We compared the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients with lung nodules between those identified with both code 44 and the text search and those identified with the text search alone. We used χ2 tests for categorical variables (eg, age, gender, RUCA, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), smoking status) and t tests for continuous variables (eg, Charlson comorbidity score). A P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. To assess the yield of each search strategy, we determined the number of patients with lung nodules detected by the text search and the radiology diagnostic code. We also calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and 95% CI of each search strategy.

 

Results

We identified 12,983 radiology studies that required manual review during the study period. We confirmed that 8,516 imaging studies had lung nodules, representing 2,912 patients. Subjects with lung nodules were predominantly male (96%), aged between 60 and 79 years (71%), and lived in a rural area (72%). More than 50% of these patients had COPD and over a third were current smokers (Table 1). The text search algorithm identified all of the patients identified by the radiology diagnostic code (n = 1,251). It also identified an additional 1,661 patients with lung nodules that otherwise would have been missed by the radiology code. Compared with those identified only by the text search, those identified by both the radiology coding and text search were older, had lower Charlson comorbidity scores, and were more likely to be a current smoker.

The text search algorithm identified more than twice as many patients with potential lung nodules compared with the radiology diagnostic code (4,071 vs 1,363) (Table 2). However, the text search algorithm was associated with a much higher number of false positives than was the diagnostic code (1,159 vs 112) and a lower PPV (72% [95% CI, 70.6-73.4] vs 92% [95% CI, 90.6-93.4], respectively). The text search algorithm identified 130 patients with lung nodules of moderate to high risk for malignancy (> 8 mm diameter) that were not identified by the radiology code. When the PPV of each search strategy was calculated based on imaging studies with nodules (most patients had > 1 imaging study), the results remained similar (98% for radiology code and 66% for text search). A larger proportion of the lung nodules detected by code 44 vs the text search algorithm were from CT chest studies.

Discussion

In a population of predominantly older male veterans with significant risk factors for lung cancer and high incidence of incidental lung nodules, applying a text search algorithm on radiology reports identified a substantial number of patients with lung nodules, including some with nodules > 8 mm, that were missed by the radiologist-generated code.^9,10 Improving the yield of detection for lung nodules in a population with high risk for lung cancer would increase the likelihood of detecting patients with potentially curable early-stage lung cancers, decreasing lung cancer mortality.

The reasons for the high number of patients with lung nodules missed by the radiology code are unclear. Potential explanations may include the lack of standardization of imaging reports by the radiologists (ie, only 21% of chest CTs used a standardized template describing a lung nodule in our study), a problem well recognized both within and outside VHA.^8,12

The text search algorithm identified more patients with lung nodules but had a higher rate of false positives when compared with the diagnostic code. The high rate of false positives resulted in more charts to review and an increased workload for the lung nodule registry team. The challenges presented by an increased workload should be balanced against the potential harms of missing nodules that develop into advanced cancer.

 

Text Search Adjustments

Refining the text search criteria algorithm and the chart review process may decrease the rate of false positives significantly without affecting detection of lung nodules. In subsequent simulations, we found that by adding an exclusion criteria to text search algorithm to remove reports with specific keywords we could substantially reduce the number of false positive reports without affecting the detection rate of the lung nodules. These exclusion criteria would exclude any reports that: (1) contain “nodul” within the next 8 words after mentioning “no”; (2) contain “clear” within the next 8 words after mentioning “lung” in the text (eg, “lungs appear to be clear”); (3) contain “clear” within the next 4 words after mentioning “otherwise” in the text (eg, “otherwise appear to be clear”). Based on our study results, we further refined the text search strategy by limiting the search to only chest imaging studies. When we applied the revised algorithm to a random sample of imaging reports, we found all the code 44 radiology reports were still captured, but we were able to reduce the number of radiology reports needing review by about 80%.

Although classification approaches are being refined to improve radiology performance in multiple categories of nodules, this study suggests that alternative approaches based on text algorithms can improve the capture of pulmonary nodules that require surveillance. These algorithms also can be used to augment radiologist reporting systems. This represents an investment in resources to build a team that should include a bioinformatics specialist, lung nodule registry personnel (review charts of the detected imaging studies with lung nodules, populating the lung nodule database, and determining and tracking the need of imaging follow up), a lung nodule clinic nurse coordinator, and a dedicated lung nodule clinic pulmonologist.

Radiology departments could employ this text search approach to identify missed nodules and use an audit and feedback system to train radiologists to code lung nodules consistently at the time of the initial reading to avoid delays in identifying patients with nodules. Alternatively, the more widespread use of a standardized CT chest radiology reports using Fleischner or the American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung RADS) templates might improve the detection of patients with lung nodules.^5,13,14

 

The VHA system should have an effective strategy for identifying incidental lung nodules during routine radiology examinations. Relying only on radiologists to identify and code pulmonary nodules can lead to missing a significant number of patients with lung nodules and some patients with early stage lung cancer who could receive curative therapy.^12,14-16 The use of a standardized algorithm, like a text search strategy, might decrease the risk of variation in the execution and result in a more sensitive detection of patients with lung nodules. The text search strategy might be easily implemented and shared with other hospitals both within and outside the VHA.

Limitations

This study was performed in a single VHA hospital and the findings may not be generalizable to other settings of care. Second, our study design is susceptible to work-up bias because the results of a diagnostic test (eg, chest or abdomen imaging) affected whether the chart review was used to verify the test result. It was not feasible to review the patient records of all radiology studies done at the facility during the study period, consequently complete 2 × 2 tables could not be created to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value.

Conclusion

A text search algorithm of radiology reports increased the detection of patients with lung nodules when compared with radiology diagnostic coding alone. However, the improved detection was associated with a higher rate of false positives, which requires manually reviewing a larger number of patient’s chart reports. Future research and quality improvement should focus on standardizing the radiology reporting process and improving the efficiency and reliability of follow up and tracking of incidental lung nodules.

Acknowledgments

The work reported here was supported by a grant from the Office of Rural Health (N32-FY16Q1-S1-P01577), US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. We also had the support from the Veterans Rural Health Resource Center-Iowa City, and the Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Service through the Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE) Center (REA 09-220).

Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is a well-established technique for the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD).¹ To improve image quality, low-resolution computed tomography (CT) is used commonly for anatomical correct and artifact attenuation during SPECT MPI.² The low resolution, unenhanced CT images are considered low quality and are, therefore, labeled by the manufacturer as nondiagnostic. The CT portion of the MPI in many centers is used only for image fusion and attenuation correction, and these images are not routinely reviewed or reported by cardiologists.

Incidental findings by these low-resolution CT were frequent. However, clinically significant findings, including lung cancer, although relatively infrequent, were serious enough for major clinical management.^3-5 Currently, there are no consensus recommendations for reviewing low-resolution CT images or the interpretation of such incidental findings during cardiac MPI.⁶ Clinically, low-dose CT were used for early detection and screening of lung cancer and were associated with reduced lung-cancer and any cause mortality in National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).^7,8 Therefore, low-dose CT is recommended for lung cancer screening of high-risk patients by the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF).⁹ In the veteran population, current and past smoking history are more common when compared with the general population; therefore, veterans are potentially at increased risk of lung cancer.¹⁰ In this study, we did not intend to use low-resolution CT for lung cancer screening or detection but rather to identify and report incidental findings of pulmonary/hilar malignancy detected during cardiac MPI.

 

Methods

The Siemens’ (Munich, Germany) Symbia Intevo Excel SPECT/CT MPI cameras with dedicated cardiac collimators were used at both the Dwight D. Eisenhower VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Leavenworth, Kansas and Colmery-O'Neil VAMC in Topeka, Kansas. The integrated CT scanner (x-ray tube current 30 to 240 mA; voltage 110 Kv with a 40 kW power generator) has the capability to image up to a 2-slice/rotation, each of 5.0 mm per slice with a scan time of about 30 seconds. The SPECT/CT gamma camera has a low energy (140 KeV), high resolution, parallel hole collimator with IQ SPECT capabilities.

The radiation dose received by the patients were expressed in dose length product (DLP), which reflects the total energy absorbed by the patient and represents integrated dose in terms of the total scan length. Additionally, each patients received 2 injections of Technetium Tc 99m sestamibi (1-day Protocol: 10 mCi rest injection, 30 mCi stress injection: 2-day Protocol for patients weighing > 350 pounds: 30 mCi at rest injection and 30 mCi at stress injection) for myocardial perfusion imaging.

All CT images and cardiac MPI findings were reviewed and reported contemporaneously by 1 of 2 experienced, board-certified radiologists who were blinded to patients’ clinical information except the indication for the cardiac stress testing. When suspicious pulmonary/hilar nodules or masses were detected, these findings and recommendations for further evaluation were conveyed to primary care provider or ordering physician via the electronic health record system.

All CT images were reviewed with cardiac MPI from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018. When pulmonary/hilar malignancies were identified, the health records were reviewed. Patients with known history of prior pulmonary malignancy were excluded from the study.

Results

A total of 1,098 patients underwent cardiac MPI during the study period. When the CT imaging and cardiac MPI were reviewed, incidental findings led to the diagnosis of lung cancer in 5 patients and hilar mantle cell lymphoma in 1 patient. Their clinical characteristics, CT findings, and types of malignancies for these 6 patients are summarized in the Table and Figure. Only 0.55% (6 of 1,098) patients were found to have incidental pulmonary/hilar malignancy with the cardiac evaluation low-resolution CT. Four patients with prior, known history of lung cancer were excluded from the study.

For the 6 patients found to have cancer, the average CT radiation dose during the cardiac MPI was 100 mGy-cm (range, 77 -133 mCy-cm). The subsequent chest CT with or without contrast delivered a radiation dose of 726.4 mGy-cm (range, 279.4 - 1,075 mGy-cm).

A total of 79 (7.2%) patients were found to have significant pulmonary nodules that required further evaluation; after CT examination, 32 patients had findings of benign nature and required no further follow-up; the other 47 patients are being followed according to the Fleischner Society 2017 guidelines for pulmonary nodules.¹¹ The follow-up findings on these patients are not within the scope of this report.

Discussion

Although incidental findings on low-resolution CT during cardiac MPI are frequent, clinically significant findings are less common. However, some incidental findings may be of important clinical significance.^3-5 A multicenter analysis by Coward and colleagues reported that 2.4% findings on low-resolution CT were significant enough to warrant follow-up tests, but only 0.2% were deemed potentially detrimental to patient outcomes (ie, pathology confirmed malignancies).¹² Thus, the authors suggested that routine reporting of incidental findings on low-dose CT images was not beneficial.^12,13

 

Currently, the majority of cardiac MPIs are reviewed and interpreted by nuclear cardiologists, the use of hybrid SPECT/CT for attenuation correction give rise of issue of reviewing and interpreting these CT images during cardiac MPI. Since low-dose, low-resolution CT are considered nondiagnostic, these images are not routinely and readily reviewed by cardiologists who are not trained or skilled in CT interpretations.

Studies of high-resolution cardiac CT (including multidetector CT with contrast) suggest that incidental extracardiac findings should always be reported as there was a 0.7% incidence of previously unknown malignancies, while others have argued against “performing large field reconstructionsfor the explicit purpose of screening as it will lead to additional cost, liability and anxiety without proven benefits.”^14-16 A review of incidental findings of cardiac CT by Earls suggested that all cardiac CT should be reconstructed in the maximal field of view available and images should be adequately reviewed to detect pathological findings.¹⁷ This led to an interesting discussion by Douglas and colleagues regarding the role of cardiologists and radiologists in this issue.¹⁸ Currently there is no uniform or consensus recommendations regarding incidental findings during cardiac CT imaging. Guidances range from no recommendations to optional reporting or mandatory reporting.^19-23

Risk Factors for Veterans

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US.²⁴ Smoking is the most important risk factor for lung cancer and CAD.²⁵ Current or past smoking are more common among the veterans.¹⁰ According to a report for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, about 29.2% US veterans use tobacco products between 2010-2015, which is similar to the rate reported in 1997.²⁶

When low-dose CT was used for lung cancer screening, it was associated with a 20.0% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% reduction in any cause mortality.⁷ Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in high-risk adults that includes patients aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30-pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.⁸

It is likely that the cardiac patients in this study might have pulmonary malignancy mortality similar to those reported in the NLST. While other studies have shown a low incidence (0.2%) of detection of malignancy by low-resolution CT during cardiac MPI,^12,13 in this study we found pulmonary or hilar malignancy in 0.55% of patients.The higher incidence of malignancy in our study might be due in part to differences in the patient population studied (ie, our veterans patients have a higher proportion of current or past smoking history).¹⁰

The CT used in this study is part of the cardiac imaging process. Therefore, there was no additional radiation exposure besides that of the cardiac MPI for patients. Despite the limitations of low-resolution CT, which may miss small lesions, this study showed 0.55% incidence of incidental detection of pulmonary/hilar malignancy. This is comparable with 0.65%/year of diagnosing lung cancer using low-dose CT for lung cancer screening in NLST.⁸

Two of the 5 study patients who were found to have lung cancer, had quit smoking > 15 years previously and thus would not be considered as high-risk for lung cancer screening according to USPSTF guideline. These patients would not have been candidates for annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening. This study suggests that it is appropriate and necessary to review the low-resolution CT images for incidental findings during cardiac MPI.

 

Limitations

The study was retrospective in nature and limited by its small number of patients. The CT modality used in the study also has limitations, including low resolution, respiratory motion artifacts, and scans that did not include the entire chest area. Therefore, small and apical lesions may have been missed. However, both sets of CT at rest and after stress were reviewed to reduce or minimize the effects of respiratory motion artifacts. The true prevalence or incidence of pulmonary/hilar malignancies may have been higher than reported here. Our study population of veterans may not be representative of the general population with regards to gender (as most of our veteran patient population are of male gender, vs general population), smoking history, or lung cancer risk, thus the results should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion

Low-resolution CTs used for attenuation correction during cardiac MPI should be routinely reviewed and interpreted by a physician or radiologist skilled in CT interpretation in order to identify incidental findings of pulmonary/hilar malignancy. This would require close collaboration between cardiologists and radiologists in the field to ensure unfragmented and high-quality patient care.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank all the staffs in cardiology and radiology department on both campuses for their dedication for our patients. Special thanks to Laura Knox, Radiation Safety Officer, Nuclear Medicine Supervisor for her technical assistance.

Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is a well-established technique for the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD).¹ To improve image quality, low-resolution computed tomography (CT) is used commonly for anatomical correct and artifact attenuation during SPECT MPI.² The low resolution, unenhanced CT images are considered low quality and are, therefore, labeled by the manufacturer as nondiagnostic. The CT portion of the MPI in many centers is used only for image fusion and attenuation correction, and these images are not routinely reviewed or reported by cardiologists.

Incidental findings by these low-resolution CT were frequent. However, clinically significant findings, including lung cancer, although relatively infrequent, were serious enough for major clinical management.^3-5 Currently, there are no consensus recommendations for reviewing low-resolution CT images or the interpretation of such incidental findings during cardiac MPI.⁶ Clinically, low-dose CT were used for early detection and screening of lung cancer and were associated with reduced lung-cancer and any cause mortality in National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).^7,8 Therefore, low-dose CT is recommended for lung cancer screening of high-risk patients by the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF).⁹ In the veteran population, current and past smoking history are more common when compared with the general population; therefore, veterans are potentially at increased risk of lung cancer.¹⁰ In this study, we did not intend to use low-resolution CT for lung cancer screening or detection but rather to identify and report incidental findings of pulmonary/hilar malignancy detected during cardiac MPI.

 

Methods

The Siemens’ (Munich, Germany) Symbia Intevo Excel SPECT/CT MPI cameras with dedicated cardiac collimators were used at both the Dwight D. Eisenhower VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Leavenworth, Kansas and Colmery-O'Neil VAMC in Topeka, Kansas. The integrated CT scanner (x-ray tube current 30 to 240 mA; voltage 110 Kv with a 40 kW power generator) has the capability to image up to a 2-slice/rotation, each of 5.0 mm per slice with a scan time of about 30 seconds. The SPECT/CT gamma camera has a low energy (140 KeV), high resolution, parallel hole collimator with IQ SPECT capabilities.

The radiation dose received by the patients were expressed in dose length product (DLP), which reflects the total energy absorbed by the patient and represents integrated dose in terms of the total scan length. Additionally, each patients received 2 injections of Technetium Tc 99m sestamibi (1-day Protocol: 10 mCi rest injection, 30 mCi stress injection: 2-day Protocol for patients weighing > 350 pounds: 30 mCi at rest injection and 30 mCi at stress injection) for myocardial perfusion imaging.

All CT images and cardiac MPI findings were reviewed and reported contemporaneously by 1 of 2 experienced, board-certified radiologists who were blinded to patients’ clinical information except the indication for the cardiac stress testing. When suspicious pulmonary/hilar nodules or masses were detected, these findings and recommendations for further evaluation were conveyed to primary care provider or ordering physician via the electronic health record system.

All CT images were reviewed with cardiac MPI from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018. When pulmonary/hilar malignancies were identified, the health records were reviewed. Patients with known history of prior pulmonary malignancy were excluded from the study.

Results

A total of 1,098 patients underwent cardiac MPI during the study period. When the CT imaging and cardiac MPI were reviewed, incidental findings led to the diagnosis of lung cancer in 5 patients and hilar mantle cell lymphoma in 1 patient. Their clinical characteristics, CT findings, and types of malignancies for these 6 patients are summarized in the Table and Figure. Only 0.55% (6 of 1,098) patients were found to have incidental pulmonary/hilar malignancy with the cardiac evaluation low-resolution CT. Four patients with prior, known history of lung cancer were excluded from the study.

For the 6 patients found to have cancer, the average CT radiation dose during the cardiac MPI was 100 mGy-cm (range, 77 -133 mCy-cm). The subsequent chest CT with or without contrast delivered a radiation dose of 726.4 mGy-cm (range, 279.4 - 1,075 mGy-cm).

A total of 79 (7.2%) patients were found to have significant pulmonary nodules that required further evaluation; after CT examination, 32 patients had findings of benign nature and required no further follow-up; the other 47 patients are being followed according to the Fleischner Society 2017 guidelines for pulmonary nodules.¹¹ The follow-up findings on these patients are not within the scope of this report.

Discussion

Although incidental findings on low-resolution CT during cardiac MPI are frequent, clinically significant findings are less common. However, some incidental findings may be of important clinical significance.^3-5 A multicenter analysis by Coward and colleagues reported that 2.4% findings on low-resolution CT were significant enough to warrant follow-up tests, but only 0.2% were deemed potentially detrimental to patient outcomes (ie, pathology confirmed malignancies).¹² Thus, the authors suggested that routine reporting of incidental findings on low-dose CT images was not beneficial.^12,13

 

Currently, the majority of cardiac MPIs are reviewed and interpreted by nuclear cardiologists, the use of hybrid SPECT/CT for attenuation correction give rise of issue of reviewing and interpreting these CT images during cardiac MPI. Since low-dose, low-resolution CT are considered nondiagnostic, these images are not routinely and readily reviewed by cardiologists who are not trained or skilled in CT interpretations.

Studies of high-resolution cardiac CT (including multidetector CT with contrast) suggest that incidental extracardiac findings should always be reported as there was a 0.7% incidence of previously unknown malignancies, while others have argued against “performing large field reconstructionsfor the explicit purpose of screening as it will lead to additional cost, liability and anxiety without proven benefits.”^14-16 A review of incidental findings of cardiac CT by Earls suggested that all cardiac CT should be reconstructed in the maximal field of view available and images should be adequately reviewed to detect pathological findings.¹⁷ This led to an interesting discussion by Douglas and colleagues regarding the role of cardiologists and radiologists in this issue.¹⁸ Currently there is no uniform or consensus recommendations regarding incidental findings during cardiac CT imaging. Guidances range from no recommendations to optional reporting or mandatory reporting.^19-23

Risk Factors for Veterans

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US.²⁴ Smoking is the most important risk factor for lung cancer and CAD.²⁵ Current or past smoking are more common among the veterans.¹⁰ According to a report for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, about 29.2% US veterans use tobacco products between 2010-2015, which is similar to the rate reported in 1997.²⁶

When low-dose CT was used for lung cancer screening, it was associated with a 20.0% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% reduction in any cause mortality.⁷ Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in high-risk adults that includes patients aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30-pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.⁸

It is likely that the cardiac patients in this study might have pulmonary malignancy mortality similar to those reported in the NLST. While other studies have shown a low incidence (0.2%) of detection of malignancy by low-resolution CT during cardiac MPI,^12,13 in this study we found pulmonary or hilar malignancy in 0.55% of patients.The higher incidence of malignancy in our study might be due in part to differences in the patient population studied (ie, our veterans patients have a higher proportion of current or past smoking history).¹⁰

The CT used in this study is part of the cardiac imaging process. Therefore, there was no additional radiation exposure besides that of the cardiac MPI for patients. Despite the limitations of low-resolution CT, which may miss small lesions, this study showed 0.55% incidence of incidental detection of pulmonary/hilar malignancy. This is comparable with 0.65%/year of diagnosing lung cancer using low-dose CT for lung cancer screening in NLST.⁸

Two of the 5 study patients who were found to have lung cancer, had quit smoking > 15 years previously and thus would not be considered as high-risk for lung cancer screening according to USPSTF guideline. These patients would not have been candidates for annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening. This study suggests that it is appropriate and necessary to review the low-resolution CT images for incidental findings during cardiac MPI.

 

Limitations

The study was retrospective in nature and limited by its small number of patients. The CT modality used in the study also has limitations, including low resolution, respiratory motion artifacts, and scans that did not include the entire chest area. Therefore, small and apical lesions may have been missed. However, both sets of CT at rest and after stress were reviewed to reduce or minimize the effects of respiratory motion artifacts. The true prevalence or incidence of pulmonary/hilar malignancies may have been higher than reported here. Our study population of veterans may not be representative of the general population with regards to gender (as most of our veteran patient population are of male gender, vs general population), smoking history, or lung cancer risk, thus the results should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion

Low-resolution CTs used for attenuation correction during cardiac MPI should be routinely reviewed and interpreted by a physician or radiologist skilled in CT interpretation in order to identify incidental findings of pulmonary/hilar malignancy. This would require close collaboration between cardiologists and radiologists in the field to ensure unfragmented and high-quality patient care.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank all the staffs in cardiology and radiology department on both campuses for their dedication for our patients. Special thanks to Laura Knox, Radiation Safety Officer, Nuclear Medicine Supervisor for her technical assistance.

Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is a well-established technique for the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD).¹ To improve image quality, low-resolution computed tomography (CT) is used commonly for anatomical correct and artifact attenuation during SPECT MPI.² The low resolution, unenhanced CT images are considered low quality and are, therefore, labeled by the manufacturer as nondiagnostic. The CT portion of the MPI in many centers is used only for image fusion and attenuation correction, and these images are not routinely reviewed or reported by cardiologists.

Incidental findings by these low-resolution CT were frequent. However, clinically significant findings, including lung cancer, although relatively infrequent, were serious enough for major clinical management.^3-5 Currently, there are no consensus recommendations for reviewing low-resolution CT images or the interpretation of such incidental findings during cardiac MPI.⁶ Clinically, low-dose CT were used for early detection and screening of lung cancer and were associated with reduced lung-cancer and any cause mortality in National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).^7,8 Therefore, low-dose CT is recommended for lung cancer screening of high-risk patients by the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF).⁹ In the veteran population, current and past smoking history are more common when compared with the general population; therefore, veterans are potentially at increased risk of lung cancer.¹⁰ In this study, we did not intend to use low-resolution CT for lung cancer screening or detection but rather to identify and report incidental findings of pulmonary/hilar malignancy detected during cardiac MPI.

 

Methods

The Siemens’ (Munich, Germany) Symbia Intevo Excel SPECT/CT MPI cameras with dedicated cardiac collimators were used at both the Dwight D. Eisenhower VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Leavenworth, Kansas and Colmery-O'Neil VAMC in Topeka, Kansas. The integrated CT scanner (x-ray tube current 30 to 240 mA; voltage 110 Kv with a 40 kW power generator) has the capability to image up to a 2-slice/rotation, each of 5.0 mm per slice with a scan time of about 30 seconds. The SPECT/CT gamma camera has a low energy (140 KeV), high resolution, parallel hole collimator with IQ SPECT capabilities.

The radiation dose received by the patients were expressed in dose length product (DLP), which reflects the total energy absorbed by the patient and represents integrated dose in terms of the total scan length. Additionally, each patients received 2 injections of Technetium Tc 99m sestamibi (1-day Protocol: 10 mCi rest injection, 30 mCi stress injection: 2-day Protocol for patients weighing > 350 pounds: 30 mCi at rest injection and 30 mCi at stress injection) for myocardial perfusion imaging.

All CT images and cardiac MPI findings were reviewed and reported contemporaneously by 1 of 2 experienced, board-certified radiologists who were blinded to patients’ clinical information except the indication for the cardiac stress testing. When suspicious pulmonary/hilar nodules or masses were detected, these findings and recommendations for further evaluation were conveyed to primary care provider or ordering physician via the electronic health record system.

All CT images were reviewed with cardiac MPI from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018. When pulmonary/hilar malignancies were identified, the health records were reviewed. Patients with known history of prior pulmonary malignancy were excluded from the study.

Results

A total of 1,098 patients underwent cardiac MPI during the study period. When the CT imaging and cardiac MPI were reviewed, incidental findings led to the diagnosis of lung cancer in 5 patients and hilar mantle cell lymphoma in 1 patient. Their clinical characteristics, CT findings, and types of malignancies for these 6 patients are summarized in the Table and Figure. Only 0.55% (6 of 1,098) patients were found to have incidental pulmonary/hilar malignancy with the cardiac evaluation low-resolution CT. Four patients with prior, known history of lung cancer were excluded from the study.

For the 6 patients found to have cancer, the average CT radiation dose during the cardiac MPI was 100 mGy-cm (range, 77 -133 mCy-cm). The subsequent chest CT with or without contrast delivered a radiation dose of 726.4 mGy-cm (range, 279.4 - 1,075 mGy-cm).

A total of 79 (7.2%) patients were found to have significant pulmonary nodules that required further evaluation; after CT examination, 32 patients had findings of benign nature and required no further follow-up; the other 47 patients are being followed according to the Fleischner Society 2017 guidelines for pulmonary nodules.¹¹ The follow-up findings on these patients are not within the scope of this report.

Discussion

Although incidental findings on low-resolution CT during cardiac MPI are frequent, clinically significant findings are less common. However, some incidental findings may be of important clinical significance.^3-5 A multicenter analysis by Coward and colleagues reported that 2.4% findings on low-resolution CT were significant enough to warrant follow-up tests, but only 0.2% were deemed potentially detrimental to patient outcomes (ie, pathology confirmed malignancies).¹² Thus, the authors suggested that routine reporting of incidental findings on low-dose CT images was not beneficial.^12,13

 

Currently, the majority of cardiac MPIs are reviewed and interpreted by nuclear cardiologists, the use of hybrid SPECT/CT for attenuation correction give rise of issue of reviewing and interpreting these CT images during cardiac MPI. Since low-dose, low-resolution CT are considered nondiagnostic, these images are not routinely and readily reviewed by cardiologists who are not trained or skilled in CT interpretations.

Studies of high-resolution cardiac CT (including multidetector CT with contrast) suggest that incidental extracardiac findings should always be reported as there was a 0.7% incidence of previously unknown malignancies, while others have argued against “performing large field reconstructionsfor the explicit purpose of screening as it will lead to additional cost, liability and anxiety without proven benefits.”^14-16 A review of incidental findings of cardiac CT by Earls suggested that all cardiac CT should be reconstructed in the maximal field of view available and images should be adequately reviewed to detect pathological findings.¹⁷ This led to an interesting discussion by Douglas and colleagues regarding the role of cardiologists and radiologists in this issue.¹⁸ Currently there is no uniform or consensus recommendations regarding incidental findings during cardiac CT imaging. Guidances range from no recommendations to optional reporting or mandatory reporting.^19-23

Risk Factors for Veterans

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US.²⁴ Smoking is the most important risk factor for lung cancer and CAD.²⁵ Current or past smoking are more common among the veterans.¹⁰ According to a report for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, about 29.2% US veterans use tobacco products between 2010-2015, which is similar to the rate reported in 1997.²⁶

When low-dose CT was used for lung cancer screening, it was associated with a 20.0% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% reduction in any cause mortality.⁷ Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in high-risk adults that includes patients aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30-pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.⁸

It is likely that the cardiac patients in this study might have pulmonary malignancy mortality similar to those reported in the NLST. While other studies have shown a low incidence (0.2%) of detection of malignancy by low-resolution CT during cardiac MPI,^12,13 in this study we found pulmonary or hilar malignancy in 0.55% of patients.The higher incidence of malignancy in our study might be due in part to differences in the patient population studied (ie, our veterans patients have a higher proportion of current or past smoking history).¹⁰

The CT used in this study is part of the cardiac imaging process. Therefore, there was no additional radiation exposure besides that of the cardiac MPI for patients. Despite the limitations of low-resolution CT, which may miss small lesions, this study showed 0.55% incidence of incidental detection of pulmonary/hilar malignancy. This is comparable with 0.65%/year of diagnosing lung cancer using low-dose CT for lung cancer screening in NLST.⁸

Two of the 5 study patients who were found to have lung cancer, had quit smoking > 15 years previously and thus would not be considered as high-risk for lung cancer screening according to USPSTF guideline. These patients would not have been candidates for annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening. This study suggests that it is appropriate and necessary to review the low-resolution CT images for incidental findings during cardiac MPI.

 

Limitations

The study was retrospective in nature and limited by its small number of patients. The CT modality used in the study also has limitations, including low resolution, respiratory motion artifacts, and scans that did not include the entire chest area. Therefore, small and apical lesions may have been missed. However, both sets of CT at rest and after stress were reviewed to reduce or minimize the effects of respiratory motion artifacts. The true prevalence or incidence of pulmonary/hilar malignancies may have been higher than reported here. Our study population of veterans may not be representative of the general population with regards to gender (as most of our veteran patient population are of male gender, vs general population), smoking history, or lung cancer risk, thus the results should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion

Low-resolution CTs used for attenuation correction during cardiac MPI should be routinely reviewed and interpreted by a physician or radiologist skilled in CT interpretation in order to identify incidental findings of pulmonary/hilar malignancy. This would require close collaboration between cardiologists and radiologists in the field to ensure unfragmented and high-quality patient care.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank all the staffs in cardiology and radiology department on both campuses for their dedication for our patients. Special thanks to Laura Knox, Radiation Safety Officer, Nuclear Medicine Supervisor for her technical assistance.

It was estimated that physicians would diagnose a form of invasive cancer > 1.7 million times in 2019. As the second most common cause of death in the US, > 600,000 people were projected to die from cancer in 2019.¹ Many individuals with cancer endure distress, which the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) defines as a “multifactorial unpleasant experience of a psychological (ie, cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, spiritual, and/or physical nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms, and its treatment.”^2,3 Distress in people living with cancer has been attributed to various psychosocial concerns, such as family problems, whichinclude dealing with partners and children; emotional problems, such as depression and anxiety; and physical symptoms, such as pain and fatigue.^4-9 Certain factors associated with distress may increase a patient’s risk for suicide.⁴

Veterans are at particularly high risk for suicide.¹⁰ In 2014, veterans accounted for 18% of completed suicides in the US but only were 8.5% of the total population that same year.¹⁰ Yet, little research has been done on the relationship between distress and suicide in veterans living with cancer. Aboumrad and colleagues found that 45% of veterans with cancer who completed suicide reported family issues and 41% endorsed chronic pain.¹¹ This study recommended continued efforts to assess and treat distress to lessen risk of suicide in veterans living with cancer; however, to date, only 1 study has specifically evaluated distress and problems endorsed among veterans living with cancer.⁷

Suicide prevention is of the highest priority to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).¹² Consistent with the VA mission to end veteran suicide, the current study aimed to better understand the relationship between distress and suicide within a sample of veterans living with cancer. Findings would additionally be used to tailor clinical assessments and interventions for veterans living with cancer.

This study had 3 primary goals. First, we sought to understand demographic and clinical factors associated with low, moderate, and severe levels of distress in veterans living with cancer who were referred for psychology services. Second, the study investigated the most commonly endorsed problems by veterans living with cancer. Finally, we examined which problems were related to suicidal ideation (SI). It was hypothesized that veterans who reported severe distress would be significantly more likely to endorse SI when compared with veterans who reported mild or moderate distress. Based on existing literature, it was further hypothesized that family, emotional, and physical problems would be significantly associated with SI.^7,11

Methods

The current study was conducted at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital (JAHVH) in Tampa, Florida. Inclusion criteria included veterans who were diagnosed with cancer, attended an outpatient psychology-oncology evaluation, and completed mental health screening measures provided during their evaluation. Exclusion criteria included veterans who: were seen in response to an inpatient consult, were seen solely for a stem cell transplant evaluation, or did not complete the screening measures.

Measures

A veteran’s demographic (eg, age, sex, ethnicity) and clinical (eg, cancer type, stage of disease, recurrence, cancer treatments received) information was abstracted from their VA medical records. Marital status was assessed during a clinical interview and documented as part of the standardized suicide risk assessment.

 

The Distress Thermometer (DT) is a subjective measure developed by the NCCN.² The DT provides a visual representation of a thermometer and asks patients to rate their level of distress over the past week with 0 indicating no distress and 10 indicating extreme distress. A distress rating of 4 or higher is clinically significant.^4,6 Distress may be categorized into 3 levels of severity: mild distress (< 4), moderate distress (4-7), or severe distress (8-10). The DT has been found to have good face validity, sensitivity and specificity, and is user-friendly.^2,6,7,13

The measurement additionally lists 39 problems nested within 5 domains: practical, family, emotional, spiritual/religious, and physical. Patients may endorse listed items under each problem domain by indicating yes or no. Endorsement of various items are intended to provide more detailed information about sources of distress. Due to the predominantly male and mostly older population included in this study the ability to have children measure was removed from the family problem domain.

SI was assessed in 2 ways. First, by patients’ self-report through item-9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).¹⁴ Item-9 asks “over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by thoughts that you would be better off dead or of hurting yourself in some way?” Responses range from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day).¹⁴ Responses > 0 were considered a positive screen for SI. The process of administering the PHQ-9 item-9 is part of a national VA directive for standardizing assessment of suicide risk (Steve Young, personal communication, May 23, 2018). The PHQ-9 has been found to have good construct validity when used with both medical samples and the general population along with good internal and test-retest reliability.^14,15 Second, all veterans also were asked directly about SI during clinical interview, the results of which were documented in health records using a standardized format for risk assessment.

Procedure

Participants were a sample of veterans who were referred for psychology-oncology services. The NCCN DT and Problems List were administered prior to the start of clinical interviews, which followed a checklist and included standardized assessments of SI and history of a suicide attempt(s). A licensed clinical psychologist or a postdoctoral resident conducted these assessments under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. Data gathered during the clinical interview and from the DT and problems list were documented in health records, which were retrospectively reviewed for relevant information (eg, cancer diagnosis, SI). Therefore, informed consent was waived. This study was approved by the JAHVH Institutional Review Board.

Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25. Data analysis proceeded in 3 steps. First, descriptive statistics included the demographic and clinical factors present in the current sample. Difference between those with and without suicidal ideation were compared using F-statistic for continuous variables and χ² analyses for categorical variables. Second, to examine relationships between each DT problem domain and SI, χ² analyses were conducted. Third, DT problem domains that had a significant relationship with SI were entered in a logistic regression. This analysis determined which items, if any, from a DT problem domain predicted SI. In the logistic regression model, history of suicide attempts was entered into the first block, as history of suicide attempts is a well-established risk factor for subsequent suicidal ideation. In the second block, other variables that were significantly related to suicidal ideation in the second step of analyses were included. Before interpreting the results of the logistic regression, model fit was tested using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Significance of each individual predictor variable in the model is reported using the Wald χ² statistic; each Wald statistic is compared with a χ² distribution with 1 degree of freedom (df). Results of logistic regression models also provide information about the effect of each predictor variable in the regression equation (beta weight), odds a veteran who endorsed each predictor variable in the model would also endorse SI (as indicated by the odds ratio), and an estimate of the amount of variance accounted for by each predictor variable (using Nagelkerke’s pseudo R², which ranges in value from 0 to 1 with higher values indicating more variance explained). For all analyses, P value of .05 (2-tailed) was used for statistical significance.

 

Results

The sample consisted of 174 veterans (Table 1). The majority (77.6%) were male with a mean age of nearly 62 years (range, 29-87). Most identified as white (74.1%) with half reporting they were either married or living with a partner.

Prostate cancer (19.0%) was the most common type of cancer among study participants followed by head and neck (18.4%), lymphoma/leukemia (11.5%), lung (11.5%), and breast (10.9%); 31.6% had metastatic disease and 14.9% had recurrent disease. Chemotherapy (42.5%) was the most common treatment modality, followed by surgery (38.5%) and radiation (31.6%). The sample was distributed among the 3 distress DT categories: mild (18.4%), moderate (42.5%), and severe (39.1%).

Problems Endorsed

Treatment decisions (44.3%) and insurance/financial concerns (35.1%) were the most frequently endorsed practical problems (Figure 1). Family health issues (33.9%) and dealing with partner (23.0%) were the most frequently endorsed family problems (Figure 2). Worry (73.0%) and depression (69.5%) were the most frequent emotional problems; of note, all emotional problems were endorsed by at least 50% of veterans (Figure 3). Fatigue (71.3%), sleep (70.7%), and pain (69%), were the most frequently endorsed physical problems (Figure 4). Spiritual/religious problems were endorsed by 15% of veterans.

 

Suicidal Ideation

Overall, 25.3% of veterans endorsed SI. About 20% of veterans reported a history of ≥ 1 suicide attempts in their lifetime. A significant relationship among distress categories and SI was found (χ² = 18.36, P < .001). Veterans with severe distress were more likely to endorse SI (42.7%) when compared with veterans with mild (9.4%) or moderate (16.2%) distress.

Similarly, a significant relationship among distress categories and a history of a suicide attempt(s) was found (χ² = 6.08, P = .048). Veterans with severe distress were more likely to have attempted suicide (29.4%) when compared with veterans with mild (12.5%) or moderate (14.9%) distress.

χ² analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between DT problem domains and SI. A significant relationship was found between family problems and SI (χ² = 5.54,df = 1, P = .02) (Table 2). Specifically, 33.0% of veterans who endorsed family problems also reported experiencing SI. In comparison, there were no significant differences between groups with regard to practical, emotional, spiritual/religious, or physical problems and SI.

Logistic regression analyses determined whether items representative of the family problems domain were predictive of SI. Suicide attempt(s) were entered in the first step of the model to evaluate risk factors for SI over this already established risk factor. The assumptions of logistic regression were met.

The Hosmer-Lemeshow test (χ² = 3.66, df = 5, P = .56) demonstrated that the model fit was good. The group of predictors used in the model differentiate between people who were experiencing SI and those who were not experiencing SI at the time of evaluation. A history of a suicide attempt(s) predicted SI, as expected (Wald = 6.821, df = 1, P = .01). The odds that a veteran with a history of a suicide attempt(s) would endorse SI at the time of the evaluation was nearly 3 times greater than that of veterans without a history of a suicide attempt(s). Over and above suicide attempts, problems dealing with partner (Wald = 15.142; df = 1, P < .001) was a second significant predictor of current SI. The odds that a veteran who endorsed problems dealing with partner would also endorse SI was > 5 times higher than that of veterans who did not endorse problems dealing with partner. This finding represents a significant risk factor for SI, over and above a history of a suicide attempt(s). The other items from the family problems domains were not significant (P > .05) (Table 3).

 

Discussion

This study aimed to understand factors associated with low, moderate, and severe levels of distress in veterans living with cancer who were referred for psychology services. As hypothesized, veterans who endorsed severe distress were significantly more likely to endorse SI. They also were more likely to have a history of a suicide attempt(s) when compared with those with mild or moderate distress.

A second aim of this study was to understand the most commonly endorsed problems. Consistent with prior literature, treatment decisions were the most commonly endorsed practical problem; worry and depression were the most common emotional problems; and fatigue, sleep, and pain were the most common physical problems.⁷

A finding unique to the current study is that family health issues and dealing with partner were specified as the most common family problems. However, a study by Smith and colleagues did not provide information about the rank of most frequently reported problems within this domain.⁷

The third aim was to understand which problems were related to SI. It was hypothesized that family, emotional, and physical problems would be related to SI. However, results indicated that only family problems (specifically, problems dealing with a partner) were significantly associated with SI among veterans living with cancer.

Contrary to expectations, emotional and physical problems were not found to have a significant relationship with SI. This is likely because veterans endorsed items nested within these problem domains with similar frequency. The lack of significant findings does not suggest that emotional and physical problems are not significant predictors of SI for veterans living with cancer, but that no specific emotional or physical symptom stood out as a predictor of suicidal ideation above the others.

The finding of a significant relationship between family problems (specifically, problems dealing with a partner) and SI in this study is consistent with findings of Aboumrad and colleagues in a study that examined root-cause analyses of completed suicides by veterans living with cancer.¹¹ They found that nearly half the sample endorsed family problems prior to their death, and a small but notable percentage of veterans who completed suicide reported divorce as a stressor prior to their death.

This finding may be explained by Thomas Joiner's interpersonal-psychological theory of suicidal behavior (IPT), which suggests that completed suicide may result from a thwarted sense of belonging, perceived burdensomeness, and acquired capability for suicide.¹⁶ Problems dealing with a partner may impact a veteran’s sense of belonging or social connectedness. Problems dealing with a partner also may be attributed to perceived burdens due to limitations imposed by living with cancer and/or undergoing treatment. In both circumstances, the veteran’s social support system may be negatively impacted, and perceived social support is a well-established protective factor against suicide.¹⁷

Partner distress is a second consideration. It is likely that veterans’ partners experienced their own distress in response to the veteran’s cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. The partner’s cause, severity, and expression of distress may contribute to problems for the couple.

Finally, the latter point of the IPT refers to acquired capability, or the ability to inflict deadly harm to oneself.¹⁸ A military sample was found to have more acquired capability for suicide when compared with a college undergraduate sample.¹⁹ A history of a suicide attempt(s) and male gender have been found to significantly predict acquired capability to complete suicide.¹⁸ Furthermore, because veterans living with cancer often are in pain, fear of pain associated with suicide may be reduced and, therefore, acquired capability increased. This suggests that male veterans living with cancer who are in pain, have a history of a suicide attempt(s), and current problems with their partner may be an extremely vulnerable population at-risk for suicide. Results from the current study emphasize the importance of veterans having access to mental health and crisis resources for problems dealing with their partner. Partner problems may foreshadow a potentially lethal type of distress.

 

Strengths

This study’s aims are consistent with the VA’s mission to end veteran suicide and contributes to literature in several important ways.¹² First, veterans living with cancer are an understudied population. The current study addresses a gap in existing literature by researching veterans living with cancer and aims to better understand the relationship between cancer-related distress and SI. Second, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to find that problems dealing with a partner significantly increases a veteran’s risk for SI above a history of a suicide attempt(s). Risk assessments now may be more comprehensive through inclusion of this distress factor.

It is recommended that future research use IPT to further investigate the relationship between problems dealing with a partner and SI.¹⁶ Future research may do so by including specific measures to assess for the tenants of the theory, including measurements of burdensomeness and belongingness. An expanded knowledge base about what makes problems dealing with a partner a significant suicide risk factor (eg, increased conflict, lack of support, etc.) would better enable clinicians to intervene effectively. Effective intervention may lessen suicidal behaviors or deaths from suicides within the Veteran population.

Limitations

One limitation is the focus on patients who accepted a mental health referral. This study design may limit the generalizability of results to veterans who would not accept mental health treatment. The homogenous sample of veterans is a second limitation. Most participants were male, white, and had a mean age of 62 years. These demographics are representative of the veterans that most typically utilize VA services; however, more research is needed on veterans living with cancer who are female and of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. There are likely differences in problems endorsed and factors associated with SI based on age, race, sex, and other socioeconomic factors. A third limitation is the cross-sectional, retrospective nature of this study. Future studies are advised to assess for distress at multiple time points. This is consistent with NCCN Standards of Care for Distress Management.² Longitudinal data would enable more findings about distress and SI throughout the course of cancer diagnosis and treatment, therefore enhancing clinical implications and informing future research.

Conclusion

This is among the first of studies to investigate distress and factors associated with SI in veterans living with cancer who were referred for psychology services. The prevalence of distress caused by psychosocial factors (including treatment decisions, worry, and depression) highlights the importance of including mental health services as part of comprehensive cancer treatment.

Distress due to treatment decisions may be attributed to a litany of factors such as a veteran’s consideration of adverse effects, effectiveness of treatments, changes to quality of life or functioning, and inclusion of alternative or complimentary treatments. These types of decisions often are reported to be difficult conversations to have with family members or loved ones, who are likely experiencing distress of their own. The role of a mental health provider to assist veterans in exploring their treatment decisions and the implications of such decisions appears important to lessening distress.

Early intervention for emotional symptoms would likely benefit veterans’ management of distress and may lessen suicide risk as depression is known to place veterans at-risk for SI.²⁰ This underscores the importance of timely distress assessment to prevent mild emotional distress from progressing to potentially severe or life-threatening emotional distress. For veterans with a psychiatric history, timely assessment and intervention is essential because psychiatric history is an established suicide risk factor that may be exacerbated by cancer-related distress.¹²

Furthermore, management of intolerable physical symptoms may lessen risk for suicide.⁴ Under medical guidance, fatigue may be improved using exercise.²¹ Behavioral intervention is commonly used as first-line treatment for sleep problems.²² While pain may be lessened through medication or nonpharmacological interventions.²³

Considering the numerous ways that distress may present itself (eg, practical, emotional, or physical) and increase risk for SI, it is essential that all veterans living with cancer are assessed for distress and SI, regardless of their presentation. Although veterans may not outwardly express distress, this does not indicate the absence of either distress or risk for suicide. For example, a veteran may be distressed due to financial concerns, transportation issues, and the health of his/her partner or spouse. This veteran may not exhibit visible symptoms of distress, as would be expected when the source of distress is emotional (eg, depression, anxiety). However, this veteran is equally vulnerable to impairing distress and SI as someone who exhibits emotional distress. Distress assessments should be further developed to capture both the visible and less apparent sources of distress, while also serving the imperative function of screening for suicide. Other researchers also have noted the necessity of this development.²⁴ Currently, the NCCN DT and Problems List does not include any assessment of SI or behavior.

Finally, this study identified a potentially critical factor to include in distress assessment: problems dealing with a partner. Problems dealing with a partner have been noted as a source of distress in existing literature, but this is the first study to find problems dealing with a partner to be a predictor of SI in veterans living with cancer.^4-6

Because partners often attend appointments with veterans, it is not surprising that problems dealing with their partner are not disclosed more readily. It is recommended that clinicians ask veterans about potential problems with their partner when they are alone. Directly gathering information about such problems while assessing for distress may assist health care workers in providing the most effective, accurate type of intervention in a timely manner, and potentially mitigate risk for suicide.

As recommended by the NCCN and numerous researchers, findings from the current study underscore the importance of accurate, timely assessment of distress.^2,4,8 This study makes several important recommendations about how distress assessment may be strengthened and further developed, specifically for the veteran population. This study also expands the current knowledge base of what is known about veterans living with cancer, and has begun to fill a gap in the existing literature. Consistent with the VA mission to end veteran suicide, results suggest that veterans living with cancer should be regularly screened for distress, asked about distress related to their partner, and assessed for SI. Continued efforts to enhance assessment of and response to distress may lessen suicide risk in veterans with cancer.¹¹

 

Acknowledgements

This study is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

 

It was estimated that physicians would diagnose a form of invasive cancer > 1.7 million times in 2019. As the second most common cause of death in the US, > 600,000 people were projected to die from cancer in 2019.¹ Many individuals with cancer endure distress, which the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) defines as a “multifactorial unpleasant experience of a psychological (ie, cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, spiritual, and/or physical nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms, and its treatment.”^2,3 Distress in people living with cancer has been attributed to various psychosocial concerns, such as family problems, whichinclude dealing with partners and children; emotional problems, such as depression and anxiety; and physical symptoms, such as pain and fatigue.^4-9 Certain factors associated with distress may increase a patient’s risk for suicide.⁴

Veterans are at particularly high risk for suicide.¹⁰ In 2014, veterans accounted for 18% of completed suicides in the US but only were 8.5% of the total population that same year.¹⁰ Yet, little research has been done on the relationship between distress and suicide in veterans living with cancer. Aboumrad and colleagues found that 45% of veterans with cancer who completed suicide reported family issues and 41% endorsed chronic pain.¹¹ This study recommended continued efforts to assess and treat distress to lessen risk of suicide in veterans living with cancer; however, to date, only 1 study has specifically evaluated distress and problems endorsed among veterans living with cancer.⁷

Suicide prevention is of the highest priority to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).¹² Consistent with the VA mission to end veteran suicide, the current study aimed to better understand the relationship between distress and suicide within a sample of veterans living with cancer. Findings would additionally be used to tailor clinical assessments and interventions for veterans living with cancer.

This study had 3 primary goals. First, we sought to understand demographic and clinical factors associated with low, moderate, and severe levels of distress in veterans living with cancer who were referred for psychology services. Second, the study investigated the most commonly endorsed problems by veterans living with cancer. Finally, we examined which problems were related to suicidal ideation (SI). It was hypothesized that veterans who reported severe distress would be significantly more likely to endorse SI when compared with veterans who reported mild or moderate distress. Based on existing literature, it was further hypothesized that family, emotional, and physical problems would be significantly associated with SI.^7,11

Methods

The current study was conducted at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital (JAHVH) in Tampa, Florida. Inclusion criteria included veterans who were diagnosed with cancer, attended an outpatient psychology-oncology evaluation, and completed mental health screening measures provided during their evaluation. Exclusion criteria included veterans who: were seen in response to an inpatient consult, were seen solely for a stem cell transplant evaluation, or did not complete the screening measures.

Measures

A veteran’s demographic (eg, age, sex, ethnicity) and clinical (eg, cancer type, stage of disease, recurrence, cancer treatments received) information was abstracted from their VA medical records. Marital status was assessed during a clinical interview and documented as part of the standardized suicide risk assessment.

 

The Distress Thermometer (DT) is a subjective measure developed by the NCCN.² The DT provides a visual representation of a thermometer and asks patients to rate their level of distress over the past week with 0 indicating no distress and 10 indicating extreme distress. A distress rating of 4 or higher is clinically significant.^4,6 Distress may be categorized into 3 levels of severity: mild distress (< 4), moderate distress (4-7), or severe distress (8-10). The DT has been found to have good face validity, sensitivity and specificity, and is user-friendly.^2,6,7,13

The measurement additionally lists 39 problems nested within 5 domains: practical, family, emotional, spiritual/religious, and physical. Patients may endorse listed items under each problem domain by indicating yes or no. Endorsement of various items are intended to provide more detailed information about sources of distress. Due to the predominantly male and mostly older population included in this study the ability to have children measure was removed from the family problem domain.

SI was assessed in 2 ways. First, by patients’ self-report through item-9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).¹⁴ Item-9 asks “over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by thoughts that you would be better off dead or of hurting yourself in some way?” Responses range from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day).¹⁴ Responses > 0 were considered a positive screen for SI. The process of administering the PHQ-9 item-9 is part of a national VA directive for standardizing assessment of suicide risk (Steve Young, personal communication, May 23, 2018). The PHQ-9 has been found to have good construct validity when used with both medical samples and the general population along with good internal and test-retest reliability.^14,15 Second, all veterans also were asked directly about SI during clinical interview, the results of which were documented in health records using a standardized format for risk assessment.

Procedure

Participants were a sample of veterans who were referred for psychology-oncology services. The NCCN DT and Problems List were administered prior to the start of clinical interviews, which followed a checklist and included standardized assessments of SI and history of a suicide attempt(s). A licensed clinical psychologist or a postdoctoral resident conducted these assessments under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. Data gathered during the clinical interview and from the DT and problems list were documented in health records, which were retrospectively reviewed for relevant information (eg, cancer diagnosis, SI). Therefore, informed consent was waived. This study was approved by the JAHVH Institutional Review Board.

Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25. Data analysis proceeded in 3 steps. First, descriptive statistics included the demographic and clinical factors present in the current sample. Difference between those with and without suicidal ideation were compared using F-statistic for continuous variables and χ² analyses for categorical variables. Second, to examine relationships between each DT problem domain and SI, χ² analyses were conducted. Third, DT problem domains that had a significant relationship with SI were entered in a logistic regression. This analysis determined which items, if any, from a DT problem domain predicted SI. In the logistic regression model, history of suicide attempts was entered into the first block, as history of suicide attempts is a well-established risk factor for subsequent suicidal ideation. In the second block, other variables that were significantly related to suicidal ideation in the second step of analyses were included. Before interpreting the results of the logistic regression, model fit was tested using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Significance of each individual predictor variable in the model is reported using the Wald χ² statistic; each Wald statistic is compared with a χ² distribution with 1 degree of freedom (df). Results of logistic regression models also provide information about the effect of each predictor variable in the regression equation (beta weight), odds a veteran who endorsed each predictor variable in the model would also endorse SI (as indicated by the odds ratio), and an estimate of the amount of variance accounted for by each predictor variable (using Nagelkerke’s pseudo R², which ranges in value from 0 to 1 with higher values indicating more variance explained). For all analyses, P value of .05 (2-tailed) was used for statistical significance.

 

Results

The sample consisted of 174 veterans (Table 1). The majority (77.6%) were male with a mean age of nearly 62 years (range, 29-87). Most identified as white (74.1%) with half reporting they were either married or living with a partner.

Prostate cancer (19.0%) was the most common type of cancer among study participants followed by head and neck (18.4%), lymphoma/leukemia (11.5%), lung (11.5%), and breast (10.9%); 31.6% had metastatic disease and 14.9% had recurrent disease. Chemotherapy (42.5%) was the most common treatment modality, followed by surgery (38.5%) and radiation (31.6%). The sample was distributed among the 3 distress DT categories: mild (18.4%), moderate (42.5%), and severe (39.1%).

Problems Endorsed

Treatment decisions (44.3%) and insurance/financial concerns (35.1%) were the most frequently endorsed practical problems (Figure 1). Family health issues (33.9%) and dealing with partner (23.0%) were the most frequently endorsed family problems (Figure 2). Worry (73.0%) and depression (69.5%) were the most frequent emotional problems; of note, all emotional problems were endorsed by at least 50% of veterans (Figure 3). Fatigue (71.3%), sleep (70.7%), and pain (69%), were the most frequently endorsed physical problems (Figure 4). Spiritual/religious problems were endorsed by 15% of veterans.

 

Suicidal Ideation

Overall, 25.3% of veterans endorsed SI. About 20% of veterans reported a history of ≥ 1 suicide attempts in their lifetime. A significant relationship among distress categories and SI was found (χ² = 18.36, P < .001). Veterans with severe distress were more likely to endorse SI (42.7%) when compared with veterans with mild (9.4%) or moderate (16.2%) distress.

Similarly, a significant relationship among distress categories and a history of a suicide attempt(s) was found (χ² = 6.08, P = .048). Veterans with severe distress were more likely to have attempted suicide (29.4%) when compared with veterans with mild (12.5%) or moderate (14.9%) distress.

χ² analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between DT problem domains and SI. A significant relationship was found between family problems and SI (χ² = 5.54,df = 1, P = .02) (Table 2). Specifically, 33.0% of veterans who endorsed family problems also reported experiencing SI. In comparison, there were no significant differences between groups with regard to practical, emotional, spiritual/religious, or physical problems and SI.

Logistic regression analyses determined whether items representative of the family problems domain were predictive of SI. Suicide attempt(s) were entered in the first step of the model to evaluate risk factors for SI over this already established risk factor. The assumptions of logistic regression were met.

The Hosmer-Lemeshow test (χ² = 3.66, df = 5, P = .56) demonstrated that the model fit was good. The group of predictors used in the model differentiate between people who were experiencing SI and those who were not experiencing SI at the time of evaluation. A history of a suicide attempt(s) predicted SI, as expected (Wald = 6.821, df = 1, P = .01). The odds that a veteran with a history of a suicide attempt(s) would endorse SI at the time of the evaluation was nearly 3 times greater than that of veterans without a history of a suicide attempt(s). Over and above suicide attempts, problems dealing with partner (Wald = 15.142; df = 1, P < .001) was a second significant predictor of current SI. The odds that a veteran who endorsed problems dealing with partner would also endorse SI was > 5 times higher than that of veterans who did not endorse problems dealing with partner. This finding represents a significant risk factor for SI, over and above a history of a suicide attempt(s). The other items from the family problems domains were not significant (P > .05) (Table 3).

 

Discussion

This study aimed to understand factors associated with low, moderate, and severe levels of distress in veterans living with cancer who were referred for psychology services. As hypothesized, veterans who endorsed severe distress were significantly more likely to endorse SI. They also were more likely to have a history of a suicide attempt(s) when compared with those with mild or moderate distress.

A second aim of this study was to understand the most commonly endorsed problems. Consistent with prior literature, treatment decisions were the most commonly endorsed practical problem; worry and depression were the most common emotional problems; and fatigue, sleep, and pain were the most common physical problems.⁷

A finding unique to the current study is that family health issues and dealing with partner were specified as the most common family problems. However, a study by Smith and colleagues did not provide information about the rank of most frequently reported problems within this domain.⁷

The third aim was to understand which problems were related to SI. It was hypothesized that family, emotional, and physical problems would be related to SI. However, results indicated that only family problems (specifically, problems dealing with a partner) were significantly associated with SI among veterans living with cancer.

Contrary to expectations, emotional and physical problems were not found to have a significant relationship with SI. This is likely because veterans endorsed items nested within these problem domains with similar frequency. The lack of significant findings does not suggest that emotional and physical problems are not significant predictors of SI for veterans living with cancer, but that no specific emotional or physical symptom stood out as a predictor of suicidal ideation above the others.

The finding of a significant relationship between family problems (specifically, problems dealing with a partner) and SI in this study is consistent with findings of Aboumrad and colleagues in a study that examined root-cause analyses of completed suicides by veterans living with cancer.¹¹ They found that nearly half the sample endorsed family problems prior to their death, and a small but notable percentage of veterans who completed suicide reported divorce as a stressor prior to their death.

This finding may be explained by Thomas Joiner's interpersonal-psychological theory of suicidal behavior (IPT), which suggests that completed suicide may result from a thwarted sense of belonging, perceived burdensomeness, and acquired capability for suicide.¹⁶ Problems dealing with a partner may impact a veteran’s sense of belonging or social connectedness. Problems dealing with a partner also may be attributed to perceived burdens due to limitations imposed by living with cancer and/or undergoing treatment. In both circumstances, the veteran’s social support system may be negatively impacted, and perceived social support is a well-established protective factor against suicide.¹⁷

Partner distress is a second consideration. It is likely that veterans’ partners experienced their own distress in response to the veteran’s cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. The partner’s cause, severity, and expression of distress may contribute to problems for the couple.

Finally, the latter point of the IPT refers to acquired capability, or the ability to inflict deadly harm to oneself.¹⁸ A military sample was found to have more acquired capability for suicide when compared with a college undergraduate sample.¹⁹ A history of a suicide attempt(s) and male gender have been found to significantly predict acquired capability to complete suicide.¹⁸ Furthermore, because veterans living with cancer often are in pain, fear of pain associated with suicide may be reduced and, therefore, acquired capability increased. This suggests that male veterans living with cancer who are in pain, have a history of a suicide attempt(s), and current problems with their partner may be an extremely vulnerable population at-risk for suicide. Results from the current study emphasize the importance of veterans having access to mental health and crisis resources for problems dealing with their partner. Partner problems may foreshadow a potentially lethal type of distress.

 

Strengths

This study’s aims are consistent with the VA’s mission to end veteran suicide and contributes to literature in several important ways.¹² First, veterans living with cancer are an understudied population. The current study addresses a gap in existing literature by researching veterans living with cancer and aims to better understand the relationship between cancer-related distress and SI. Second, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to find that problems dealing with a partner significantly increases a veteran’s risk for SI above a history of a suicide attempt(s). Risk assessments now may be more comprehensive through inclusion of this distress factor.

It is recommended that future research use IPT to further investigate the relationship between problems dealing with a partner and SI.¹⁶ Future research may do so by including specific measures to assess for the tenants of the theory, including measurements of burdensomeness and belongingness. An expanded knowledge base about what makes problems dealing with a partner a significant suicide risk factor (eg, increased conflict, lack of support, etc.) would better enable clinicians to intervene effectively. Effective intervention may lessen suicidal behaviors or deaths from suicides within the Veteran population.

Limitations

One limitation is the focus on patients who accepted a mental health referral. This study design may limit the generalizability of results to veterans who would not accept mental health treatment. The homogenous sample of veterans is a second limitation. Most participants were male, white, and had a mean age of 62 years. These demographics are representative of the veterans that most typically utilize VA services; however, more research is needed on veterans living with cancer who are female and of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. There are likely differences in problems endorsed and factors associated with SI based on age, race, sex, and other socioeconomic factors. A third limitation is the cross-sectional, retrospective nature of this study. Future studies are advised to assess for distress at multiple time points. This is consistent with NCCN Standards of Care for Distress Management.² Longitudinal data would enable more findings about distress and SI throughout the course of cancer diagnosis and treatment, therefore enhancing clinical implications and informing future research.

Conclusion

This is among the first of studies to investigate distress and factors associated with SI in veterans living with cancer who were referred for psychology services. The prevalence of distress caused by psychosocial factors (including treatment decisions, worry, and depression) highlights the importance of including mental health services as part of comprehensive cancer treatment.

Distress due to treatment decisions may be attributed to a litany of factors such as a veteran’s consideration of adverse effects, effectiveness of treatments, changes to quality of life or functioning, and inclusion of alternative or complimentary treatments. These types of decisions often are reported to be difficult conversations to have with family members or loved ones, who are likely experiencing distress of their own. The role of a mental health provider to assist veterans in exploring their treatment decisions and the implications of such decisions appears important to lessening distress.

Early intervention for emotional symptoms would likely benefit veterans’ management of distress and may lessen suicide risk as depression is known to place veterans at-risk for SI.²⁰ This underscores the importance of timely distress assessment to prevent mild emotional distress from progressing to potentially severe or life-threatening emotional distress. For veterans with a psychiatric history, timely assessment and intervention is essential because psychiatric history is an established suicide risk factor that may be exacerbated by cancer-related distress.¹²

Furthermore, management of intolerable physical symptoms may lessen risk for suicide.⁴ Under medical guidance, fatigue may be improved using exercise.²¹ Behavioral intervention is commonly used as first-line treatment for sleep problems.²² While pain may be lessened through medication or nonpharmacological interventions.²³

Considering the numerous ways that distress may present itself (eg, practical, emotional, or physical) and increase risk for SI, it is essential that all veterans living with cancer are assessed for distress and SI, regardless of their presentation. Although veterans may not outwardly express distress, this does not indicate the absence of either distress or risk for suicide. For example, a veteran may be distressed due to financial concerns, transportation issues, and the health of his/her partner or spouse. This veteran may not exhibit visible symptoms of distress, as would be expected when the source of distress is emotional (eg, depression, anxiety). However, this veteran is equally vulnerable to impairing distress and SI as someone who exhibits emotional distress. Distress assessments should be further developed to capture both the visible and less apparent sources of distress, while also serving the imperative function of screening for suicide. Other researchers also have noted the necessity of this development.²⁴ Currently, the NCCN DT and Problems List does not include any assessment of SI or behavior.

Finally, this study identified a potentially critical factor to include in distress assessment: problems dealing with a partner. Problems dealing with a partner have been noted as a source of distress in existing literature, but this is the first study to find problems dealing with a partner to be a predictor of SI in veterans living with cancer.^4-6

Because partners often attend appointments with veterans, it is not surprising that problems dealing with their partner are not disclosed more readily. It is recommended that clinicians ask veterans about potential problems with their partner when they are alone. Directly gathering information about such problems while assessing for distress may assist health care workers in providing the most effective, accurate type of intervention in a timely manner, and potentially mitigate risk for suicide.

As recommended by the NCCN and numerous researchers, findings from the current study underscore the importance of accurate, timely assessment of distress.^2,4,8 This study makes several important recommendations about how distress assessment may be strengthened and further developed, specifically for the veteran population. This study also expands the current knowledge base of what is known about veterans living with cancer, and has begun to fill a gap in the existing literature. Consistent with the VA mission to end veteran suicide, results suggest that veterans living with cancer should be regularly screened for distress, asked about distress related to their partner, and assessed for SI. Continued efforts to enhance assessment of and response to distress may lessen suicide risk in veterans with cancer.¹¹

 

Acknowledgements

This study is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

 

It was estimated that physicians would diagnose a form of invasive cancer > 1.7 million times in 2019. As the second most common cause of death in the US, > 600,000 people were projected to die from cancer in 2019.¹ Many individuals with cancer endure distress, which the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) defines as a “multifactorial unpleasant experience of a psychological (ie, cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, spiritual, and/or physical nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms, and its treatment.”^2,3 Distress in people living with cancer has been attributed to various psychosocial concerns, such as family problems, whichinclude dealing with partners and children; emotional problems, such as depression and anxiety; and physical symptoms, such as pain and fatigue.^4-9 Certain factors associated with distress may increase a patient’s risk for suicide.⁴

Veterans are at particularly high risk for suicide.¹⁰ In 2014, veterans accounted for 18% of completed suicides in the US but only were 8.5% of the total population that same year.¹⁰ Yet, little research has been done on the relationship between distress and suicide in veterans living with cancer. Aboumrad and colleagues found that 45% of veterans with cancer who completed suicide reported family issues and 41% endorsed chronic pain.¹¹ This study recommended continued efforts to assess and treat distress to lessen risk of suicide in veterans living with cancer; however, to date, only 1 study has specifically evaluated distress and problems endorsed among veterans living with cancer.⁷

Suicide prevention is of the highest priority to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).¹² Consistent with the VA mission to end veteran suicide, the current study aimed to better understand the relationship between distress and suicide within a sample of veterans living with cancer. Findings would additionally be used to tailor clinical assessments and interventions for veterans living with cancer.

This study had 3 primary goals. First, we sought to understand demographic and clinical factors associated with low, moderate, and severe levels of distress in veterans living with cancer who were referred for psychology services. Second, the study investigated the most commonly endorsed problems by veterans living with cancer. Finally, we examined which problems were related to suicidal ideation (SI). It was hypothesized that veterans who reported severe distress would be significantly more likely to endorse SI when compared with veterans who reported mild or moderate distress. Based on existing literature, it was further hypothesized that family, emotional, and physical problems would be significantly associated with SI.^7,11

Methods

The current study was conducted at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital (JAHVH) in Tampa, Florida. Inclusion criteria included veterans who were diagnosed with cancer, attended an outpatient psychology-oncology evaluation, and completed mental health screening measures provided during their evaluation. Exclusion criteria included veterans who: were seen in response to an inpatient consult, were seen solely for a stem cell transplant evaluation, or did not complete the screening measures.

Measures

A veteran’s demographic (eg, age, sex, ethnicity) and clinical (eg, cancer type, stage of disease, recurrence, cancer treatments received) information was abstracted from their VA medical records. Marital status was assessed during a clinical interview and documented as part of the standardized suicide risk assessment.

 

The Distress Thermometer (DT) is a subjective measure developed by the NCCN.² The DT provides a visual representation of a thermometer and asks patients to rate their level of distress over the past week with 0 indicating no distress and 10 indicating extreme distress. A distress rating of 4 or higher is clinically significant.^4,6 Distress may be categorized into 3 levels of severity: mild distress (< 4), moderate distress (4-7), or severe distress (8-10). The DT has been found to have good face validity, sensitivity and specificity, and is user-friendly.^2,6,7,13

The measurement additionally lists 39 problems nested within 5 domains: practical, family, emotional, spiritual/religious, and physical. Patients may endorse listed items under each problem domain by indicating yes or no. Endorsement of various items are intended to provide more detailed information about sources of distress. Due to the predominantly male and mostly older population included in this study the ability to have children measure was removed from the family problem domain.

SI was assessed in 2 ways. First, by patients’ self-report through item-9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).¹⁴ Item-9 asks “over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by thoughts that you would be better off dead or of hurting yourself in some way?” Responses range from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day).¹⁴ Responses > 0 were considered a positive screen for SI. The process of administering the PHQ-9 item-9 is part of a national VA directive for standardizing assessment of suicide risk (Steve Young, personal communication, May 23, 2018). The PHQ-9 has been found to have good construct validity when used with both medical samples and the general population along with good internal and test-retest reliability.^14,15 Second, all veterans also were asked directly about SI during clinical interview, the results of which were documented in health records using a standardized format for risk assessment.

Procedure

Participants were a sample of veterans who were referred for psychology-oncology services. The NCCN DT and Problems List were administered prior to the start of clinical interviews, which followed a checklist and included standardized assessments of SI and history of a suicide attempt(s). A licensed clinical psychologist or a postdoctoral resident conducted these assessments under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. Data gathered during the clinical interview and from the DT and problems list were documented in health records, which were retrospectively reviewed for relevant information (eg, cancer diagnosis, SI). Therefore, informed consent was waived. This study was approved by the JAHVH Institutional Review Board.

Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25. Data analysis proceeded in 3 steps. First, descriptive statistics included the demographic and clinical factors present in the current sample. Difference between those with and without suicidal ideation were compared using F-statistic for continuous variables and χ² analyses for categorical variables. Second, to examine relationships between each DT problem domain and SI, χ² analyses were conducted. Third, DT problem domains that had a significant relationship with SI were entered in a logistic regression. This analysis determined which items, if any, from a DT problem domain predicted SI. In the logistic regression model, history of suicide attempts was entered into the first block, as history of suicide attempts is a well-established risk factor for subsequent suicidal ideation. In the second block, other variables that were significantly related to suicidal ideation in the second step of analyses were included. Before interpreting the results of the logistic regression, model fit was tested using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Significance of each individual predictor variable in the model is reported using the Wald χ² statistic; each Wald statistic is compared with a χ² distribution with 1 degree of freedom (df). Results of logistic regression models also provide information about the effect of each predictor variable in the regression equation (beta weight), odds a veteran who endorsed each predictor variable in the model would also endorse SI (as indicated by the odds ratio), and an estimate of the amount of variance accounted for by each predictor variable (using Nagelkerke’s pseudo R², which ranges in value from 0 to 1 with higher values indicating more variance explained). For all analyses, P value of .05 (2-tailed) was used for statistical significance.

 

Results

The sample consisted of 174 veterans (Table 1). The majority (77.6%) were male with a mean age of nearly 62 years (range, 29-87). Most identified as white (74.1%) with half reporting they were either married or living with a partner.

Prostate cancer (19.0%) was the most common type of cancer among study participants followed by head and neck (18.4%), lymphoma/leukemia (11.5%), lung (11.5%), and breast (10.9%); 31.6% had metastatic disease and 14.9% had recurrent disease. Chemotherapy (42.5%) was the most common treatment modality, followed by surgery (38.5%) and radiation (31.6%). The sample was distributed among the 3 distress DT categories: mild (18.4%), moderate (42.5%), and severe (39.1%).

Problems Endorsed

Treatment decisions (44.3%) and insurance/financial concerns (35.1%) were the most frequently endorsed practical problems (Figure 1). Family health issues (33.9%) and dealing with partner (23.0%) were the most frequently endorsed family problems (Figure 2). Worry (73.0%) and depression (69.5%) were the most frequent emotional problems; of note, all emotional problems were endorsed by at least 50% of veterans (Figure 3). Fatigue (71.3%), sleep (70.7%), and pain (69%), were the most frequently endorsed physical problems (Figure 4). Spiritual/religious problems were endorsed by 15% of veterans.

 

Suicidal Ideation

Overall, 25.3% of veterans endorsed SI. About 20% of veterans reported a history of ≥ 1 suicide attempts in their lifetime. A significant relationship among distress categories and SI was found (χ² = 18.36, P < .001). Veterans with severe distress were more likely to endorse SI (42.7%) when compared with veterans with mild (9.4%) or moderate (16.2%) distress.

Similarly, a significant relationship among distress categories and a history of a suicide attempt(s) was found (χ² = 6.08, P = .048). Veterans with severe distress were more likely to have attempted suicide (29.4%) when compared with veterans with mild (12.5%) or moderate (14.9%) distress.

χ² analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between DT problem domains and SI. A significant relationship was found between family problems and SI (χ² = 5.54,df = 1, P = .02) (Table 2). Specifically, 33.0% of veterans who endorsed family problems also reported experiencing SI. In comparison, there were no significant differences between groups with regard to practical, emotional, spiritual/religious, or physical problems and SI.

Logistic regression analyses determined whether items representative of the family problems domain were predictive of SI. Suicide attempt(s) were entered in the first step of the model to evaluate risk factors for SI over this already established risk factor. The assumptions of logistic regression were met.

The Hosmer-Lemeshow test (χ² = 3.66, df = 5, P = .56) demonstrated that the model fit was good. The group of predictors used in the model differentiate between people who were experiencing SI and those who were not experiencing SI at the time of evaluation. A history of a suicide attempt(s) predicted SI, as expected (Wald = 6.821, df = 1, P = .01). The odds that a veteran with a history of a suicide attempt(s) would endorse SI at the time of the evaluation was nearly 3 times greater than that of veterans without a history of a suicide attempt(s). Over and above suicide attempts, problems dealing with partner (Wald = 15.142; df = 1, P < .001) was a second significant predictor of current SI. The odds that a veteran who endorsed problems dealing with partner would also endorse SI was > 5 times higher than that of veterans who did not endorse problems dealing with partner. This finding represents a significant risk factor for SI, over and above a history of a suicide attempt(s). The other items from the family problems domains were not significant (P > .05) (Table 3).

 

Discussion

This study aimed to understand factors associated with low, moderate, and severe levels of distress in veterans living with cancer who were referred for psychology services. As hypothesized, veterans who endorsed severe distress were significantly more likely to endorse SI. They also were more likely to have a history of a suicide attempt(s) when compared with those with mild or moderate distress.

A second aim of this study was to understand the most commonly endorsed problems. Consistent with prior literature, treatment decisions were the most commonly endorsed practical problem; worry and depression were the most common emotional problems; and fatigue, sleep, and pain were the most common physical problems.⁷

A finding unique to the current study is that family health issues and dealing with partner were specified as the most common family problems. However, a study by Smith and colleagues did not provide information about the rank of most frequently reported problems within this domain.⁷

The third aim was to understand which problems were related to SI. It was hypothesized that family, emotional, and physical problems would be related to SI. However, results indicated that only family problems (specifically, problems dealing with a partner) were significantly associated with SI among veterans living with cancer.

Contrary to expectations, emotional and physical problems were not found to have a significant relationship with SI. This is likely because veterans endorsed items nested within these problem domains with similar frequency. The lack of significant findings does not suggest that emotional and physical problems are not significant predictors of SI for veterans living with cancer, but that no specific emotional or physical symptom stood out as a predictor of suicidal ideation above the others.

The finding of a significant relationship between family problems (specifically, problems dealing with a partner) and SI in this study is consistent with findings of Aboumrad and colleagues in a study that examined root-cause analyses of completed suicides by veterans living with cancer.¹¹ They found that nearly half the sample endorsed family problems prior to their death, and a small but notable percentage of veterans who completed suicide reported divorce as a stressor prior to their death.

This finding may be explained by Thomas Joiner's interpersonal-psychological theory of suicidal behavior (IPT), which suggests that completed suicide may result from a thwarted sense of belonging, perceived burdensomeness, and acquired capability for suicide.¹⁶ Problems dealing with a partner may impact a veteran’s sense of belonging or social connectedness. Problems dealing with a partner also may be attributed to perceived burdens due to limitations imposed by living with cancer and/or undergoing treatment. In both circumstances, the veteran’s social support system may be negatively impacted, and perceived social support is a well-established protective factor against suicide.¹⁷

Partner distress is a second consideration. It is likely that veterans’ partners experienced their own distress in response to the veteran’s cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. The partner’s cause, severity, and expression of distress may contribute to problems for the couple.

Finally, the latter point of the IPT refers to acquired capability, or the ability to inflict deadly harm to oneself.¹⁸ A military sample was found to have more acquired capability for suicide when compared with a college undergraduate sample.¹⁹ A history of a suicide attempt(s) and male gender have been found to significantly predict acquired capability to complete suicide.¹⁸ Furthermore, because veterans living with cancer often are in pain, fear of pain associated with suicide may be reduced and, therefore, acquired capability increased. This suggests that male veterans living with cancer who are in pain, have a history of a suicide attempt(s), and current problems with their partner may be an extremely vulnerable population at-risk for suicide. Results from the current study emphasize the importance of veterans having access to mental health and crisis resources for problems dealing with their partner. Partner problems may foreshadow a potentially lethal type of distress.

 

Strengths

This study’s aims are consistent with the VA’s mission to end veteran suicide and contributes to literature in several important ways.¹² First, veterans living with cancer are an understudied population. The current study addresses a gap in existing literature by researching veterans living with cancer and aims to better understand the relationship between cancer-related distress and SI. Second, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to find that problems dealing with a partner significantly increases a veteran’s risk for SI above a history of a suicide attempt(s). Risk assessments now may be more comprehensive through inclusion of this distress factor.

It is recommended that future research use IPT to further investigate the relationship between problems dealing with a partner and SI.¹⁶ Future research may do so by including specific measures to assess for the tenants of the theory, including measurements of burdensomeness and belongingness. An expanded knowledge base about what makes problems dealing with a partner a significant suicide risk factor (eg, increased conflict, lack of support, etc.) would better enable clinicians to intervene effectively. Effective intervention may lessen suicidal behaviors or deaths from suicides within the Veteran population.

Limitations

One limitation is the focus on patients who accepted a mental health referral. This study design may limit the generalizability of results to veterans who would not accept mental health treatment. The homogenous sample of veterans is a second limitation. Most participants were male, white, and had a mean age of 62 years. These demographics are representative of the veterans that most typically utilize VA services; however, more research is needed on veterans living with cancer who are female and of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. There are likely differences in problems endorsed and factors associated with SI based on age, race, sex, and other socioeconomic factors. A third limitation is the cross-sectional, retrospective nature of this study. Future studies are advised to assess for distress at multiple time points. This is consistent with NCCN Standards of Care for Distress Management.² Longitudinal data would enable more findings about distress and SI throughout the course of cancer diagnosis and treatment, therefore enhancing clinical implications and informing future research.

Conclusion

This is among the first of studies to investigate distress and factors associated with SI in veterans living with cancer who were referred for psychology services. The prevalence of distress caused by psychosocial factors (including treatment decisions, worry, and depression) highlights the importance of including mental health services as part of comprehensive cancer treatment.

Distress due to treatment decisions may be attributed to a litany of factors such as a veteran’s consideration of adverse effects, effectiveness of treatments, changes to quality of life or functioning, and inclusion of alternative or complimentary treatments. These types of decisions often are reported to be difficult conversations to have with family members or loved ones, who are likely experiencing distress of their own. The role of a mental health provider to assist veterans in exploring their treatment decisions and the implications of such decisions appears important to lessening distress.

Early intervention for emotional symptoms would likely benefit veterans’ management of distress and may lessen suicide risk as depression is known to place veterans at-risk for SI.²⁰ This underscores the importance of timely distress assessment to prevent mild emotional distress from progressing to potentially severe or life-threatening emotional distress. For veterans with a psychiatric history, timely assessment and intervention is essential because psychiatric history is an established suicide risk factor that may be exacerbated by cancer-related distress.¹²

Furthermore, management of intolerable physical symptoms may lessen risk for suicide.⁴ Under medical guidance, fatigue may be improved using exercise.²¹ Behavioral intervention is commonly used as first-line treatment for sleep problems.²² While pain may be lessened through medication or nonpharmacological interventions.²³

Considering the numerous ways that distress may present itself (eg, practical, emotional, or physical) and increase risk for SI, it is essential that all veterans living with cancer are assessed for distress and SI, regardless of their presentation. Although veterans may not outwardly express distress, this does not indicate the absence of either distress or risk for suicide. For example, a veteran may be distressed due to financial concerns, transportation issues, and the health of his/her partner or spouse. This veteran may not exhibit visible symptoms of distress, as would be expected when the source of distress is emotional (eg, depression, anxiety). However, this veteran is equally vulnerable to impairing distress and SI as someone who exhibits emotional distress. Distress assessments should be further developed to capture both the visible and less apparent sources of distress, while also serving the imperative function of screening for suicide. Other researchers also have noted the necessity of this development.²⁴ Currently, the NCCN DT and Problems List does not include any assessment of SI or behavior.

Finally, this study identified a potentially critical factor to include in distress assessment: problems dealing with a partner. Problems dealing with a partner have been noted as a source of distress in existing literature, but this is the first study to find problems dealing with a partner to be a predictor of SI in veterans living with cancer.^4-6

Because partners often attend appointments with veterans, it is not surprising that problems dealing with their partner are not disclosed more readily. It is recommended that clinicians ask veterans about potential problems with their partner when they are alone. Directly gathering information about such problems while assessing for distress may assist health care workers in providing the most effective, accurate type of intervention in a timely manner, and potentially mitigate risk for suicide.

As recommended by the NCCN and numerous researchers, findings from the current study underscore the importance of accurate, timely assessment of distress.^2,4,8 This study makes several important recommendations about how distress assessment may be strengthened and further developed, specifically for the veteran population. This study also expands the current knowledge base of what is known about veterans living with cancer, and has begun to fill a gap in the existing literature. Consistent with the VA mission to end veteran suicide, results suggest that veterans living with cancer should be regularly screened for distress, asked about distress related to their partner, and assessed for SI. Continued efforts to enhance assessment of and response to distress may lessen suicide risk in veterans with cancer.¹¹

 

Acknowledgements

This study is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

 

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia diagnosed in developed countries, with an estimated 21,040 new diagnoses of CLL expected in the US in 2020. ^1-3 CLL is an indolent cancer characterized by the accumulation of B-lymphocytes in the blood, marrow, and lymphoid tissues. ⁴ It has a heterogeneous clinical course; the majority of patients are observed or receive delayed treatment following diagnosis, while a minority of patients require immediate treatment. After first-line treatment, some patients experience prolonged remissions while others require retreatment within 1 or 2 years. Fortunately, advances in cancer biology and therapeutics in the last decade have increased the number of treatment options available for patients with CLL.

Until recently, most CLL treatments relied on a chemotherapy or a chemoimmunotherapy backbone; however, the last few years have seen novel therapies introduced, such as small molecule inhibitors to target molecular pathways that promote the normal development, expansion, and survival of B-cells.⁵ One such therapy is ibrutinib, a targeted Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2014 for patients with CLL who received at least 1 prior therapy. The FDA later expanded this approval to include use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL with relapsed or refractory disease, with or without chromosome 17p deletion. In 2016, based on data from the RESONATE-17 study, the FDA approved ibrutinib for first-line therapy in patients with CLL.⁶

Ibrutinib’s efficacy, ease of administration and dosing (all doses are oral and fixed, rather than based on weight or body surface area), and relatively favorable safety profile have resulted in a rapid growth in its adoption.⁷ Since its adverse event (AE) profile is generally more tolerable than that of a typical chemoimmunotherapy, its use in older patients with CLL and patients with significant comorbidities is particularly appealing.⁸

However, the results of some clinical trials suggest an association between treatment with ibrutinib and an increased risk of bleeding-related events of any grade (44%) and major bleeding events (4%).^7,8 The incidence of major bleeding events was reported to be higher (9%) in one clinical trial and at 5-year follow-up, although this trial did not exclude patients receiving concomitant oral anticoagulation with warfarin.^6,9

Heterogeneity in clinical trials’ definitions of major bleeding confounded the ability to calculate bleeding risk in patients treated with ibrutinib in a systematic review and meta-analysis that called for more data.¹⁰ Additionally, patients with factors that might increase the risk of major bleeding with ibrutinib treatment were likely underrepresented in clinical trials, given the carefully selected nature of clinical trial subjects. These factors include renal or hepatic disease, gastrointestinal disease, and use of a number of concomitant medications such as antiplatelets or anticoagulant medications. Accounting for use of the latter is particularly important because patients who develop atrial fibrillation (Afib), one of the recognized AEs of treatment with ibrutinib, often are treated with anticoagulant medications in order to decrease the risk of stroke or other thromboembolic complications.

 

A single-site observational study of patients treated with ibrutinib reported a high utilization rate of antiplatelet medications (70%), anticoagulant medications (17%), or both (13%) with a concomitant major bleeding rate of 18% of patients.¹¹ Prevalence of bleeding events seemed to be highly affected by the presence of concomitant medications: 78% of patients treated with ibrutinib while concurrently receiving both antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications developed a major bleeding event, while none of the patients who were not receiving antiplatelets, anticoagulants, or medications that interact with cytochrome P450 (an enzyme that metabolized chemotherapeutic agents used to treat cancer) experienced a major bleeding event.¹¹

The prevalence of major bleeding events, comorbidities, and utilization of medications that could increase the risk of major bleeding in patients with CLL on ibrutinib in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is not known. The VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the US. To address these knowledge gaps, a retrospective observational study was conducted using data on demographics, comorbidities that could affect bleeding, use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications, and bleeding events in patients with CLL who were treated in the first year of ibrutinib availability from the VHA.

The first year of ibrutinib availability was chosen for this study since we anticipated that many health care providers would be unfamiliar with ibrutinib during that time given its novelty, and therefore more likely to codispense ibrutinib with medications that could increase the risk of a bleeding event. Since Afib is both an AE associated with ibrutinib treatment and a condition that often is treated with anticoagulants, the prevalence of Afib in this population was also included. For context, the incidence of bleeding and Afib and use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications during treatment in a cohort of patients with CLL treated with bendamustine + rituximab (BR) also was reported.

Methods

The VHA maintains the centralized US Department of Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry System (VACRS), with electronic medical record data and other sources captured in its Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VHA CDW is a national repository comprising data from several VHA clinical and administrative systems. The CDW includes patient identifiers; demographics; vital status; lab information; administrative information (such as diagnostic International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems [ICD-9] codes); medication dispensation tables (such as outpatient fill); IV package information; and notes from radiology, pathology, outpatient and inpatient admission, discharge, and daily progress.

Registrars abstract all cancer cases within the VHA system (or diagnosed outside the VHA, if patients subsequently receive treatment in the VHA). It is estimated that VACRS captures 3% of cancer cases in the US.¹² Like most registries, VACRS captures data such as diagnosis, age, gender, race, and vital status.

 

The study received approval from the University of Utah Institutional Review Board and used individual patient-level historical administrative, cancer registry, and electronic health care record data. Patients diagnosed and treated for CLL at the VHA from 2010 to 2014 were identified through the VACRS and CDW; patients with a prior malignancy were excluded. Patients who received ibrutinib or BR based on pharmacy dispensation information were selected. Patients were followed until December 31, 2016 or death; patients with documentation of another cancer or lack of utilization of the VHA hematology or oncology services (defined as absence of any hematology and/or oncology clinic visits for ≥ 18 months) were omitted from the final analysis (Figure).

Previous and concomitant utilization of antiplatelet (aspirin, clopidogrel) or anticoagulant (dalteparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, heparin, rivaroxaban, and warfarin) medications was extracted 6 months before and after the first dispensation of ibrutinib or BR using pharmacy dispensation records.

Study Definitions

Prevalence of comorbidities that could increase bleeding risk was determined using administrative ICD-9-CM codes. Liver disease was identified by presence of cirrhosis, hepatitis C virus, or alcoholic liver disease using administrative codes validated by Kramer and colleagues, who reported positive and negative predictive values of 90% and 87% for cirrhosis, 93% and 92% for hepatitis C virus, and 71% and 98% for alcoholic liver disease.¹³ Similarly, end-stage liver disease was identified using a validated coding algorithm developed by Goldberg and colleagues, with a positive predictive value of 89.3%.¹⁴ The presence of controlled or uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM) was identified using the procedure described by Guzman and colleagues.¹⁵ Quan’s algorithm was used to calculate Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) based on ICD-9-CM codes for inpatient and outpatient visits within a 6-month lookback period prior to treatment initiation.¹⁶

A major bleeding event was defined as a hospitalization with an ICD-9-CM code suggestive of major bleeding as the primary reason, as defined by Lane and colleagues in their study of major bleeding related to warfarin in a cohort of patients treated within the VHA.¹⁷ Incidence rates of major bleeding events were identified during the first 6 months of treatment. Incidence of Afib—defined as an inpatient or outpatient encounter with the 427.31 ICD-9-CM code—also was examined within the first 6 months after starting treatment. The period of 6 months was chosen because bendamustine must be discontinued after 6 months.

 

Study Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment history from initial CLL diagnosis through end of study observation period. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and accompanying proportions, while a mean and standard deviation were used to summarize continuous variables. For the means of continuous variables and of categorical data, 95% CIs were used. Proportions and accompanying 95% CIs characterized treatment patterns, including line of therapy, comorbidities, and bleeding events. Treatment duration was described using mean and accompanying 95% CI. Statistical tests were not conducted for comparisons among treatment groups. Patients were censored at the end of follow-up, defined as the earliest of the following scenarios: (1) end of study observation period (December 31, 2016); (2) development of a secondary cancer; or (3) last day of contact given absence of care within the VHA for ≥ 18 months (with care defined as oncology and/or oncology/hematology visit with an associated note). Analysis was performed using R 3.4.0.

Results

Between 2010 and 2014, 2,796 patients were diagnosed and received care for CLL within the VHA. Overall, all 172 patients who were treated with ibrutinib during our inclusion period were selected. These patients were treated between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, following ibrutinib’s approval in early 2014. An additional 291 patients were selected who received BR (Table). Reflecting the predominantly male population of the VHA, 282 (97%) BR patients and 167 (97%) ibrutinib patients were male. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years for BR patients and 69 years for ibrutinib patients. About 76% of patients who received ibrutinib and 82% of patients who received BR were non-Hispanic white; 17% and 14% were African American, respectively.

Less than 10% of patients receiving either ibrutinib or BR had liver disease per criteria used by Kramer and colleagues, or end-stage liver disease using criteria developed by Goldberg and colleagues.^12,13 About 5% of patients had a history of previous bleeding in the 6-month period prior to initiating either therapy. Mean CCI (excluding malignancy) score was 1.5 (range, 0-11) for the ibrutinib group, and 2.1 (range, 0-9) for the BR group. About 16% of the ibrutinib group had controlled DM and fewer than 10% had uncontrolled DM, while 4% of patients in the BR group met the criteria for controlled DM and another 4% met the criteria for uncontrolled DM.

There was very low utilization of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication prior to initiation of ibrutinib (2.9% and 2.3%, respectively) or BR (< 1% each). In the first 6 months after treatment initiation, about 8% of patients in both ibrutinib and BR cohorts received anticoagulant medication while antiplatelet utilization was < 5% in either group.

In the BR group, 8 patients (2.7%) experienced a major bleeding event, while 14 patients (8.1%) in the ibrutinib group experienced a bleeding event (P = .008). While these numbers were too low to perform a formal statistical analysis of the association between clinical covariates and bleeding in either group, there did not seem to be an association between bleeding and liver disease or DM. Of patients who experienced a bleeding event, about 1 in 4 patients had had a prior bleeding event in both the ibrutinib and the BR groups. Interestingly, while none of the patients who experienced a bleeding event while receiving BR were taking concomitant anticoagulant medication, 3 of the 14 patients who experienced a bleeding event in the ibrutinib group showed evidence of anticoagulant utilization. Finally, the incidence of Afib (defined as patients with no evidence of Afib in the 6 months prior to treatment but with evidence of Afib in the 6 months following treatment initiation) was 4% in the BR group, and about 8% in the ibrutinib group (P = .003).

 

Discussion

To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the real-world incidence of bleeding and Afib in veterans who received ibrutinib for CLL in the first year of its availability. The study found minimal use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet agents prior to receiving first-line ibrutinib or BR, and very low use of these agents in the first 6 months following the initiation of first-line treatment. This finding suggests a high awareness among VA providers of potential adverse effects (AEs) of ibrutinib and chemotherapy, and a careful selection of patients that lack risk factors for AEs.

In patients treated with first-line ibrutinib when compared with patients treated with first-line BR, moderate increases in bleeding (2.7% vs 8.1%, P = .008) and Afib (10.5% vs 3%, P = .003) also were observed. These results are concordant with previous findings examining the use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL.^18-20

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted with caution, as some limitations must be considered. The study was conducted in the early days of ibrutinib adoption. Since then, more patients have been treated with ibrutinib and for longer durations. As clinicians gain more familiarity and with ibrutinib, and as additional novel therapeutics emerge, it is possible that the initial awareness about risks for possible AEs may diminish; patients with high comorbidity burdens and concomitant medications would be especially vulnerable in cases of reduced physician vigilance.

Another limitation of this study stems from the potential for dual system use among patients treated in the VHA. Concurrent or alternating use of multiple health care systems (use of VHA and private-sector facilities) may present gaps in the reconstruction of patient histories, resulting in missing data as patients transition between commercial, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and VHA care. As a result, the results presented here do not reflect instances where a patient experienced a bleeding event treated outside the VA.

Problems with missing data also may occur due to incomplete extraction from the electronic health record; these issues were addressed by leveraging an understanding of the multiple data marts within the CDW environment to harmonize missing and/or erroneous information through use of other data marts when possible. Lastly, this research represents a population-level study of the VHA, thus all findings are directly relevant to the VHA. The generalizability of the findings outside the VHA would depend on the characteristics of the external population.

Conclusion

Real-world evidence from a nationwide cohort of veteran patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib suggest that, while there is an association of increased bleeding-related events and Afib, the risk is comparable to those reported in previous studies.^18-20 These findings suggest that patients in real-world clinical care settings with higher levels of comorbidities may be at a slight increased risk for bleeding events and Afib.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia diagnosed in developed countries, with an estimated 21,040 new diagnoses of CLL expected in the US in 2020. ^1-3 CLL is an indolent cancer characterized by the accumulation of B-lymphocytes in the blood, marrow, and lymphoid tissues. ⁴ It has a heterogeneous clinical course; the majority of patients are observed or receive delayed treatment following diagnosis, while a minority of patients require immediate treatment. After first-line treatment, some patients experience prolonged remissions while others require retreatment within 1 or 2 years. Fortunately, advances in cancer biology and therapeutics in the last decade have increased the number of treatment options available for patients with CLL.

Until recently, most CLL treatments relied on a chemotherapy or a chemoimmunotherapy backbone; however, the last few years have seen novel therapies introduced, such as small molecule inhibitors to target molecular pathways that promote the normal development, expansion, and survival of B-cells.⁵ One such therapy is ibrutinib, a targeted Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2014 for patients with CLL who received at least 1 prior therapy. The FDA later expanded this approval to include use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL with relapsed or refractory disease, with or without chromosome 17p deletion. In 2016, based on data from the RESONATE-17 study, the FDA approved ibrutinib for first-line therapy in patients with CLL.⁶

Ibrutinib’s efficacy, ease of administration and dosing (all doses are oral and fixed, rather than based on weight or body surface area), and relatively favorable safety profile have resulted in a rapid growth in its adoption.⁷ Since its adverse event (AE) profile is generally more tolerable than that of a typical chemoimmunotherapy, its use in older patients with CLL and patients with significant comorbidities is particularly appealing.⁸

However, the results of some clinical trials suggest an association between treatment with ibrutinib and an increased risk of bleeding-related events of any grade (44%) and major bleeding events (4%).^7,8 The incidence of major bleeding events was reported to be higher (9%) in one clinical trial and at 5-year follow-up, although this trial did not exclude patients receiving concomitant oral anticoagulation with warfarin.^6,9

Heterogeneity in clinical trials’ definitions of major bleeding confounded the ability to calculate bleeding risk in patients treated with ibrutinib in a systematic review and meta-analysis that called for more data.¹⁰ Additionally, patients with factors that might increase the risk of major bleeding with ibrutinib treatment were likely underrepresented in clinical trials, given the carefully selected nature of clinical trial subjects. These factors include renal or hepatic disease, gastrointestinal disease, and use of a number of concomitant medications such as antiplatelets or anticoagulant medications. Accounting for use of the latter is particularly important because patients who develop atrial fibrillation (Afib), one of the recognized AEs of treatment with ibrutinib, often are treated with anticoagulant medications in order to decrease the risk of stroke or other thromboembolic complications.

 

A single-site observational study of patients treated with ibrutinib reported a high utilization rate of antiplatelet medications (70%), anticoagulant medications (17%), or both (13%) with a concomitant major bleeding rate of 18% of patients.¹¹ Prevalence of bleeding events seemed to be highly affected by the presence of concomitant medications: 78% of patients treated with ibrutinib while concurrently receiving both antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications developed a major bleeding event, while none of the patients who were not receiving antiplatelets, anticoagulants, or medications that interact with cytochrome P450 (an enzyme that metabolized chemotherapeutic agents used to treat cancer) experienced a major bleeding event.¹¹

The prevalence of major bleeding events, comorbidities, and utilization of medications that could increase the risk of major bleeding in patients with CLL on ibrutinib in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is not known. The VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the US. To address these knowledge gaps, a retrospective observational study was conducted using data on demographics, comorbidities that could affect bleeding, use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications, and bleeding events in patients with CLL who were treated in the first year of ibrutinib availability from the VHA.

The first year of ibrutinib availability was chosen for this study since we anticipated that many health care providers would be unfamiliar with ibrutinib during that time given its novelty, and therefore more likely to codispense ibrutinib with medications that could increase the risk of a bleeding event. Since Afib is both an AE associated with ibrutinib treatment and a condition that often is treated with anticoagulants, the prevalence of Afib in this population was also included. For context, the incidence of bleeding and Afib and use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications during treatment in a cohort of patients with CLL treated with bendamustine + rituximab (BR) also was reported.

Methods

The VHA maintains the centralized US Department of Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry System (VACRS), with electronic medical record data and other sources captured in its Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VHA CDW is a national repository comprising data from several VHA clinical and administrative systems. The CDW includes patient identifiers; demographics; vital status; lab information; administrative information (such as diagnostic International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems [ICD-9] codes); medication dispensation tables (such as outpatient fill); IV package information; and notes from radiology, pathology, outpatient and inpatient admission, discharge, and daily progress.

Registrars abstract all cancer cases within the VHA system (or diagnosed outside the VHA, if patients subsequently receive treatment in the VHA). It is estimated that VACRS captures 3% of cancer cases in the US.¹² Like most registries, VACRS captures data such as diagnosis, age, gender, race, and vital status.

 

The study received approval from the University of Utah Institutional Review Board and used individual patient-level historical administrative, cancer registry, and electronic health care record data. Patients diagnosed and treated for CLL at the VHA from 2010 to 2014 were identified through the VACRS and CDW; patients with a prior malignancy were excluded. Patients who received ibrutinib or BR based on pharmacy dispensation information were selected. Patients were followed until December 31, 2016 or death; patients with documentation of another cancer or lack of utilization of the VHA hematology or oncology services (defined as absence of any hematology and/or oncology clinic visits for ≥ 18 months) were omitted from the final analysis (Figure).

Previous and concomitant utilization of antiplatelet (aspirin, clopidogrel) or anticoagulant (dalteparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, heparin, rivaroxaban, and warfarin) medications was extracted 6 months before and after the first dispensation of ibrutinib or BR using pharmacy dispensation records.

Study Definitions

Prevalence of comorbidities that could increase bleeding risk was determined using administrative ICD-9-CM codes. Liver disease was identified by presence of cirrhosis, hepatitis C virus, or alcoholic liver disease using administrative codes validated by Kramer and colleagues, who reported positive and negative predictive values of 90% and 87% for cirrhosis, 93% and 92% for hepatitis C virus, and 71% and 98% for alcoholic liver disease.¹³ Similarly, end-stage liver disease was identified using a validated coding algorithm developed by Goldberg and colleagues, with a positive predictive value of 89.3%.¹⁴ The presence of controlled or uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM) was identified using the procedure described by Guzman and colleagues.¹⁵ Quan’s algorithm was used to calculate Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) based on ICD-9-CM codes for inpatient and outpatient visits within a 6-month lookback period prior to treatment initiation.¹⁶

A major bleeding event was defined as a hospitalization with an ICD-9-CM code suggestive of major bleeding as the primary reason, as defined by Lane and colleagues in their study of major bleeding related to warfarin in a cohort of patients treated within the VHA.¹⁷ Incidence rates of major bleeding events were identified during the first 6 months of treatment. Incidence of Afib—defined as an inpatient or outpatient encounter with the 427.31 ICD-9-CM code—also was examined within the first 6 months after starting treatment. The period of 6 months was chosen because bendamustine must be discontinued after 6 months.

 

Study Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment history from initial CLL diagnosis through end of study observation period. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and accompanying proportions, while a mean and standard deviation were used to summarize continuous variables. For the means of continuous variables and of categorical data, 95% CIs were used. Proportions and accompanying 95% CIs characterized treatment patterns, including line of therapy, comorbidities, and bleeding events. Treatment duration was described using mean and accompanying 95% CI. Statistical tests were not conducted for comparisons among treatment groups. Patients were censored at the end of follow-up, defined as the earliest of the following scenarios: (1) end of study observation period (December 31, 2016); (2) development of a secondary cancer; or (3) last day of contact given absence of care within the VHA for ≥ 18 months (with care defined as oncology and/or oncology/hematology visit with an associated note). Analysis was performed using R 3.4.0.

Results

Between 2010 and 2014, 2,796 patients were diagnosed and received care for CLL within the VHA. Overall, all 172 patients who were treated with ibrutinib during our inclusion period were selected. These patients were treated between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, following ibrutinib’s approval in early 2014. An additional 291 patients were selected who received BR (Table). Reflecting the predominantly male population of the VHA, 282 (97%) BR patients and 167 (97%) ibrutinib patients were male. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years for BR patients and 69 years for ibrutinib patients. About 76% of patients who received ibrutinib and 82% of patients who received BR were non-Hispanic white; 17% and 14% were African American, respectively.

Less than 10% of patients receiving either ibrutinib or BR had liver disease per criteria used by Kramer and colleagues, or end-stage liver disease using criteria developed by Goldberg and colleagues.^12,13 About 5% of patients had a history of previous bleeding in the 6-month period prior to initiating either therapy. Mean CCI (excluding malignancy) score was 1.5 (range, 0-11) for the ibrutinib group, and 2.1 (range, 0-9) for the BR group. About 16% of the ibrutinib group had controlled DM and fewer than 10% had uncontrolled DM, while 4% of patients in the BR group met the criteria for controlled DM and another 4% met the criteria for uncontrolled DM.

There was very low utilization of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication prior to initiation of ibrutinib (2.9% and 2.3%, respectively) or BR (< 1% each). In the first 6 months after treatment initiation, about 8% of patients in both ibrutinib and BR cohorts received anticoagulant medication while antiplatelet utilization was < 5% in either group.

In the BR group, 8 patients (2.7%) experienced a major bleeding event, while 14 patients (8.1%) in the ibrutinib group experienced a bleeding event (P = .008). While these numbers were too low to perform a formal statistical analysis of the association between clinical covariates and bleeding in either group, there did not seem to be an association between bleeding and liver disease or DM. Of patients who experienced a bleeding event, about 1 in 4 patients had had a prior bleeding event in both the ibrutinib and the BR groups. Interestingly, while none of the patients who experienced a bleeding event while receiving BR were taking concomitant anticoagulant medication, 3 of the 14 patients who experienced a bleeding event in the ibrutinib group showed evidence of anticoagulant utilization. Finally, the incidence of Afib (defined as patients with no evidence of Afib in the 6 months prior to treatment but with evidence of Afib in the 6 months following treatment initiation) was 4% in the BR group, and about 8% in the ibrutinib group (P = .003).

 

Discussion

To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the real-world incidence of bleeding and Afib in veterans who received ibrutinib for CLL in the first year of its availability. The study found minimal use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet agents prior to receiving first-line ibrutinib or BR, and very low use of these agents in the first 6 months following the initiation of first-line treatment. This finding suggests a high awareness among VA providers of potential adverse effects (AEs) of ibrutinib and chemotherapy, and a careful selection of patients that lack risk factors for AEs.

In patients treated with first-line ibrutinib when compared with patients treated with first-line BR, moderate increases in bleeding (2.7% vs 8.1%, P = .008) and Afib (10.5% vs 3%, P = .003) also were observed. These results are concordant with previous findings examining the use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL.^18-20

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted with caution, as some limitations must be considered. The study was conducted in the early days of ibrutinib adoption. Since then, more patients have been treated with ibrutinib and for longer durations. As clinicians gain more familiarity and with ibrutinib, and as additional novel therapeutics emerge, it is possible that the initial awareness about risks for possible AEs may diminish; patients with high comorbidity burdens and concomitant medications would be especially vulnerable in cases of reduced physician vigilance.

Another limitation of this study stems from the potential for dual system use among patients treated in the VHA. Concurrent or alternating use of multiple health care systems (use of VHA and private-sector facilities) may present gaps in the reconstruction of patient histories, resulting in missing data as patients transition between commercial, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and VHA care. As a result, the results presented here do not reflect instances where a patient experienced a bleeding event treated outside the VA.

Problems with missing data also may occur due to incomplete extraction from the electronic health record; these issues were addressed by leveraging an understanding of the multiple data marts within the CDW environment to harmonize missing and/or erroneous information through use of other data marts when possible. Lastly, this research represents a population-level study of the VHA, thus all findings are directly relevant to the VHA. The generalizability of the findings outside the VHA would depend on the characteristics of the external population.

Conclusion

Real-world evidence from a nationwide cohort of veteran patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib suggest that, while there is an association of increased bleeding-related events and Afib, the risk is comparable to those reported in previous studies.^18-20 These findings suggest that patients in real-world clinical care settings with higher levels of comorbidities may be at a slight increased risk for bleeding events and Afib.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia diagnosed in developed countries, with an estimated 21,040 new diagnoses of CLL expected in the US in 2020. ^1-3 CLL is an indolent cancer characterized by the accumulation of B-lymphocytes in the blood, marrow, and lymphoid tissues. ⁴ It has a heterogeneous clinical course; the majority of patients are observed or receive delayed treatment following diagnosis, while a minority of patients require immediate treatment. After first-line treatment, some patients experience prolonged remissions while others require retreatment within 1 or 2 years. Fortunately, advances in cancer biology and therapeutics in the last decade have increased the number of treatment options available for patients with CLL.

Until recently, most CLL treatments relied on a chemotherapy or a chemoimmunotherapy backbone; however, the last few years have seen novel therapies introduced, such as small molecule inhibitors to target molecular pathways that promote the normal development, expansion, and survival of B-cells.⁵ One such therapy is ibrutinib, a targeted Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2014 for patients with CLL who received at least 1 prior therapy. The FDA later expanded this approval to include use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL with relapsed or refractory disease, with or without chromosome 17p deletion. In 2016, based on data from the RESONATE-17 study, the FDA approved ibrutinib for first-line therapy in patients with CLL.⁶

Ibrutinib’s efficacy, ease of administration and dosing (all doses are oral and fixed, rather than based on weight or body surface area), and relatively favorable safety profile have resulted in a rapid growth in its adoption.⁷ Since its adverse event (AE) profile is generally more tolerable than that of a typical chemoimmunotherapy, its use in older patients with CLL and patients with significant comorbidities is particularly appealing.⁸

However, the results of some clinical trials suggest an association between treatment with ibrutinib and an increased risk of bleeding-related events of any grade (44%) and major bleeding events (4%).^7,8 The incidence of major bleeding events was reported to be higher (9%) in one clinical trial and at 5-year follow-up, although this trial did not exclude patients receiving concomitant oral anticoagulation with warfarin.^6,9

Heterogeneity in clinical trials’ definitions of major bleeding confounded the ability to calculate bleeding risk in patients treated with ibrutinib in a systematic review and meta-analysis that called for more data.¹⁰ Additionally, patients with factors that might increase the risk of major bleeding with ibrutinib treatment were likely underrepresented in clinical trials, given the carefully selected nature of clinical trial subjects. These factors include renal or hepatic disease, gastrointestinal disease, and use of a number of concomitant medications such as antiplatelets or anticoagulant medications. Accounting for use of the latter is particularly important because patients who develop atrial fibrillation (Afib), one of the recognized AEs of treatment with ibrutinib, often are treated with anticoagulant medications in order to decrease the risk of stroke or other thromboembolic complications.

 

A single-site observational study of patients treated with ibrutinib reported a high utilization rate of antiplatelet medications (70%), anticoagulant medications (17%), or both (13%) with a concomitant major bleeding rate of 18% of patients.¹¹ Prevalence of bleeding events seemed to be highly affected by the presence of concomitant medications: 78% of patients treated with ibrutinib while concurrently receiving both antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications developed a major bleeding event, while none of the patients who were not receiving antiplatelets, anticoagulants, or medications that interact with cytochrome P450 (an enzyme that metabolized chemotherapeutic agents used to treat cancer) experienced a major bleeding event.¹¹

The prevalence of major bleeding events, comorbidities, and utilization of medications that could increase the risk of major bleeding in patients with CLL on ibrutinib in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is not known. The VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the US. To address these knowledge gaps, a retrospective observational study was conducted using data on demographics, comorbidities that could affect bleeding, use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications, and bleeding events in patients with CLL who were treated in the first year of ibrutinib availability from the VHA.

The first year of ibrutinib availability was chosen for this study since we anticipated that many health care providers would be unfamiliar with ibrutinib during that time given its novelty, and therefore more likely to codispense ibrutinib with medications that could increase the risk of a bleeding event. Since Afib is both an AE associated with ibrutinib treatment and a condition that often is treated with anticoagulants, the prevalence of Afib in this population was also included. For context, the incidence of bleeding and Afib and use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications during treatment in a cohort of patients with CLL treated with bendamustine + rituximab (BR) also was reported.

Methods

The VHA maintains the centralized US Department of Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry System (VACRS), with electronic medical record data and other sources captured in its Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The VHA CDW is a national repository comprising data from several VHA clinical and administrative systems. The CDW includes patient identifiers; demographics; vital status; lab information; administrative information (such as diagnostic International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems [ICD-9] codes); medication dispensation tables (such as outpatient fill); IV package information; and notes from radiology, pathology, outpatient and inpatient admission, discharge, and daily progress.

Registrars abstract all cancer cases within the VHA system (or diagnosed outside the VHA, if patients subsequently receive treatment in the VHA). It is estimated that VACRS captures 3% of cancer cases in the US.¹² Like most registries, VACRS captures data such as diagnosis, age, gender, race, and vital status.

 

The study received approval from the University of Utah Institutional Review Board and used individual patient-level historical administrative, cancer registry, and electronic health care record data. Patients diagnosed and treated for CLL at the VHA from 2010 to 2014 were identified through the VACRS and CDW; patients with a prior malignancy were excluded. Patients who received ibrutinib or BR based on pharmacy dispensation information were selected. Patients were followed until December 31, 2016 or death; patients with documentation of another cancer or lack of utilization of the VHA hematology or oncology services (defined as absence of any hematology and/or oncology clinic visits for ≥ 18 months) were omitted from the final analysis (Figure).

Previous and concomitant utilization of antiplatelet (aspirin, clopidogrel) or anticoagulant (dalteparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, heparin, rivaroxaban, and warfarin) medications was extracted 6 months before and after the first dispensation of ibrutinib or BR using pharmacy dispensation records.

Study Definitions

Prevalence of comorbidities that could increase bleeding risk was determined using administrative ICD-9-CM codes. Liver disease was identified by presence of cirrhosis, hepatitis C virus, or alcoholic liver disease using administrative codes validated by Kramer and colleagues, who reported positive and negative predictive values of 90% and 87% for cirrhosis, 93% and 92% for hepatitis C virus, and 71% and 98% for alcoholic liver disease.¹³ Similarly, end-stage liver disease was identified using a validated coding algorithm developed by Goldberg and colleagues, with a positive predictive value of 89.3%.¹⁴ The presence of controlled or uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM) was identified using the procedure described by Guzman and colleagues.¹⁵ Quan’s algorithm was used to calculate Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) based on ICD-9-CM codes for inpatient and outpatient visits within a 6-month lookback period prior to treatment initiation.¹⁶

A major bleeding event was defined as a hospitalization with an ICD-9-CM code suggestive of major bleeding as the primary reason, as defined by Lane and colleagues in their study of major bleeding related to warfarin in a cohort of patients treated within the VHA.¹⁷ Incidence rates of major bleeding events were identified during the first 6 months of treatment. Incidence of Afib—defined as an inpatient or outpatient encounter with the 427.31 ICD-9-CM code—also was examined within the first 6 months after starting treatment. The period of 6 months was chosen because bendamustine must be discontinued after 6 months.

 

Study Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment history from initial CLL diagnosis through end of study observation period. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and accompanying proportions, while a mean and standard deviation were used to summarize continuous variables. For the means of continuous variables and of categorical data, 95% CIs were used. Proportions and accompanying 95% CIs characterized treatment patterns, including line of therapy, comorbidities, and bleeding events. Treatment duration was described using mean and accompanying 95% CI. Statistical tests were not conducted for comparisons among treatment groups. Patients were censored at the end of follow-up, defined as the earliest of the following scenarios: (1) end of study observation period (December 31, 2016); (2) development of a secondary cancer; or (3) last day of contact given absence of care within the VHA for ≥ 18 months (with care defined as oncology and/or oncology/hematology visit with an associated note). Analysis was performed using R 3.4.0.

Results

Between 2010 and 2014, 2,796 patients were diagnosed and received care for CLL within the VHA. Overall, all 172 patients who were treated with ibrutinib during our inclusion period were selected. These patients were treated between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, following ibrutinib’s approval in early 2014. An additional 291 patients were selected who received BR (Table). Reflecting the predominantly male population of the VHA, 282 (97%) BR patients and 167 (97%) ibrutinib patients were male. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years for BR patients and 69 years for ibrutinib patients. About 76% of patients who received ibrutinib and 82% of patients who received BR were non-Hispanic white; 17% and 14% were African American, respectively.

Less than 10% of patients receiving either ibrutinib or BR had liver disease per criteria used by Kramer and colleagues, or end-stage liver disease using criteria developed by Goldberg and colleagues.^12,13 About 5% of patients had a history of previous bleeding in the 6-month period prior to initiating either therapy. Mean CCI (excluding malignancy) score was 1.5 (range, 0-11) for the ibrutinib group, and 2.1 (range, 0-9) for the BR group. About 16% of the ibrutinib group had controlled DM and fewer than 10% had uncontrolled DM, while 4% of patients in the BR group met the criteria for controlled DM and another 4% met the criteria for uncontrolled DM.

There was very low utilization of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication prior to initiation of ibrutinib (2.9% and 2.3%, respectively) or BR (< 1% each). In the first 6 months after treatment initiation, about 8% of patients in both ibrutinib and BR cohorts received anticoagulant medication while antiplatelet utilization was < 5% in either group.

In the BR group, 8 patients (2.7%) experienced a major bleeding event, while 14 patients (8.1%) in the ibrutinib group experienced a bleeding event (P = .008). While these numbers were too low to perform a formal statistical analysis of the association between clinical covariates and bleeding in either group, there did not seem to be an association between bleeding and liver disease or DM. Of patients who experienced a bleeding event, about 1 in 4 patients had had a prior bleeding event in both the ibrutinib and the BR groups. Interestingly, while none of the patients who experienced a bleeding event while receiving BR were taking concomitant anticoagulant medication, 3 of the 14 patients who experienced a bleeding event in the ibrutinib group showed evidence of anticoagulant utilization. Finally, the incidence of Afib (defined as patients with no evidence of Afib in the 6 months prior to treatment but with evidence of Afib in the 6 months following treatment initiation) was 4% in the BR group, and about 8% in the ibrutinib group (P = .003).

 

Discussion

To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the real-world incidence of bleeding and Afib in veterans who received ibrutinib for CLL in the first year of its availability. The study found minimal use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet agents prior to receiving first-line ibrutinib or BR, and very low use of these agents in the first 6 months following the initiation of first-line treatment. This finding suggests a high awareness among VA providers of potential adverse effects (AEs) of ibrutinib and chemotherapy, and a careful selection of patients that lack risk factors for AEs.

In patients treated with first-line ibrutinib when compared with patients treated with first-line BR, moderate increases in bleeding (2.7% vs 8.1%, P = .008) and Afib (10.5% vs 3%, P = .003) also were observed. These results are concordant with previous findings examining the use of ibrutinib in patients with CLL.^18-20

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted with caution, as some limitations must be considered. The study was conducted in the early days of ibrutinib adoption. Since then, more patients have been treated with ibrutinib and for longer durations. As clinicians gain more familiarity and with ibrutinib, and as additional novel therapeutics emerge, it is possible that the initial awareness about risks for possible AEs may diminish; patients with high comorbidity burdens and concomitant medications would be especially vulnerable in cases of reduced physician vigilance.

Another limitation of this study stems from the potential for dual system use among patients treated in the VHA. Concurrent or alternating use of multiple health care systems (use of VHA and private-sector facilities) may present gaps in the reconstruction of patient histories, resulting in missing data as patients transition between commercial, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and VHA care. As a result, the results presented here do not reflect instances where a patient experienced a bleeding event treated outside the VA.

Problems with missing data also may occur due to incomplete extraction from the electronic health record; these issues were addressed by leveraging an understanding of the multiple data marts within the CDW environment to harmonize missing and/or erroneous information through use of other data marts when possible. Lastly, this research represents a population-level study of the VHA, thus all findings are directly relevant to the VHA. The generalizability of the findings outside the VHA would depend on the characteristics of the external population.

Conclusion

Real-world evidence from a nationwide cohort of veteran patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib suggest that, while there is an association of increased bleeding-related events and Afib, the risk is comparable to those reported in previous studies.^18-20 These findings suggest that patients in real-world clinical care settings with higher levels of comorbidities may be at a slight increased risk for bleeding events and Afib.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality both in the US and worldwide.¹ Many patients diagnosed with lung cancer present with advanced disease with thoracic symptoms such as cough, hemoptysis, dyspnea, and chest pain.^2-4 Palliative radiotherapy is routinely used in patients with locally advanced and metastatic lung cancer with the goal of relieving these symptoms and improving quality of life. Guidelines published by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) in 2011, and updated in 2018, provide recommendations on palliation of lung cancer with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and clarify the roles of concurrent chemotherapy and endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) for palliation.^5,6

After prostate cancer, lung cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).⁷ The VHA consists of 172 medical centers and is the largest integrated health care system in the US. At the time of this study, 40 of these centers had onsite radiation facilities. The VHA Palliative Radiation Taskforce has conducted a series of surveys to evaluate use of palliative radiotherapy in the VHA, determine VHA practice concordance with ASTRO and American College of Radiology (ACR) guidelines, and direct educational efforts towards addressing gaps in knowledge. These efforts are directed at ensuring best practices throughout this large and heterogeneous healthcare system. In 2016 a survey was conducted to evaluate concordance of VHA radiation oncologist (RO) practice with the 2011 ASTRO guidelines on palliative thoracic radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

 

Methods

A survey instrument was generated by VHA National Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce members. It was reviewed and approved for use by the VHA Patient Care Services office. In May of 2016, the online survey was sent to the 88 VHA ROs practicing at the 40 sites with onsite radiation facilities. The survey aimed to determine patterns of practice for palliation of thoracic symptoms secondary to lung cancer.

Demographic information obtained included years in practice, employment status, academic appointment, board certification, and familiarity with ASTRO lung cancer guidelines. Two clinical scenarios were presented to glean opinions on dose/fractionation schemes preferred, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and use of EBB and/or yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser technology. Survey questions also assessed use of EBRT for palliation of hemoptysis, chest wall pain, and/or stridor as well as use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for palliation.

Survey results were assessed for concordance with published ASTRO guidelines. χ² tests were run to test for associations between demographic factors such as academic appointment, years of practice, full time vs part time employment, and familiarity with ASTRO palliative lung cancer guidelines, with use of EBRT for palliation, dose and fractionation preference, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and strategy for management of endobronchial lesions.

Results

Of the 88 physicians surveyed, 54 responded for a response rate of 61%. Respondents represented 37 of the 40 (93%) VHA radiation oncology departments (Table 1). Among respondents, most were board certified (96%), held academic appointments (91%), and were full-time employees (85%). Forty-four percent of respondents were in practice for > 20 years, 19% for 11 to 20 years, 20% for 6 to 10 years, and 17% for < 6 years. A majority reported familiarity with the ASTRO guidelines (64%), while just 11% reported no familiarity with the guidelines.

When asked about use of SBRT for palliation of hemoptysis, stridor, and/or chest pain, the majority (87%) preferred conventional EBRT. Of the 13% who reported use of SBRT, most (11%) performed it onsite, with 2% of respondents referring offsite to non-VHA centers for the service. When asked about use of EBB for palliation, only 2% reported use of that procedure at their facilities, while 26% reported referral to non-VHA facilities for EBB. The remaining 72% of respondents favor use of conventional EBRT.

Respondents were presented with a case of a male patient aged 70 years who smoked and had widely metastatic NSCLC, a life expectancy of about 3 months, and 10/10 chest wall pain from direct tumor invasion. All respondents recommended palliative radiotherapy. The preferred fractionation was 20 Gray (Gy) in 5 fractions, which was recommended by 69% of respondents. The remainder recommended 30 Gy in 10 fractions (22%) or a single fraction of 10 Gy (9%). No respondent recommended the longer fractionation options of 60 Gy in 30 fractions, 45 Gy in 15 fractions, or 40 Gy in 20 fractions. The majority (98%) did not recommend concurrent chemotherapy.

When the above case was modified for an endobronchial lesion requiring palliation with associated lung collapse, rather than chest wall invasion, 20 respondents (38%) reported they would refer for EBB, and 20 respondents reported they would refer for YAG laser. As > 1 answer could be selected for this question, there were 12 respondents who selected both EBB and YAG laser; 8 selected only EBB, and 8 selected only YAG laser. Many respondents added comments about treating with EBRT, which had not been presented as an answer choice. Nearly half of respondents (49%) were amenable to referral for the use of EBB or YAG laser for lung reexpansion prior to radiotherapy. Three respondents mentioned referral for an endobronchial stent prior to palliative radiotherapy to address this question.

χ² tests were used to evaluate for significant associations between demographic factors, such as number of years in practice, academic appointment, full-time vs part-time status, and familiarity with ASTRO guidelines with clinical management choices (Table 2). The χ² analysis revealed that these demographic factors were not significantly associated with familiarity with ASTRO guidelines, offering SBRT for palliation, EBRT fractionation scheme preferred, use of concurrent chemotherapy, or use of EBB or YAG laser.

 

Discussion

This survey was conducted to evaluate concordance of management of metastatic lung cancer in the VHA with ASTRO guidelines. The relationship between respondents’ familiarity with the guidelines and responses also was evaluated to determine the impact such guidelines have on decision-making. The ASTRO guidelines for palliative thoracic radiation make recommendations regarding 3 issues: (1) radiation doses and fractionations for palliation; (2) the role of EBB; and (3) the use of concurrent chemotherapy.^5,6

Radiation Dose and Fractionation for Palliation

A variety of dose/fractionation schemes are considered appropriate in the ASTRO guideline statement, including more prolonged courses such as 30 Gy/10 fractions as well as more hypofractionated regimens (ie, 20 Gy/5 fractions, 17 Gy/2 fractions, and a single fraction of 10 Gy). Higher dose regimens, such as 30 Gy/10 fractions, have been associated with prolonged survival, as well as increased toxicities such as radiation esophagitis.⁸ Therefore, the guidelines support use of 30 Gy/10 fractions for patients with good performance status while encouraging use of more hypofractionated regimens for patients with poor performance status. In considering more hypofractionated regimens, one must consider the possibility of adverse effects that can be associated with higher dose per fraction. For instance, 17 Gy/2 fractions has been associated with myelopathy; therefore it should be used with caution and careful treatment planning.⁹

For the survey case example (a male aged 70 years with a 3-month life expectancy who required palliation for chest wall pain), all respondents selected hypofractionated regimens; with no respondent selected the more prolonged fractionations of 60 Gy/30 fractions, 45 Gy/15 fractions, or 40 Gy/20 fractions. These more prolonged fractionations are not endorsed by the guidelines in general, and particularly not for a patient with poor life expectancy. All responses for this case selected by survey respondents are considered appropriate per the consensus guideline statement.

Role of Concurrent Chemotherapy

The ASTRO guidelines do not support use of concurrent chemotherapy for palliation of stage IV NSCLC.^5,6 The 2018 updated guidelines established a role for concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC with good performance status and life expectancy of > 3 months. This updated recommendation is based on data from 2 randomized trials demonstrating improvement in overall survival with the addition of chemotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC undergoing palliative radiotherapy.^10-12

These newer studies are in contrast to an older randomized study by Ball and colleagues that demonstrated greater toxicity from concurrent chemotherapy, with no improvement in outcomes such as palliation of symptoms, overall survival, or progression free survival.¹³ In contrast to the newer studies that included only patients with stage III NSCLC, about half of the patients in the Ball and colleagues study had known metastatic disease.^10-13 Of note, staging for metastatic disease was not carried out routinely, so it is possible that a greater proportion of patients had metastatic disease that would have been seen on imaging. In concordance with the guidelines, 98% of the survey respondents did not recommend concurrent chemotherapy for palliation of intrathoracic symptom; only 1 respondent recommended use of chemotherapy for palliation.

 

Role of Endobronchial Brachytherapy

EBB involves implantation of radioactive sources for treatment of endobronchial lesions causing obstructive symptoms.¹⁴ Given the lack of randomized data that demonstrate a benefit of EBB over EBRT, the ASTRO guidelines do not endorse routine use of EBB for initial palliative management.^15,16 The ASTRO guidelines reference a Cochrane Review of 13 trials that concluded that EBRT alone is superior to EBB alone for initial palliation of symptoms from endobronchial NSCLC.¹⁷

Of respondents surveyed, only 1 facility offered onsite EBB. The majority of respondents (72%) preferred the use of conventional EBRT techniques, while 26% refer to non-VHA centers for EBB. Lack of incorporation of EBB into routine VHA practice likely is a reflection of the unclear role of this technology based on the available literature and ASTRO guidelines. In the setting of a right lower lung collapse, more respondents (49%) would consider use of EBB or YAG laser technology for lung reexpansion prior to EBRT.

The ASTRO guidelines recommend that initial EBB in conjunction with EBRT be considered based on randomized data demonstrating significant improvement in lung reexpansion and in patient reported dyspnea with addition of EBB to EBRT over EBRT alone.¹⁸ However, the guidelines do not mandate the use of EBB in this situation. It is possible that targeted education regarding the role of EBB would improve knowledge of the potential benefit in the setting of lung collapse and increase the percentage of VHA ROs who would recommend this procedure.

Limitations

The study is limited by lack of generalizability of these findings to all ROs in the country. It is also possible that physician responses do not represent practice patterns with complete accuracy. The use of EBB varied among practitioners. Further study of this technology is necessary to clarify its role in the management of endobronchial obstructive symptoms and to determine whether efforts should be made to increase access to EBB within the VHA.

Conclusions

Most of the ROs who responded to our survey were cognizant and compliant with current ASTRO guidelines on management of lung cancer. Furthermore, familiarity with ASTRO guidelines and management choices were not associated with the respondents’ years in practice, academic appointment, full-time vs part-time status, or familiarity with ASTRO guidelines. This study is a nationwide survey of ROs in the VHA system that reflects the radiation-related care received by veterans with metastatic lung cancer. Responses were obtained from 93% of the 40 radiation oncology centers, so it is likely that the survey accurately represents the decision-making process at the majority of centers. It is possible that those who did not respond to the survey do not treat thoracic cases.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality both in the US and worldwide.¹ Many patients diagnosed with lung cancer present with advanced disease with thoracic symptoms such as cough, hemoptysis, dyspnea, and chest pain.^2-4 Palliative radiotherapy is routinely used in patients with locally advanced and metastatic lung cancer with the goal of relieving these symptoms and improving quality of life. Guidelines published by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) in 2011, and updated in 2018, provide recommendations on palliation of lung cancer with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and clarify the roles of concurrent chemotherapy and endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) for palliation.^5,6

After prostate cancer, lung cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).⁷ The VHA consists of 172 medical centers and is the largest integrated health care system in the US. At the time of this study, 40 of these centers had onsite radiation facilities. The VHA Palliative Radiation Taskforce has conducted a series of surveys to evaluate use of palliative radiotherapy in the VHA, determine VHA practice concordance with ASTRO and American College of Radiology (ACR) guidelines, and direct educational efforts towards addressing gaps in knowledge. These efforts are directed at ensuring best practices throughout this large and heterogeneous healthcare system. In 2016 a survey was conducted to evaluate concordance of VHA radiation oncologist (RO) practice with the 2011 ASTRO guidelines on palliative thoracic radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

 

Methods

A survey instrument was generated by VHA National Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce members. It was reviewed and approved for use by the VHA Patient Care Services office. In May of 2016, the online survey was sent to the 88 VHA ROs practicing at the 40 sites with onsite radiation facilities. The survey aimed to determine patterns of practice for palliation of thoracic symptoms secondary to lung cancer.

Demographic information obtained included years in practice, employment status, academic appointment, board certification, and familiarity with ASTRO lung cancer guidelines. Two clinical scenarios were presented to glean opinions on dose/fractionation schemes preferred, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and use of EBB and/or yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser technology. Survey questions also assessed use of EBRT for palliation of hemoptysis, chest wall pain, and/or stridor as well as use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for palliation.

Survey results were assessed for concordance with published ASTRO guidelines. χ² tests were run to test for associations between demographic factors such as academic appointment, years of practice, full time vs part time employment, and familiarity with ASTRO palliative lung cancer guidelines, with use of EBRT for palliation, dose and fractionation preference, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and strategy for management of endobronchial lesions.

Results

Of the 88 physicians surveyed, 54 responded for a response rate of 61%. Respondents represented 37 of the 40 (93%) VHA radiation oncology departments (Table 1). Among respondents, most were board certified (96%), held academic appointments (91%), and were full-time employees (85%). Forty-four percent of respondents were in practice for > 20 years, 19% for 11 to 20 years, 20% for 6 to 10 years, and 17% for < 6 years. A majority reported familiarity with the ASTRO guidelines (64%), while just 11% reported no familiarity with the guidelines.

When asked about use of SBRT for palliation of hemoptysis, stridor, and/or chest pain, the majority (87%) preferred conventional EBRT. Of the 13% who reported use of SBRT, most (11%) performed it onsite, with 2% of respondents referring offsite to non-VHA centers for the service. When asked about use of EBB for palliation, only 2% reported use of that procedure at their facilities, while 26% reported referral to non-VHA facilities for EBB. The remaining 72% of respondents favor use of conventional EBRT.

Respondents were presented with a case of a male patient aged 70 years who smoked and had widely metastatic NSCLC, a life expectancy of about 3 months, and 10/10 chest wall pain from direct tumor invasion. All respondents recommended palliative radiotherapy. The preferred fractionation was 20 Gray (Gy) in 5 fractions, which was recommended by 69% of respondents. The remainder recommended 30 Gy in 10 fractions (22%) or a single fraction of 10 Gy (9%). No respondent recommended the longer fractionation options of 60 Gy in 30 fractions, 45 Gy in 15 fractions, or 40 Gy in 20 fractions. The majority (98%) did not recommend concurrent chemotherapy.

When the above case was modified for an endobronchial lesion requiring palliation with associated lung collapse, rather than chest wall invasion, 20 respondents (38%) reported they would refer for EBB, and 20 respondents reported they would refer for YAG laser. As > 1 answer could be selected for this question, there were 12 respondents who selected both EBB and YAG laser; 8 selected only EBB, and 8 selected only YAG laser. Many respondents added comments about treating with EBRT, which had not been presented as an answer choice. Nearly half of respondents (49%) were amenable to referral for the use of EBB or YAG laser for lung reexpansion prior to radiotherapy. Three respondents mentioned referral for an endobronchial stent prior to palliative radiotherapy to address this question.

χ² tests were used to evaluate for significant associations between demographic factors, such as number of years in practice, academic appointment, full-time vs part-time status, and familiarity with ASTRO guidelines with clinical management choices (Table 2). The χ² analysis revealed that these demographic factors were not significantly associated with familiarity with ASTRO guidelines, offering SBRT for palliation, EBRT fractionation scheme preferred, use of concurrent chemotherapy, or use of EBB or YAG laser.

 

Discussion

This survey was conducted to evaluate concordance of management of metastatic lung cancer in the VHA with ASTRO guidelines. The relationship between respondents’ familiarity with the guidelines and responses also was evaluated to determine the impact such guidelines have on decision-making. The ASTRO guidelines for palliative thoracic radiation make recommendations regarding 3 issues: (1) radiation doses and fractionations for palliation; (2) the role of EBB; and (3) the use of concurrent chemotherapy.^5,6

Radiation Dose and Fractionation for Palliation

A variety of dose/fractionation schemes are considered appropriate in the ASTRO guideline statement, including more prolonged courses such as 30 Gy/10 fractions as well as more hypofractionated regimens (ie, 20 Gy/5 fractions, 17 Gy/2 fractions, and a single fraction of 10 Gy). Higher dose regimens, such as 30 Gy/10 fractions, have been associated with prolonged survival, as well as increased toxicities such as radiation esophagitis.⁸ Therefore, the guidelines support use of 30 Gy/10 fractions for patients with good performance status while encouraging use of more hypofractionated regimens for patients with poor performance status. In considering more hypofractionated regimens, one must consider the possibility of adverse effects that can be associated with higher dose per fraction. For instance, 17 Gy/2 fractions has been associated with myelopathy; therefore it should be used with caution and careful treatment planning.⁹

For the survey case example (a male aged 70 years with a 3-month life expectancy who required palliation for chest wall pain), all respondents selected hypofractionated regimens; with no respondent selected the more prolonged fractionations of 60 Gy/30 fractions, 45 Gy/15 fractions, or 40 Gy/20 fractions. These more prolonged fractionations are not endorsed by the guidelines in general, and particularly not for a patient with poor life expectancy. All responses for this case selected by survey respondents are considered appropriate per the consensus guideline statement.

Role of Concurrent Chemotherapy

The ASTRO guidelines do not support use of concurrent chemotherapy for palliation of stage IV NSCLC.^5,6 The 2018 updated guidelines established a role for concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC with good performance status and life expectancy of > 3 months. This updated recommendation is based on data from 2 randomized trials demonstrating improvement in overall survival with the addition of chemotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC undergoing palliative radiotherapy.^10-12

These newer studies are in contrast to an older randomized study by Ball and colleagues that demonstrated greater toxicity from concurrent chemotherapy, with no improvement in outcomes such as palliation of symptoms, overall survival, or progression free survival.¹³ In contrast to the newer studies that included only patients with stage III NSCLC, about half of the patients in the Ball and colleagues study had known metastatic disease.^10-13 Of note, staging for metastatic disease was not carried out routinely, so it is possible that a greater proportion of patients had metastatic disease that would have been seen on imaging. In concordance with the guidelines, 98% of the survey respondents did not recommend concurrent chemotherapy for palliation of intrathoracic symptom; only 1 respondent recommended use of chemotherapy for palliation.

 

Role of Endobronchial Brachytherapy

EBB involves implantation of radioactive sources for treatment of endobronchial lesions causing obstructive symptoms.¹⁴ Given the lack of randomized data that demonstrate a benefit of EBB over EBRT, the ASTRO guidelines do not endorse routine use of EBB for initial palliative management.^15,16 The ASTRO guidelines reference a Cochrane Review of 13 trials that concluded that EBRT alone is superior to EBB alone for initial palliation of symptoms from endobronchial NSCLC.¹⁷

Of respondents surveyed, only 1 facility offered onsite EBB. The majority of respondents (72%) preferred the use of conventional EBRT techniques, while 26% refer to non-VHA centers for EBB. Lack of incorporation of EBB into routine VHA practice likely is a reflection of the unclear role of this technology based on the available literature and ASTRO guidelines. In the setting of a right lower lung collapse, more respondents (49%) would consider use of EBB or YAG laser technology for lung reexpansion prior to EBRT.

The ASTRO guidelines recommend that initial EBB in conjunction with EBRT be considered based on randomized data demonstrating significant improvement in lung reexpansion and in patient reported dyspnea with addition of EBB to EBRT over EBRT alone.¹⁸ However, the guidelines do not mandate the use of EBB in this situation. It is possible that targeted education regarding the role of EBB would improve knowledge of the potential benefit in the setting of lung collapse and increase the percentage of VHA ROs who would recommend this procedure.

Limitations

The study is limited by lack of generalizability of these findings to all ROs in the country. It is also possible that physician responses do not represent practice patterns with complete accuracy. The use of EBB varied among practitioners. Further study of this technology is necessary to clarify its role in the management of endobronchial obstructive symptoms and to determine whether efforts should be made to increase access to EBB within the VHA.

Conclusions

Most of the ROs who responded to our survey were cognizant and compliant with current ASTRO guidelines on management of lung cancer. Furthermore, familiarity with ASTRO guidelines and management choices were not associated with the respondents’ years in practice, academic appointment, full-time vs part-time status, or familiarity with ASTRO guidelines. This study is a nationwide survey of ROs in the VHA system that reflects the radiation-related care received by veterans with metastatic lung cancer. Responses were obtained from 93% of the 40 radiation oncology centers, so it is likely that the survey accurately represents the decision-making process at the majority of centers. It is possible that those who did not respond to the survey do not treat thoracic cases.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality both in the US and worldwide.¹ Many patients diagnosed with lung cancer present with advanced disease with thoracic symptoms such as cough, hemoptysis, dyspnea, and chest pain.^2-4 Palliative radiotherapy is routinely used in patients with locally advanced and metastatic lung cancer with the goal of relieving these symptoms and improving quality of life. Guidelines published by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) in 2011, and updated in 2018, provide recommendations on palliation of lung cancer with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and clarify the roles of concurrent chemotherapy and endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) for palliation.^5,6

After prostate cancer, lung cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).⁷ The VHA consists of 172 medical centers and is the largest integrated health care system in the US. At the time of this study, 40 of these centers had onsite radiation facilities. The VHA Palliative Radiation Taskforce has conducted a series of surveys to evaluate use of palliative radiotherapy in the VHA, determine VHA practice concordance with ASTRO and American College of Radiology (ACR) guidelines, and direct educational efforts towards addressing gaps in knowledge. These efforts are directed at ensuring best practices throughout this large and heterogeneous healthcare system. In 2016 a survey was conducted to evaluate concordance of VHA radiation oncologist (RO) practice with the 2011 ASTRO guidelines on palliative thoracic radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

 

Methods

A survey instrument was generated by VHA National Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce members. It was reviewed and approved for use by the VHA Patient Care Services office. In May of 2016, the online survey was sent to the 88 VHA ROs practicing at the 40 sites with onsite radiation facilities. The survey aimed to determine patterns of practice for palliation of thoracic symptoms secondary to lung cancer.

Demographic information obtained included years in practice, employment status, academic appointment, board certification, and familiarity with ASTRO lung cancer guidelines. Two clinical scenarios were presented to glean opinions on dose/fractionation schemes preferred, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and use of EBB and/or yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser technology. Survey questions also assessed use of EBRT for palliation of hemoptysis, chest wall pain, and/or stridor as well as use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for palliation.

Survey results were assessed for concordance with published ASTRO guidelines. χ² tests were run to test for associations between demographic factors such as academic appointment, years of practice, full time vs part time employment, and familiarity with ASTRO palliative lung cancer guidelines, with use of EBRT for palliation, dose and fractionation preference, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and strategy for management of endobronchial lesions.

Results

Of the 88 physicians surveyed, 54 responded for a response rate of 61%. Respondents represented 37 of the 40 (93%) VHA radiation oncology departments (Table 1). Among respondents, most were board certified (96%), held academic appointments (91%), and were full-time employees (85%). Forty-four percent of respondents were in practice for > 20 years, 19% for 11 to 20 years, 20% for 6 to 10 years, and 17% for < 6 years. A majority reported familiarity with the ASTRO guidelines (64%), while just 11% reported no familiarity with the guidelines.

When asked about use of SBRT for palliation of hemoptysis, stridor, and/or chest pain, the majority (87%) preferred conventional EBRT. Of the 13% who reported use of SBRT, most (11%) performed it onsite, with 2% of respondents referring offsite to non-VHA centers for the service. When asked about use of EBB for palliation, only 2% reported use of that procedure at their facilities, while 26% reported referral to non-VHA facilities for EBB. The remaining 72% of respondents favor use of conventional EBRT.

Respondents were presented with a case of a male patient aged 70 years who smoked and had widely metastatic NSCLC, a life expectancy of about 3 months, and 10/10 chest wall pain from direct tumor invasion. All respondents recommended palliative radiotherapy. The preferred fractionation was 20 Gray (Gy) in 5 fractions, which was recommended by 69% of respondents. The remainder recommended 30 Gy in 10 fractions (22%) or a single fraction of 10 Gy (9%). No respondent recommended the longer fractionation options of 60 Gy in 30 fractions, 45 Gy in 15 fractions, or 40 Gy in 20 fractions. The majority (98%) did not recommend concurrent chemotherapy.

When the above case was modified for an endobronchial lesion requiring palliation with associated lung collapse, rather than chest wall invasion, 20 respondents (38%) reported they would refer for EBB, and 20 respondents reported they would refer for YAG laser. As > 1 answer could be selected for this question, there were 12 respondents who selected both EBB and YAG laser; 8 selected only EBB, and 8 selected only YAG laser. Many respondents added comments about treating with EBRT, which had not been presented as an answer choice. Nearly half of respondents (49%) were amenable to referral for the use of EBB or YAG laser for lung reexpansion prior to radiotherapy. Three respondents mentioned referral for an endobronchial stent prior to palliative radiotherapy to address this question.

χ² tests were used to evaluate for significant associations between demographic factors, such as number of years in practice, academic appointment, full-time vs part-time status, and familiarity with ASTRO guidelines with clinical management choices (Table 2). The χ² analysis revealed that these demographic factors were not significantly associated with familiarity with ASTRO guidelines, offering SBRT for palliation, EBRT fractionation scheme preferred, use of concurrent chemotherapy, or use of EBB or YAG laser.

 

Discussion

This survey was conducted to evaluate concordance of management of metastatic lung cancer in the VHA with ASTRO guidelines. The relationship between respondents’ familiarity with the guidelines and responses also was evaluated to determine the impact such guidelines have on decision-making. The ASTRO guidelines for palliative thoracic radiation make recommendations regarding 3 issues: (1) radiation doses and fractionations for palliation; (2) the role of EBB; and (3) the use of concurrent chemotherapy.^5,6

Radiation Dose and Fractionation for Palliation

A variety of dose/fractionation schemes are considered appropriate in the ASTRO guideline statement, including more prolonged courses such as 30 Gy/10 fractions as well as more hypofractionated regimens (ie, 20 Gy/5 fractions, 17 Gy/2 fractions, and a single fraction of 10 Gy). Higher dose regimens, such as 30 Gy/10 fractions, have been associated with prolonged survival, as well as increased toxicities such as radiation esophagitis.⁸ Therefore, the guidelines support use of 30 Gy/10 fractions for patients with good performance status while encouraging use of more hypofractionated regimens for patients with poor performance status. In considering more hypofractionated regimens, one must consider the possibility of adverse effects that can be associated with higher dose per fraction. For instance, 17 Gy/2 fractions has been associated with myelopathy; therefore it should be used with caution and careful treatment planning.⁹

For the survey case example (a male aged 70 years with a 3-month life expectancy who required palliation for chest wall pain), all respondents selected hypofractionated regimens; with no respondent selected the more prolonged fractionations of 60 Gy/30 fractions, 45 Gy/15 fractions, or 40 Gy/20 fractions. These more prolonged fractionations are not endorsed by the guidelines in general, and particularly not for a patient with poor life expectancy. All responses for this case selected by survey respondents are considered appropriate per the consensus guideline statement.

Role of Concurrent Chemotherapy

The ASTRO guidelines do not support use of concurrent chemotherapy for palliation of stage IV NSCLC.^5,6 The 2018 updated guidelines established a role for concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC with good performance status and life expectancy of > 3 months. This updated recommendation is based on data from 2 randomized trials demonstrating improvement in overall survival with the addition of chemotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC undergoing palliative radiotherapy.^10-12

These newer studies are in contrast to an older randomized study by Ball and colleagues that demonstrated greater toxicity from concurrent chemotherapy, with no improvement in outcomes such as palliation of symptoms, overall survival, or progression free survival.¹³ In contrast to the newer studies that included only patients with stage III NSCLC, about half of the patients in the Ball and colleagues study had known metastatic disease.^10-13 Of note, staging for metastatic disease was not carried out routinely, so it is possible that a greater proportion of patients had metastatic disease that would have been seen on imaging. In concordance with the guidelines, 98% of the survey respondents did not recommend concurrent chemotherapy for palliation of intrathoracic symptom; only 1 respondent recommended use of chemotherapy for palliation.

 

Role of Endobronchial Brachytherapy

EBB involves implantation of radioactive sources for treatment of endobronchial lesions causing obstructive symptoms.¹⁴ Given the lack of randomized data that demonstrate a benefit of EBB over EBRT, the ASTRO guidelines do not endorse routine use of EBB for initial palliative management.^15,16 The ASTRO guidelines reference a Cochrane Review of 13 trials that concluded that EBRT alone is superior to EBB alone for initial palliation of symptoms from endobronchial NSCLC.¹⁷

Of respondents surveyed, only 1 facility offered onsite EBB. The majority of respondents (72%) preferred the use of conventional EBRT techniques, while 26% refer to non-VHA centers for EBB. Lack of incorporation of EBB into routine VHA practice likely is a reflection of the unclear role of this technology based on the available literature and ASTRO guidelines. In the setting of a right lower lung collapse, more respondents (49%) would consider use of EBB or YAG laser technology for lung reexpansion prior to EBRT.

The ASTRO guidelines recommend that initial EBB in conjunction with EBRT be considered based on randomized data demonstrating significant improvement in lung reexpansion and in patient reported dyspnea with addition of EBB to EBRT over EBRT alone.¹⁸ However, the guidelines do not mandate the use of EBB in this situation. It is possible that targeted education regarding the role of EBB would improve knowledge of the potential benefit in the setting of lung collapse and increase the percentage of VHA ROs who would recommend this procedure.

Limitations

The study is limited by lack of generalizability of these findings to all ROs in the country. It is also possible that physician responses do not represent practice patterns with complete accuracy. The use of EBB varied among practitioners. Further study of this technology is necessary to clarify its role in the management of endobronchial obstructive symptoms and to determine whether efforts should be made to increase access to EBB within the VHA.

Conclusions

Most of the ROs who responded to our survey were cognizant and compliant with current ASTRO guidelines on management of lung cancer. Furthermore, familiarity with ASTRO guidelines and management choices were not associated with the respondents’ years in practice, academic appointment, full-time vs part-time status, or familiarity with ASTRO guidelines. This study is a nationwide survey of ROs in the VHA system that reflects the radiation-related care received by veterans with metastatic lung cancer. Responses were obtained from 93% of the 40 radiation oncology centers, so it is likely that the survey accurately represents the decision-making process at the majority of centers. It is possible that those who did not respond to the survey do not treat thoracic cases.

SARS-CoV-2 has infected 141 million people worldwide and 31 million people in the United States as of April 20, 2021.^1,2 The influx of hospital admissions and deaths has severely strained healthcare systems worldwide and placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk for acquiring COVID-19.^3-5

Several studies have described the impact of COVID-19 on this heterogeneous group of HCWs. Shields et al reported a seroprevalence of 24.4% in HCWs at University Hospitals Birmingham (UK), with the highest rate, 34.5%, in housekeeping staff.⁶ Steensels et al reported a lower prevalence of 6.4% at a tertiary care center in Belgium, and showed no increased risk for HCWs when directly involved in clinical care.⁷ The authors attributed this to adequate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Other studies have reported seroprevalences ranging from 1.6% to 18%.^8-11 In the New York City (NYC) metro area, Jeremias et al reported a seroprevalence of 9.8% in HCWs and found no difference by job title or work location,¹² whereas Moscola et al reported a seroprevalence of 13.7% and demonstrated a 3% increased risk for those working in service or maintenance.¹³ Antibody tests were conducted between March and April 2020 in all but two of these studies; testing in these two studies was performed between April 13 and June 23, 2020, with one reporting a seroprevalence of 6%¹¹ and the other, 13.7%.¹³

NYC became the earliest pandemic epicenter in the United States following untracked transmission from ongoing circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe.¹⁴ As a result, the COVID-19 surge in NYC commenced in March and largely subsided by the end of May 2020. Most HCW data reported to date do not reflect the situation at the end of the surge, and may underestimate true seroprevalence. We describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCWs in a large inner-city hospital in NYC, with antibody testing conducted from May 18 to June 26, 2020, at the subsidence of the surge. To further our understanding of occupational risk among different groups of HCWs, we examined associations of seroprevalence with HCWs’ job function and work location.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional seroprevalence study conducted in the BronxCare Health System located in South and Central Bronx, an area that experienced one of the highest incidences of SARS-CoV-2 infections within NYC’s five boroughs.

HCWs were offered voluntary testing for serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between May 18 and June 26, 2020. Testing occurred in the institution’s auditorium, a central and easily accessible location. Weekly emails were sent to all employees and department heads during the testing period, offering antibody testing and providing location and testing time information. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) assay measuring total qualitative antibodies was used; the assay has a reported sensitivity of 97.1% 14 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result and a specificity of 100%.¹⁵

Demographic and work-related information was abstracted from electronic medical records, including all comorbid conditions that affected 30 or more HCWs. Pulmonary diagnoses, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were grouped as chronic lung disease, and cardiovascular diseases, including hypertension, as chronic heart disease. Personal identifiers and data were delinked upon completion of data abstraction. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board.

Job Function and Work Location

HCWs were grouped by job function as follows: physicians; nurses (including physician assistants and nurse practitioners); allied HCW I (medical assistants, patient care, and electrocardiogram, radiology, and ear, nose and throat technicians); allied HCW II (social workers, dieticians and nutritionists, registration clerks and unit associates, physical and occupational therapists); nonclinical staff (patient transporters, housekeeping staff, and security staff); pharmacists; engineering; and administrative staff. Respiratory therapists were considered as a separate group as their work placed them at high risk for respiratory diseases.

Work locations were as follows: clinics (including dental, outpatient, and satellite clinics), emergency departments (ED), inpatient units (including floors and intensive care units [ICU]), radiology suite, laboratory and pharmacy, and offices.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated using χ² analyses. All demographic variables were tested against serology status (positive/negative). A binary logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs). Eight separate univariate unadjusted ORs were calculated by running each predictor variable against serology status (dependent variable), which included the six categorical variables—race, ethnicity, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR results—and the two main predictors—job function and work location. To obtain adjusted ORs, two final separate multivariable logistic regression analyses were executed including the six covariates listed. Due to high collinearity between job function and work location (χ² = 3030.13, df = 35 [6 levels of work location – 1]*[8 levels of job function – 1]; P < .001), we included only one of the main predictors in each model. The regressions were specified such that the reference groups for the work location and job function variables were office work and administration, respectively. This choice was made based on the fact that their nonclinical functions do not confer an exposure risk in excess of that experienced by typical community populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the subset of HCWs whose address zip codes indicated residence within NYC to exclude the effect of different community seroprevalences in areas outside of NYC. The 95% CI for seroprevalence of antibodies within tested HCWs was estimated using the Clopper-Pearson binomial method.

RESULTS

Among all HCWs in the institution (N = 4,807), 2,749 (57.2%) underwent voluntary testing. Of those who underwent testing, 831 were positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1), a seroprevalence of 30.2% (95% CI, 29%-32%). Among the age groups, the 45-to-64−year group had the highest seropositivity at 33% (400/1203), and those ≥75 years of age, the lowest at 16.7% (2/12) (P < .009).

Data on race was available for 38.7% (1,064/2,749) of HCWs (Table); seropositivity was highest for Blacks (259/664, 39%) and lowest for Whites (36/163, 22.1%; P < .001). Certain comorbid conditions were associated with seropositivity (P = .001).

Among all tested HCWs, 70.1% (1,928/2,749) resided in NYC. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in this subset was 32% (616/1,928) (Figure 1). Demographic and comorbid conditions in HCWs who lived in NYC were similar to those of the whole group (Appendix Table 1).

HCWs who underwent voluntary antibody testing (Appendix Table 2) had a higher percentage of persons in the 45-to-64−year age group (43.8% vs 40.9%) and a lower percentage of persons in the 65-to-74−year age group (3.3% vs 5.3%) compared with the group of HCWs that did not undergo testing (P < .001). Gender, race, ethnicity, comorbid conditions, SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, and work locations were not different between groups. The tested group had higher proportions of clinicians (physicians, nurses, allied HCWs I and II) than the untested nonparticipant group (P = .014).

SARS-CoV-2 PCR Tests on HCWs

More than one-third (34.1%; 938/2,749) of HCWs had a documented nasopharyngeal PCR test between March 23 and June 26, 2020 (Table). Of all PCRs performed, 262 were positive, giving an overall PCR positivity rate of 27.9%. Positivity was 51.4% in March and 36.6% in April. The reasons for PCR testing were not available, but likely represent a combination of exposure-related testing among asymptomatic individuals and diagnostic testing of symptomatic HCWs. In contrast, serology testing was indicative of prior infection and yielded a cumulative seroprevalence at the end of the surge. Findings were similar among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1).

Work Location and Job Function

Among all HCWs (Table, Figure 2), there were differences in seropositivity by work location (P = .001). The largest number of HCWs worked in inpatient units (1,348/2,749, 49%), and the second largest in offices (554/2,749, 20%). The highest seropositivity rate was in the EDs, at 36.4% (64/176), followed by radiology suites, at 32.7% (17/52); the seropositivity rate in office locations was 25.8% (143/554). Among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1, Appendix Figure 1), the rank order according to proportion seropositive by work location was similar to that of the whole group (P = .004), except that the second highest seropositivity rate was in the inpatient units (33.9% [323/953]). In the group of HCWs residing in NYC, office locations had a seropositivity of 27.4% (102/372). The seropositivity rates for both groups working in office locations were slightly higher than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC reported for the same period.¹⁶

Among all HCWs, there were differences in seropositivity by job function (P = .001). The greatest proportion of HCWs were allied HCW II (23% [631/2,749]), followed by nurses (22.2% [611/2,749]) and physicians (21.3% [585/2,749] ). Seropositivity was highest for nonclinical staff (44.0% [51/116]), followed by nurses (37.5% [229/611]) and allied clinical HCW I and II (34.5% [143/414] and 32.0% [202/631], respectively). It was lowest for administrative staff (20.9% [42/201]) and pharmacists (11.1% [5/45]). Among HCWs residing in NYC, the rank order according to proportion seropositive by location was similar to that of the whole group. Administrative staff seropositivity was 18.3% (20/109). Administrative staff seropositivity for both groups was marginally lower than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC for the same period.¹⁶

Odds Ratios for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity

For all HCWs, in unadjusted models (Appendix Table 3), age 45 to 64 years and Black race were associated with increased odds of being seropositive (1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49 and 2.26; 95% CI, 1.51-3.37, respectively). Increased odds were seen for HCWs working in the ED (1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36) and inpatient units (1.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.69), and decreased odds were seen for those working in the laboratory and pharmacy (0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.86). Increased odds for seropositivity were found for nurses (2.27; 95% CI, 1.56-3.31), allied HCW I (2.00; 95% CI, 1.34-2.97), allied HCW II (1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.60), and nonclinical staff (2.97; 95% CI,1.80-4.90).

After adjusting for all covariates, HCWs who were Black remained at increased odds for being seropositive in the two final models (adjusted OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.38-3.81 and adjusted OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.78-4.85), as did those who had a BMI >30 kg/m², with an adjusted OR of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.05-1.77) in one of the final models (Appendix Table 3). None of the other comorbid conditions had increased ORs. Those who worked in the ED and inpatient units also remained at increased odds after adjusting for covariates (2.27; 95% CI, 1.53-3.37 and 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14-1.92, respectively; Figure 3). Other job functions that had increased odds for seropositivity were nurses (2.54; 95% CI, 1.64-3.94), allied HCW I (1.83; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) and II (1.70; 95% CI, 1.10-2.63), and nonclinical staff (2.51; 95% CI, 1.42-4.43).

Having a positive PCR for SAR-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal swabs was strongly associated with seropositivity (OR, 47.26; 95% CI, 29.30-76.23 and OR, 44.79; 95% CI, 27.87-72.00) in the two multivariate-adjusted models. These findings were confirmed when the analyses were performed on HCWs who resided in NYC (Appendix Table 4 and Appendix Figure 2).

DISCUSSION

In a large inner-city New York hospital, we report a cumulative SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 30.2% in HCWs at the end of the first surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections in NYC. We identified the highest seropositivity rates for nonclinical staff and nurses, followed by allied HCWs, with the odds of being seropositive ranging from 1.7 to 2.5. The work locations with the highest seroprevalences were the ED and inpatient units, with 2.3-fold and 1.5-fold increased odds of seropositivity, respectively.

Serosurveillance studies have reported the trajectory of community prevalence in NYC over the first wave. A 6.3% prevalence was reported in samples collected between March 23 and April 1, 2020.¹⁷ In a study by Rosenberg et al¹⁸ with testing performed from April 9 through April 28, 2020, prevalence increased to 22.7%. Serosurveillance data from the NYC Department of Health show prevalence ranging from 20.1% to 23.3% (average 22%) during the study period.¹⁶ Compared to the estimated seroprevalence of 9.3% in the United States,¹⁹ these rates established NYC as an early epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic, with our institution’s HCW seroprevalence considerably higher than NYC community serosurveillance rates, 2.2 times higher than reported in the earlier HCW study in the greater NYC area,¹³ and higher than the 27% rate during May 2020 recently reported in another NYC hospital.²⁰

Data from studies of hospital transmission and effects of mitigation measures, such as a universal masking policy for HCWs and patients, clearly demonstrate the high effectiveness of these measures in reducing hospital transmissions.^21,22 This suggests HCW seroprevalence in institutions with well-implemented infection control and universal masking policies may not be a consequence of workplace exposures, but rather may be reflective of community rates.²³ Our institution’s response commenced February 3, 2020, with implementation of social distancing, a universal masking policy, transmission-based precautions, and use of fitted N95 masks. Mid-March, elective surgeries were canceled, and inpatient visitation suspended. During the surge, these measures were widely and consistently implemented for all categories of HCWs throughout the work environment, based on emerging guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NYC Department of Health. Our overall observed HCW seroprevalence, well above that of the community, with differences in categories of job function and work locations, is therefore an important finding. Our sample of 2,749 HCWs lived in NYC and its surrounding suburbs and nearby states. There is heterogeneity in community seroprevalence between areas outside of NYC and NYC (an epicenter) itself. We therefore analyzed our data in the subset with NYC zip codes, confirming a similar overall prevalence and increased odds of seropositivity in nurses, allied HCWs, and nonclinical staff.

Physicians and administrative and office staff had seropositivity rates of 18.1%, 20.9%, and 25.8%, respectively, consistent with community rates and illustrating the effectiveness of PPE in the hospital setting. Since PPE use was part of a universal policy applied to all HCWs in our institution, other possible reasons may explain the differences we found. We speculate that the close working relationship nurses have with their patients resulted in a longer duration and higher frequency of daily interactions, increasing the risk for transmission and causing breakthrough infections.^24,25 This increased risk is reflected in a study in which 28% of hospitalized patients were nurses and 9% certified nursing assistants.²⁶

The CDC recently redefined close contact with someone with COVID-19 as a cumulative total of >15 minutes over 24 hours.²⁵ Thus, several multiple short periods of exposure can increase risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2; such exposure is characteristic of the job function of nurses, nursing staff, and nonclinical staff. Further, housekeeping, transportation, and security officers are all nonclinical staff with significant and multiple exposures to COVID-19 patients during the surge, and for security officers, to continuous public traffic in and out of the hospital. SARS-CoV-2 spreads by virus shedding in large droplets and aerosols, with droplet nuclei <5 microns in size efficiently dispersed in air, an important additional mode of transmission.^27-30 Airborne transmission coupled with virus shedding in asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons, which has been shown to cause secondary attack rates of up to 32%, are other factors that likely contributed to the increased seroprevalence in this group.³¹ Our observation is consistent with the Birmingham study, which reported the highest rate in housekeeping staff, with a prevalence of 34.5%, compared to 44% in this study.⁶ Similar reasons for high seropositivity rates apply to the two groups of allied HCWs (eg, medical assistants and patient care technicians, social workers, nutritionists and therapists), whose job functions place them in intermittent but significant proximity with inpatients and outpatients.

Consistent with public health data showing that minorities are disproportionately affected by this disease, we found that Black HCWs were three times more likely to be seropositive.³² However, an unexpected observation was the association between obesity and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. A possible explanation for this association may be inability to achieve optimal fit testing for N95 masks, thereby increasing the risk of exposure to droplet nuclei. This is important given that obesity is associated with poorer outcomes from COVID-19.

During the height of the first wave in NYC, EDs and inpatient units handled a large volume of COVID-19 patients with high PCR positivity rates (peak of 51% in March in our hospital). It was not unexpected that we observed increased odds of seropositivity in these work locations. As ICUs were at capacity, inpatient units cared for critically ill patients they would not normally have. HCWs in these locations coped with an increased workload, increased demand on PPE supplies, and work fatigue, which contributed to increased risk for hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Reporting seroprevalence at a single institution was a limitation of the study. Approximately 57% of the hospital’s total HCW population was tested for antibodies. It is possible their risk profile influenced their decision to volunteer for testing when it became available, introducing selection bias. A comparison between tested and untested HCWs showed similarity in all demographic measures, including nasopharyngeal PCR testing, except for age. We did not have information on symptoms that would prompt PCR testing. HCWs who underwent voluntary testing were younger compared to those who did not undergo testing. Current NYC serosurveillance data showed higher seropositivity in the 45-to-64–year age group (27.8%-28.6%) compared to the 65-to-74–year age group (24.3%), which suggests that the tested group may overestimate seroprevalence among HCWs relative to a randomly selected sample.³³ Similarly, there were more nurses, allied HCWs, physicians, and administrative staff in the tested group, with the former two having higher SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity compared to community prevalence, which could also overestimate seroprevalence. Our large sample size provided us with the power to detect differences within several different job functions and work locations, a strength of this study. It was not possible to differentiate community- from hospital-acquired infection in our HCWs, a limitation in many observational HCW seroprevalence studies. However, when we analyzed data restricted only to HCWs in NYC, to reduce the effect of differing community prevalences outside the city, our results were unchanged. Since it is possible that nonclinical HCWs are of a lower socioeconomic status compared to others (nurses and allied HCWs), we cannot exclude the possibility that higher SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence associated with lower status explains, partly or completely, the increased odds of seropositivity we observed.³⁴ Due to the high proportion of missing data for race (61.3%), we advise caution in interpreting our finding that the odds of seropositivity were three times higher for Black race, even though consistent with prior literature.³⁴ Healthcare organizations have similar job function and work location categories incorporated in their infrastructure, suggesting that our observations may be generalizable to other hospitals in the United States.

CONCLUSION

These findings show that during the first surge in NYC, with its increased burden of disease, hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality, seroprevalences varied based on job function and work location within this institution. Nurses were at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as were those who worked in the ED. In preparation for subsequent waves of SARS-CoV-2 and other highly contagious respiratory infections, major medical centers need to enhance efforts aimed at protecting HCWs, with particular attention to these groups. This study also strongly supports the recent CDC guideline prioritizing HCWs to receive COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines that have obtained emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.³⁵

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the residents, nurses, and staff of the Department of Family Medicine for their contribution to this work.

SARS-CoV-2 has infected 141 million people worldwide and 31 million people in the United States as of April 20, 2021.^1,2 The influx of hospital admissions and deaths has severely strained healthcare systems worldwide and placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk for acquiring COVID-19.^3-5

Several studies have described the impact of COVID-19 on this heterogeneous group of HCWs. Shields et al reported a seroprevalence of 24.4% in HCWs at University Hospitals Birmingham (UK), with the highest rate, 34.5%, in housekeeping staff.⁶ Steensels et al reported a lower prevalence of 6.4% at a tertiary care center in Belgium, and showed no increased risk for HCWs when directly involved in clinical care.⁷ The authors attributed this to adequate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Other studies have reported seroprevalences ranging from 1.6% to 18%.^8-11 In the New York City (NYC) metro area, Jeremias et al reported a seroprevalence of 9.8% in HCWs and found no difference by job title or work location,¹² whereas Moscola et al reported a seroprevalence of 13.7% and demonstrated a 3% increased risk for those working in service or maintenance.¹³ Antibody tests were conducted between March and April 2020 in all but two of these studies; testing in these two studies was performed between April 13 and June 23, 2020, with one reporting a seroprevalence of 6%¹¹ and the other, 13.7%.¹³

NYC became the earliest pandemic epicenter in the United States following untracked transmission from ongoing circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe.¹⁴ As a result, the COVID-19 surge in NYC commenced in March and largely subsided by the end of May 2020. Most HCW data reported to date do not reflect the situation at the end of the surge, and may underestimate true seroprevalence. We describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCWs in a large inner-city hospital in NYC, with antibody testing conducted from May 18 to June 26, 2020, at the subsidence of the surge. To further our understanding of occupational risk among different groups of HCWs, we examined associations of seroprevalence with HCWs’ job function and work location.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional seroprevalence study conducted in the BronxCare Health System located in South and Central Bronx, an area that experienced one of the highest incidences of SARS-CoV-2 infections within NYC’s five boroughs.

HCWs were offered voluntary testing for serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between May 18 and June 26, 2020. Testing occurred in the institution’s auditorium, a central and easily accessible location. Weekly emails were sent to all employees and department heads during the testing period, offering antibody testing and providing location and testing time information. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) assay measuring total qualitative antibodies was used; the assay has a reported sensitivity of 97.1% 14 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result and a specificity of 100%.¹⁵

Demographic and work-related information was abstracted from electronic medical records, including all comorbid conditions that affected 30 or more HCWs. Pulmonary diagnoses, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were grouped as chronic lung disease, and cardiovascular diseases, including hypertension, as chronic heart disease. Personal identifiers and data were delinked upon completion of data abstraction. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board.

Job Function and Work Location

HCWs were grouped by job function as follows: physicians; nurses (including physician assistants and nurse practitioners); allied HCW I (medical assistants, patient care, and electrocardiogram, radiology, and ear, nose and throat technicians); allied HCW II (social workers, dieticians and nutritionists, registration clerks and unit associates, physical and occupational therapists); nonclinical staff (patient transporters, housekeeping staff, and security staff); pharmacists; engineering; and administrative staff. Respiratory therapists were considered as a separate group as their work placed them at high risk for respiratory diseases.

Work locations were as follows: clinics (including dental, outpatient, and satellite clinics), emergency departments (ED), inpatient units (including floors and intensive care units [ICU]), radiology suite, laboratory and pharmacy, and offices.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated using χ² analyses. All demographic variables were tested against serology status (positive/negative). A binary logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs). Eight separate univariate unadjusted ORs were calculated by running each predictor variable against serology status (dependent variable), which included the six categorical variables—race, ethnicity, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR results—and the two main predictors—job function and work location. To obtain adjusted ORs, two final separate multivariable logistic regression analyses were executed including the six covariates listed. Due to high collinearity between job function and work location (χ² = 3030.13, df = 35 [6 levels of work location – 1]*[8 levels of job function – 1]; P < .001), we included only one of the main predictors in each model. The regressions were specified such that the reference groups for the work location and job function variables were office work and administration, respectively. This choice was made based on the fact that their nonclinical functions do not confer an exposure risk in excess of that experienced by typical community populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the subset of HCWs whose address zip codes indicated residence within NYC to exclude the effect of different community seroprevalences in areas outside of NYC. The 95% CI for seroprevalence of antibodies within tested HCWs was estimated using the Clopper-Pearson binomial method.

RESULTS

Among all HCWs in the institution (N = 4,807), 2,749 (57.2%) underwent voluntary testing. Of those who underwent testing, 831 were positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1), a seroprevalence of 30.2% (95% CI, 29%-32%). Among the age groups, the 45-to-64−year group had the highest seropositivity at 33% (400/1203), and those ≥75 years of age, the lowest at 16.7% (2/12) (P < .009).

Data on race was available for 38.7% (1,064/2,749) of HCWs (Table); seropositivity was highest for Blacks (259/664, 39%) and lowest for Whites (36/163, 22.1%; P < .001). Certain comorbid conditions were associated with seropositivity (P = .001).

Among all tested HCWs, 70.1% (1,928/2,749) resided in NYC. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in this subset was 32% (616/1,928) (Figure 1). Demographic and comorbid conditions in HCWs who lived in NYC were similar to those of the whole group (Appendix Table 1).

HCWs who underwent voluntary antibody testing (Appendix Table 2) had a higher percentage of persons in the 45-to-64−year age group (43.8% vs 40.9%) and a lower percentage of persons in the 65-to-74−year age group (3.3% vs 5.3%) compared with the group of HCWs that did not undergo testing (P < .001). Gender, race, ethnicity, comorbid conditions, SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, and work locations were not different between groups. The tested group had higher proportions of clinicians (physicians, nurses, allied HCWs I and II) than the untested nonparticipant group (P = .014).

SARS-CoV-2 PCR Tests on HCWs

More than one-third (34.1%; 938/2,749) of HCWs had a documented nasopharyngeal PCR test between March 23 and June 26, 2020 (Table). Of all PCRs performed, 262 were positive, giving an overall PCR positivity rate of 27.9%. Positivity was 51.4% in March and 36.6% in April. The reasons for PCR testing were not available, but likely represent a combination of exposure-related testing among asymptomatic individuals and diagnostic testing of symptomatic HCWs. In contrast, serology testing was indicative of prior infection and yielded a cumulative seroprevalence at the end of the surge. Findings were similar among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1).

Work Location and Job Function

Among all HCWs (Table, Figure 2), there were differences in seropositivity by work location (P = .001). The largest number of HCWs worked in inpatient units (1,348/2,749, 49%), and the second largest in offices (554/2,749, 20%). The highest seropositivity rate was in the EDs, at 36.4% (64/176), followed by radiology suites, at 32.7% (17/52); the seropositivity rate in office locations was 25.8% (143/554). Among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1, Appendix Figure 1), the rank order according to proportion seropositive by work location was similar to that of the whole group (P = .004), except that the second highest seropositivity rate was in the inpatient units (33.9% [323/953]). In the group of HCWs residing in NYC, office locations had a seropositivity of 27.4% (102/372). The seropositivity rates for both groups working in office locations were slightly higher than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC reported for the same period.¹⁶

Among all HCWs, there were differences in seropositivity by job function (P = .001). The greatest proportion of HCWs were allied HCW II (23% [631/2,749]), followed by nurses (22.2% [611/2,749]) and physicians (21.3% [585/2,749] ). Seropositivity was highest for nonclinical staff (44.0% [51/116]), followed by nurses (37.5% [229/611]) and allied clinical HCW I and II (34.5% [143/414] and 32.0% [202/631], respectively). It was lowest for administrative staff (20.9% [42/201]) and pharmacists (11.1% [5/45]). Among HCWs residing in NYC, the rank order according to proportion seropositive by location was similar to that of the whole group. Administrative staff seropositivity was 18.3% (20/109). Administrative staff seropositivity for both groups was marginally lower than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC for the same period.¹⁶

Odds Ratios for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity

For all HCWs, in unadjusted models (Appendix Table 3), age 45 to 64 years and Black race were associated with increased odds of being seropositive (1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49 and 2.26; 95% CI, 1.51-3.37, respectively). Increased odds were seen for HCWs working in the ED (1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36) and inpatient units (1.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.69), and decreased odds were seen for those working in the laboratory and pharmacy (0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.86). Increased odds for seropositivity were found for nurses (2.27; 95% CI, 1.56-3.31), allied HCW I (2.00; 95% CI, 1.34-2.97), allied HCW II (1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.60), and nonclinical staff (2.97; 95% CI,1.80-4.90).

After adjusting for all covariates, HCWs who were Black remained at increased odds for being seropositive in the two final models (adjusted OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.38-3.81 and adjusted OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.78-4.85), as did those who had a BMI >30 kg/m², with an adjusted OR of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.05-1.77) in one of the final models (Appendix Table 3). None of the other comorbid conditions had increased ORs. Those who worked in the ED and inpatient units also remained at increased odds after adjusting for covariates (2.27; 95% CI, 1.53-3.37 and 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14-1.92, respectively; Figure 3). Other job functions that had increased odds for seropositivity were nurses (2.54; 95% CI, 1.64-3.94), allied HCW I (1.83; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) and II (1.70; 95% CI, 1.10-2.63), and nonclinical staff (2.51; 95% CI, 1.42-4.43).

Having a positive PCR for SAR-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal swabs was strongly associated with seropositivity (OR, 47.26; 95% CI, 29.30-76.23 and OR, 44.79; 95% CI, 27.87-72.00) in the two multivariate-adjusted models. These findings were confirmed when the analyses were performed on HCWs who resided in NYC (Appendix Table 4 and Appendix Figure 2).

DISCUSSION

In a large inner-city New York hospital, we report a cumulative SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 30.2% in HCWs at the end of the first surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections in NYC. We identified the highest seropositivity rates for nonclinical staff and nurses, followed by allied HCWs, with the odds of being seropositive ranging from 1.7 to 2.5. The work locations with the highest seroprevalences were the ED and inpatient units, with 2.3-fold and 1.5-fold increased odds of seropositivity, respectively.

Serosurveillance studies have reported the trajectory of community prevalence in NYC over the first wave. A 6.3% prevalence was reported in samples collected between March 23 and April 1, 2020.¹⁷ In a study by Rosenberg et al¹⁸ with testing performed from April 9 through April 28, 2020, prevalence increased to 22.7%. Serosurveillance data from the NYC Department of Health show prevalence ranging from 20.1% to 23.3% (average 22%) during the study period.¹⁶ Compared to the estimated seroprevalence of 9.3% in the United States,¹⁹ these rates established NYC as an early epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic, with our institution’s HCW seroprevalence considerably higher than NYC community serosurveillance rates, 2.2 times higher than reported in the earlier HCW study in the greater NYC area,¹³ and higher than the 27% rate during May 2020 recently reported in another NYC hospital.²⁰

Data from studies of hospital transmission and effects of mitigation measures, such as a universal masking policy for HCWs and patients, clearly demonstrate the high effectiveness of these measures in reducing hospital transmissions.^21,22 This suggests HCW seroprevalence in institutions with well-implemented infection control and universal masking policies may not be a consequence of workplace exposures, but rather may be reflective of community rates.²³ Our institution’s response commenced February 3, 2020, with implementation of social distancing, a universal masking policy, transmission-based precautions, and use of fitted N95 masks. Mid-March, elective surgeries were canceled, and inpatient visitation suspended. During the surge, these measures were widely and consistently implemented for all categories of HCWs throughout the work environment, based on emerging guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NYC Department of Health. Our overall observed HCW seroprevalence, well above that of the community, with differences in categories of job function and work locations, is therefore an important finding. Our sample of 2,749 HCWs lived in NYC and its surrounding suburbs and nearby states. There is heterogeneity in community seroprevalence between areas outside of NYC and NYC (an epicenter) itself. We therefore analyzed our data in the subset with NYC zip codes, confirming a similar overall prevalence and increased odds of seropositivity in nurses, allied HCWs, and nonclinical staff.

Physicians and administrative and office staff had seropositivity rates of 18.1%, 20.9%, and 25.8%, respectively, consistent with community rates and illustrating the effectiveness of PPE in the hospital setting. Since PPE use was part of a universal policy applied to all HCWs in our institution, other possible reasons may explain the differences we found. We speculate that the close working relationship nurses have with their patients resulted in a longer duration and higher frequency of daily interactions, increasing the risk for transmission and causing breakthrough infections.^24,25 This increased risk is reflected in a study in which 28% of hospitalized patients were nurses and 9% certified nursing assistants.²⁶

The CDC recently redefined close contact with someone with COVID-19 as a cumulative total of >15 minutes over 24 hours.²⁵ Thus, several multiple short periods of exposure can increase risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2; such exposure is characteristic of the job function of nurses, nursing staff, and nonclinical staff. Further, housekeeping, transportation, and security officers are all nonclinical staff with significant and multiple exposures to COVID-19 patients during the surge, and for security officers, to continuous public traffic in and out of the hospital. SARS-CoV-2 spreads by virus shedding in large droplets and aerosols, with droplet nuclei <5 microns in size efficiently dispersed in air, an important additional mode of transmission.^27-30 Airborne transmission coupled with virus shedding in asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons, which has been shown to cause secondary attack rates of up to 32%, are other factors that likely contributed to the increased seroprevalence in this group.³¹ Our observation is consistent with the Birmingham study, which reported the highest rate in housekeeping staff, with a prevalence of 34.5%, compared to 44% in this study.⁶ Similar reasons for high seropositivity rates apply to the two groups of allied HCWs (eg, medical assistants and patient care technicians, social workers, nutritionists and therapists), whose job functions place them in intermittent but significant proximity with inpatients and outpatients.

Consistent with public health data showing that minorities are disproportionately affected by this disease, we found that Black HCWs were three times more likely to be seropositive.³² However, an unexpected observation was the association between obesity and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. A possible explanation for this association may be inability to achieve optimal fit testing for N95 masks, thereby increasing the risk of exposure to droplet nuclei. This is important given that obesity is associated with poorer outcomes from COVID-19.

During the height of the first wave in NYC, EDs and inpatient units handled a large volume of COVID-19 patients with high PCR positivity rates (peak of 51% in March in our hospital). It was not unexpected that we observed increased odds of seropositivity in these work locations. As ICUs were at capacity, inpatient units cared for critically ill patients they would not normally have. HCWs in these locations coped with an increased workload, increased demand on PPE supplies, and work fatigue, which contributed to increased risk for hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Reporting seroprevalence at a single institution was a limitation of the study. Approximately 57% of the hospital’s total HCW population was tested for antibodies. It is possible their risk profile influenced their decision to volunteer for testing when it became available, introducing selection bias. A comparison between tested and untested HCWs showed similarity in all demographic measures, including nasopharyngeal PCR testing, except for age. We did not have information on symptoms that would prompt PCR testing. HCWs who underwent voluntary testing were younger compared to those who did not undergo testing. Current NYC serosurveillance data showed higher seropositivity in the 45-to-64–year age group (27.8%-28.6%) compared to the 65-to-74–year age group (24.3%), which suggests that the tested group may overestimate seroprevalence among HCWs relative to a randomly selected sample.³³ Similarly, there were more nurses, allied HCWs, physicians, and administrative staff in the tested group, with the former two having higher SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity compared to community prevalence, which could also overestimate seroprevalence. Our large sample size provided us with the power to detect differences within several different job functions and work locations, a strength of this study. It was not possible to differentiate community- from hospital-acquired infection in our HCWs, a limitation in many observational HCW seroprevalence studies. However, when we analyzed data restricted only to HCWs in NYC, to reduce the effect of differing community prevalences outside the city, our results were unchanged. Since it is possible that nonclinical HCWs are of a lower socioeconomic status compared to others (nurses and allied HCWs), we cannot exclude the possibility that higher SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence associated with lower status explains, partly or completely, the increased odds of seropositivity we observed.³⁴ Due to the high proportion of missing data for race (61.3%), we advise caution in interpreting our finding that the odds of seropositivity were three times higher for Black race, even though consistent with prior literature.³⁴ Healthcare organizations have similar job function and work location categories incorporated in their infrastructure, suggesting that our observations may be generalizable to other hospitals in the United States.

CONCLUSION

These findings show that during the first surge in NYC, with its increased burden of disease, hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality, seroprevalences varied based on job function and work location within this institution. Nurses were at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as were those who worked in the ED. In preparation for subsequent waves of SARS-CoV-2 and other highly contagious respiratory infections, major medical centers need to enhance efforts aimed at protecting HCWs, with particular attention to these groups. This study also strongly supports the recent CDC guideline prioritizing HCWs to receive COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines that have obtained emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.³⁵

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the residents, nurses, and staff of the Department of Family Medicine for their contribution to this work.

SARS-CoV-2 has infected 141 million people worldwide and 31 million people in the United States as of April 20, 2021.^1,2 The influx of hospital admissions and deaths has severely strained healthcare systems worldwide and placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk for acquiring COVID-19.^3-5

Several studies have described the impact of COVID-19 on this heterogeneous group of HCWs. Shields et al reported a seroprevalence of 24.4% in HCWs at University Hospitals Birmingham (UK), with the highest rate, 34.5%, in housekeeping staff.⁶ Steensels et al reported a lower prevalence of 6.4% at a tertiary care center in Belgium, and showed no increased risk for HCWs when directly involved in clinical care.⁷ The authors attributed this to adequate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Other studies have reported seroprevalences ranging from 1.6% to 18%.^8-11 In the New York City (NYC) metro area, Jeremias et al reported a seroprevalence of 9.8% in HCWs and found no difference by job title or work location,¹² whereas Moscola et al reported a seroprevalence of 13.7% and demonstrated a 3% increased risk for those working in service or maintenance.¹³ Antibody tests were conducted between March and April 2020 in all but two of these studies; testing in these two studies was performed between April 13 and June 23, 2020, with one reporting a seroprevalence of 6%¹¹ and the other, 13.7%.¹³

NYC became the earliest pandemic epicenter in the United States following untracked transmission from ongoing circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe.¹⁴ As a result, the COVID-19 surge in NYC commenced in March and largely subsided by the end of May 2020. Most HCW data reported to date do not reflect the situation at the end of the surge, and may underestimate true seroprevalence. We describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCWs in a large inner-city hospital in NYC, with antibody testing conducted from May 18 to June 26, 2020, at the subsidence of the surge. To further our understanding of occupational risk among different groups of HCWs, we examined associations of seroprevalence with HCWs’ job function and work location.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional seroprevalence study conducted in the BronxCare Health System located in South and Central Bronx, an area that experienced one of the highest incidences of SARS-CoV-2 infections within NYC’s five boroughs.

HCWs were offered voluntary testing for serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between May 18 and June 26, 2020. Testing occurred in the institution’s auditorium, a central and easily accessible location. Weekly emails were sent to all employees and department heads during the testing period, offering antibody testing and providing location and testing time information. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) assay measuring total qualitative antibodies was used; the assay has a reported sensitivity of 97.1% 14 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result and a specificity of 100%.¹⁵

Demographic and work-related information was abstracted from electronic medical records, including all comorbid conditions that affected 30 or more HCWs. Pulmonary diagnoses, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were grouped as chronic lung disease, and cardiovascular diseases, including hypertension, as chronic heart disease. Personal identifiers and data were delinked upon completion of data abstraction. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board.

Job Function and Work Location

HCWs were grouped by job function as follows: physicians; nurses (including physician assistants and nurse practitioners); allied HCW I (medical assistants, patient care, and electrocardiogram, radiology, and ear, nose and throat technicians); allied HCW II (social workers, dieticians and nutritionists, registration clerks and unit associates, physical and occupational therapists); nonclinical staff (patient transporters, housekeeping staff, and security staff); pharmacists; engineering; and administrative staff. Respiratory therapists were considered as a separate group as their work placed them at high risk for respiratory diseases.

Work locations were as follows: clinics (including dental, outpatient, and satellite clinics), emergency departments (ED), inpatient units (including floors and intensive care units [ICU]), radiology suite, laboratory and pharmacy, and offices.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated using χ² analyses. All demographic variables were tested against serology status (positive/negative). A binary logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs). Eight separate univariate unadjusted ORs were calculated by running each predictor variable against serology status (dependent variable), which included the six categorical variables—race, ethnicity, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR results—and the two main predictors—job function and work location. To obtain adjusted ORs, two final separate multivariable logistic regression analyses were executed including the six covariates listed. Due to high collinearity between job function and work location (χ² = 3030.13, df = 35 [6 levels of work location – 1]*[8 levels of job function – 1]; P < .001), we included only one of the main predictors in each model. The regressions were specified such that the reference groups for the work location and job function variables were office work and administration, respectively. This choice was made based on the fact that their nonclinical functions do not confer an exposure risk in excess of that experienced by typical community populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the subset of HCWs whose address zip codes indicated residence within NYC to exclude the effect of different community seroprevalences in areas outside of NYC. The 95% CI for seroprevalence of antibodies within tested HCWs was estimated using the Clopper-Pearson binomial method.

RESULTS

Among all HCWs in the institution (N = 4,807), 2,749 (57.2%) underwent voluntary testing. Of those who underwent testing, 831 were positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1), a seroprevalence of 30.2% (95% CI, 29%-32%). Among the age groups, the 45-to-64−year group had the highest seropositivity at 33% (400/1203), and those ≥75 years of age, the lowest at 16.7% (2/12) (P < .009).

Data on race was available for 38.7% (1,064/2,749) of HCWs (Table); seropositivity was highest for Blacks (259/664, 39%) and lowest for Whites (36/163, 22.1%; P < .001). Certain comorbid conditions were associated with seropositivity (P = .001).

Among all tested HCWs, 70.1% (1,928/2,749) resided in NYC. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in this subset was 32% (616/1,928) (Figure 1). Demographic and comorbid conditions in HCWs who lived in NYC were similar to those of the whole group (Appendix Table 1).

HCWs who underwent voluntary antibody testing (Appendix Table 2) had a higher percentage of persons in the 45-to-64−year age group (43.8% vs 40.9%) and a lower percentage of persons in the 65-to-74−year age group (3.3% vs 5.3%) compared with the group of HCWs that did not undergo testing (P < .001). Gender, race, ethnicity, comorbid conditions, SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, and work locations were not different between groups. The tested group had higher proportions of clinicians (physicians, nurses, allied HCWs I and II) than the untested nonparticipant group (P = .014).

SARS-CoV-2 PCR Tests on HCWs

More than one-third (34.1%; 938/2,749) of HCWs had a documented nasopharyngeal PCR test between March 23 and June 26, 2020 (Table). Of all PCRs performed, 262 were positive, giving an overall PCR positivity rate of 27.9%. Positivity was 51.4% in March and 36.6% in April. The reasons for PCR testing were not available, but likely represent a combination of exposure-related testing among asymptomatic individuals and diagnostic testing of symptomatic HCWs. In contrast, serology testing was indicative of prior infection and yielded a cumulative seroprevalence at the end of the surge. Findings were similar among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1).

Work Location and Job Function

Among all HCWs (Table, Figure 2), there were differences in seropositivity by work location (P = .001). The largest number of HCWs worked in inpatient units (1,348/2,749, 49%), and the second largest in offices (554/2,749, 20%). The highest seropositivity rate was in the EDs, at 36.4% (64/176), followed by radiology suites, at 32.7% (17/52); the seropositivity rate in office locations was 25.8% (143/554). Among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1, Appendix Figure 1), the rank order according to proportion seropositive by work location was similar to that of the whole group (P = .004), except that the second highest seropositivity rate was in the inpatient units (33.9% [323/953]). In the group of HCWs residing in NYC, office locations had a seropositivity of 27.4% (102/372). The seropositivity rates for both groups working in office locations were slightly higher than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC reported for the same period.¹⁶

Among all HCWs, there were differences in seropositivity by job function (P = .001). The greatest proportion of HCWs were allied HCW II (23% [631/2,749]), followed by nurses (22.2% [611/2,749]) and physicians (21.3% [585/2,749] ). Seropositivity was highest for nonclinical staff (44.0% [51/116]), followed by nurses (37.5% [229/611]) and allied clinical HCW I and II (34.5% [143/414] and 32.0% [202/631], respectively). It was lowest for administrative staff (20.9% [42/201]) and pharmacists (11.1% [5/45]). Among HCWs residing in NYC, the rank order according to proportion seropositive by location was similar to that of the whole group. Administrative staff seropositivity was 18.3% (20/109). Administrative staff seropositivity for both groups was marginally lower than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC for the same period.¹⁶

Odds Ratios for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity

For all HCWs, in unadjusted models (Appendix Table 3), age 45 to 64 years and Black race were associated with increased odds of being seropositive (1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49 and 2.26; 95% CI, 1.51-3.37, respectively). Increased odds were seen for HCWs working in the ED (1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36) and inpatient units (1.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.69), and decreased odds were seen for those working in the laboratory and pharmacy (0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.86). Increased odds for seropositivity were found for nurses (2.27; 95% CI, 1.56-3.31), allied HCW I (2.00; 95% CI, 1.34-2.97), allied HCW II (1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.60), and nonclinical staff (2.97; 95% CI,1.80-4.90).

After adjusting for all covariates, HCWs who were Black remained at increased odds for being seropositive in the two final models (adjusted OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.38-3.81 and adjusted OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.78-4.85), as did those who had a BMI >30 kg/m², with an adjusted OR of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.05-1.77) in one of the final models (Appendix Table 3). None of the other comorbid conditions had increased ORs. Those who worked in the ED and inpatient units also remained at increased odds after adjusting for covariates (2.27; 95% CI, 1.53-3.37 and 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14-1.92, respectively; Figure 3). Other job functions that had increased odds for seropositivity were nurses (2.54; 95% CI, 1.64-3.94), allied HCW I (1.83; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) and II (1.70; 95% CI, 1.10-2.63), and nonclinical staff (2.51; 95% CI, 1.42-4.43).

Having a positive PCR for SAR-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal swabs was strongly associated with seropositivity (OR, 47.26; 95% CI, 29.30-76.23 and OR, 44.79; 95% CI, 27.87-72.00) in the two multivariate-adjusted models. These findings were confirmed when the analyses were performed on HCWs who resided in NYC (Appendix Table 4 and Appendix Figure 2).

DISCUSSION

In a large inner-city New York hospital, we report a cumulative SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 30.2% in HCWs at the end of the first surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections in NYC. We identified the highest seropositivity rates for nonclinical staff and nurses, followed by allied HCWs, with the odds of being seropositive ranging from 1.7 to 2.5. The work locations with the highest seroprevalences were the ED and inpatient units, with 2.3-fold and 1.5-fold increased odds of seropositivity, respectively.

Serosurveillance studies have reported the trajectory of community prevalence in NYC over the first wave. A 6.3% prevalence was reported in samples collected between March 23 and April 1, 2020.¹⁷ In a study by Rosenberg et al¹⁸ with testing performed from April 9 through April 28, 2020, prevalence increased to 22.7%. Serosurveillance data from the NYC Department of Health show prevalence ranging from 20.1% to 23.3% (average 22%) during the study period.¹⁶ Compared to the estimated seroprevalence of 9.3% in the United States,¹⁹ these rates established NYC as an early epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic, with our institution’s HCW seroprevalence considerably higher than NYC community serosurveillance rates, 2.2 times higher than reported in the earlier HCW study in the greater NYC area,¹³ and higher than the 27% rate during May 2020 recently reported in another NYC hospital.²⁰

Data from studies of hospital transmission and effects of mitigation measures, such as a universal masking policy for HCWs and patients, clearly demonstrate the high effectiveness of these measures in reducing hospital transmissions.^21,22 This suggests HCW seroprevalence in institutions with well-implemented infection control and universal masking policies may not be a consequence of workplace exposures, but rather may be reflective of community rates.²³ Our institution’s response commenced February 3, 2020, with implementation of social distancing, a universal masking policy, transmission-based precautions, and use of fitted N95 masks. Mid-March, elective surgeries were canceled, and inpatient visitation suspended. During the surge, these measures were widely and consistently implemented for all categories of HCWs throughout the work environment, based on emerging guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NYC Department of Health. Our overall observed HCW seroprevalence, well above that of the community, with differences in categories of job function and work locations, is therefore an important finding. Our sample of 2,749 HCWs lived in NYC and its surrounding suburbs and nearby states. There is heterogeneity in community seroprevalence between areas outside of NYC and NYC (an epicenter) itself. We therefore analyzed our data in the subset with NYC zip codes, confirming a similar overall prevalence and increased odds of seropositivity in nurses, allied HCWs, and nonclinical staff.

Physicians and administrative and office staff had seropositivity rates of 18.1%, 20.9%, and 25.8%, respectively, consistent with community rates and illustrating the effectiveness of PPE in the hospital setting. Since PPE use was part of a universal policy applied to all HCWs in our institution, other possible reasons may explain the differences we found. We speculate that the close working relationship nurses have with their patients resulted in a longer duration and higher frequency of daily interactions, increasing the risk for transmission and causing breakthrough infections.^24,25 This increased risk is reflected in a study in which 28% of hospitalized patients were nurses and 9% certified nursing assistants.²⁶

The CDC recently redefined close contact with someone with COVID-19 as a cumulative total of >15 minutes over 24 hours.²⁵ Thus, several multiple short periods of exposure can increase risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2; such exposure is characteristic of the job function of nurses, nursing staff, and nonclinical staff. Further, housekeeping, transportation, and security officers are all nonclinical staff with significant and multiple exposures to COVID-19 patients during the surge, and for security officers, to continuous public traffic in and out of the hospital. SARS-CoV-2 spreads by virus shedding in large droplets and aerosols, with droplet nuclei <5 microns in size efficiently dispersed in air, an important additional mode of transmission.^27-30 Airborne transmission coupled with virus shedding in asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons, which has been shown to cause secondary attack rates of up to 32%, are other factors that likely contributed to the increased seroprevalence in this group.³¹ Our observation is consistent with the Birmingham study, which reported the highest rate in housekeeping staff, with a prevalence of 34.5%, compared to 44% in this study.⁶ Similar reasons for high seropositivity rates apply to the two groups of allied HCWs (eg, medical assistants and patient care technicians, social workers, nutritionists and therapists), whose job functions place them in intermittent but significant proximity with inpatients and outpatients.

Consistent with public health data showing that minorities are disproportionately affected by this disease, we found that Black HCWs were three times more likely to be seropositive.³² However, an unexpected observation was the association between obesity and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. A possible explanation for this association may be inability to achieve optimal fit testing for N95 masks, thereby increasing the risk of exposure to droplet nuclei. This is important given that obesity is associated with poorer outcomes from COVID-19.

During the height of the first wave in NYC, EDs and inpatient units handled a large volume of COVID-19 patients with high PCR positivity rates (peak of 51% in March in our hospital). It was not unexpected that we observed increased odds of seropositivity in these work locations. As ICUs were at capacity, inpatient units cared for critically ill patients they would not normally have. HCWs in these locations coped with an increased workload, increased demand on PPE supplies, and work fatigue, which contributed to increased risk for hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Reporting seroprevalence at a single institution was a limitation of the study. Approximately 57% of the hospital’s total HCW population was tested for antibodies. It is possible their risk profile influenced their decision to volunteer for testing when it became available, introducing selection bias. A comparison between tested and untested HCWs showed similarity in all demographic measures, including nasopharyngeal PCR testing, except for age. We did not have information on symptoms that would prompt PCR testing. HCWs who underwent voluntary testing were younger compared to those who did not undergo testing. Current NYC serosurveillance data showed higher seropositivity in the 45-to-64–year age group (27.8%-28.6%) compared to the 65-to-74–year age group (24.3%), which suggests that the tested group may overestimate seroprevalence among HCWs relative to a randomly selected sample.³³ Similarly, there were more nurses, allied HCWs, physicians, and administrative staff in the tested group, with the former two having higher SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity compared to community prevalence, which could also overestimate seroprevalence. Our large sample size provided us with the power to detect differences within several different job functions and work locations, a strength of this study. It was not possible to differentiate community- from hospital-acquired infection in our HCWs, a limitation in many observational HCW seroprevalence studies. However, when we analyzed data restricted only to HCWs in NYC, to reduce the effect of differing community prevalences outside the city, our results were unchanged. Since it is possible that nonclinical HCWs are of a lower socioeconomic status compared to others (nurses and allied HCWs), we cannot exclude the possibility that higher SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence associated with lower status explains, partly or completely, the increased odds of seropositivity we observed.³⁴ Due to the high proportion of missing data for race (61.3%), we advise caution in interpreting our finding that the odds of seropositivity were three times higher for Black race, even though consistent with prior literature.³⁴ Healthcare organizations have similar job function and work location categories incorporated in their infrastructure, suggesting that our observations may be generalizable to other hospitals in the United States.

CONCLUSION

These findings show that during the first surge in NYC, with its increased burden of disease, hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality, seroprevalences varied based on job function and work location within this institution. Nurses were at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as were those who worked in the ED. In preparation for subsequent waves of SARS-CoV-2 and other highly contagious respiratory infections, major medical centers need to enhance efforts aimed at protecting HCWs, with particular attention to these groups. This study also strongly supports the recent CDC guideline prioritizing HCWs to receive COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines that have obtained emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.³⁵

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the residents, nurses, and staff of the Department of Family Medicine for their contribution to this work.

India is emerging as one of the world’s largest hotspots for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19)—second only to the United States—with more than 13,000,000 documented infections since the first case was recorded on January 30, 2020.^1,2 Kashmir, a northern territory of India, reported its first case of COVID-19 on March 18, 2020, from the central District Srinagar; this region has accounted for more cases of COVID-19 than any other district throughout the pandemic.³ The large majority of healthcare in District Srinagar is provided by three tertiary care institutions, one district hospital, two subdistrict hospitals, and 70 primary healthcare centers. Potential occupational exposures place healthcare workers (HCWs) at higher risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection, which in turn may serve as an important source of infection for their families and other community members.^4-6 Given the high frequency and geographic variability of asymptomatic infection, growing evidence suggests this hidden reservoir is a source of infection for the general population.^7,8

Many countries have started testing for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, both at the population level and in specific groups, such as HCWs. Seroepidemiological studies are crucial to understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many seroepidemiological studies have been conducted among community populations, but there are insufficient data on HCWs. The World Health Organization also encouraged its member states to conduct seroepidemiological studies to attain a better understanding of COVID-19 infection prevalence and distribution.^9-11 Therefore, to quantify the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs, we conducted a seroepidemiological study by testing for SARS-CoV-2–specific immunoglobulin (IgG) to gain insight into the extent of infection among specific subgroups of HCWs and to identify risk-factor profiles associated with seropositivity.

METHODS

Study Design and Settings

We conducted this seroepidemiological study to ascertain the presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. The 2-week period of data collection began on June 15, 2020. As part of healthcare system pandemic preparedness efforts, India’s Ministry of Health provided specific guidelines for health facilities to manage COVID-19. Hospitals were categorized as dedicated COVID and non-COVID hospitals. Dedicated COVID hospitals provided comprehensive care exclusively to patients with COVID-19 and were equipped with fully functional intensive care units, ventilators, and beds with reliable access to oxygen support.¹² In addition, infection prevention and control strategies to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection were implemented according to guidelines specified by India’s National Center for Disease Control.¹³ To strengthen service provision, HCWs from other hospitals, including resident physicians, were relocated to these dedicated COVID hospitals. The additional staff were selected by administrative leadership, without input from HCWs.

Study Population and Data Collection

We approached administrative heads of the hospitals in District Srinagar for permission to conduct our study and to invite their HCWs to participate in the study. As Figure 1 shows, we were denied permission by the administrative heads of two tertiary care hospitals. Finally, with a point person serving as a study liaison at each institution, HCWs from three dedicated COVID and seven non-COVID tertiary care hospitals, two subdistrict hospitals, and six primary healthcare centers across the District Srinagar were invited to participate. The sample primary healthcare centers were each selected randomly, after stratification, from six major regions of the district. All frontline HCWs, including physicians, administrative and laboratory personnel, technicians, field workers involved in surveillance activity, and other supporting staff were eligible for the study.

We collected information on an interview form using Epicollect5, a free data-gathering tool widely used in health research.¹⁴ Physicians specifically trained in the use of Epicollect5 conducted the face-to-face interview on a prespecified day and recorded the collected information through mobile phones. This information included the participants’ role in providing care to patients with COVID-19 and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (eg, history of travel since January 1, 2020, symptoms of an influenza-like illness [ILI] in the 4 weeks prior to the interview, close contact with a COVID-19 case). We defined close contact as an unmasked exposure within 6 feet of an infected individual for at least 15 minutes, irrespective of location (ie, community or the hospital).

Following the interview, trained phlebotomists collected 3 to 5 mL of venous blood under aseptic conditions. We strictly adhered to standard operating procedures during collection, transportation, and testing of blood samples. Following collection, the blood samples remained undisturbed for at least 30 minutes before centrifugation, which was performed at the collection site (or at the central laboratory for sites lacking the capability). The samples were then transported for further processing and testing through a cold chain supply line, using vaccine carriers with conditioned icepacks. All testing procedures were conducted with strict adherence to the manufacturers’ guidelines.

Laboratory Procedure

In accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, we used a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay to detect SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies in serum samples. The assay is an automated two-step immunoassay for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies against the nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2 in human serum and plasma. The sensitivity and specificity of this test are 100% and 99%, respectively. The test result was considered positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG if the index value was ≥1.4, consistent with guidance provided by the manufacturer.¹⁵

The IgG values were also entered into Epicollect5. Two trained medical interns independently entered the laboratory results in two separate forms. A third medical intern reviewed these forms for discrepancies, in response to which they referenced the source data for adjudication. The information gathered during the interview and the laboratory results were linked with the help of a unique identification number, which was generated at the time of the interview.

Statistical Analysis

We estimated the proportion (and logit-transformed 95% CI) of HCWs with a positive SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibody level, the primary outcome of interest. We compared seroprevalence rates by gender, age group, specific occupational group, and type of health facility (dedicated COVID hospital vs non-COVID hospital). Seroprevalence was also estimated separately for HCWs who reported symptoms in the past 4 weeks, had a history of exposure to a known case of COVID-19, or had undergone testing by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In the case of zero seroprevalences, Jeffreys 95% CIs were reported. We used a chi-square test to report two-sided P values for comparison of seroprevalence between groups. When the expected frequency was <5 in more than 20% of the cells, the exact test was used instead of the chi-square test. We additionally performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the independent association between place of work (primary independent variable) and seropositivity (dependent variable). We adjusted for the following observable covariates by including them as categorical variables: age, gender, occupational group, and history of close contact with a patient who was COVID-positive. We performed data analysis using Stata, version 15.1 (StataCorp LP). The Institutional Ethics Committee of Government Medical College, Srinagar, approved the study (Reference No. 1003/ETH/GMC dated 13-05-2020). We obtained written, informed consent from all participants.

RESULTS

Of the 7,346 HCWs we were granted permission to approach, 2,915 (39.7%) agreed to participate in the study. The participation rate was 49% at the dedicated COVID hospitals (57% physicians and 47% nonphysicians) and 39% at the non-COVID hospitals (46% physicians and 36% nonphysicians). We analyzed information gathered from 2,905 HCWs (Epicollect5 interview forms were missing for nine participants, and the laboratory report was missing for one participant).

The mean age of the participants was 38.6 years, and 35.8% of participants identified as female (Table 1). One third (33.7%) of the participants were physicians, nearly half of whom were residents. In our sample, the overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%).

The distribution of the IgG index value among the study participants is shown in Figure 2.

Of the 2,905 participating HCWs, 123 (4.2%) reported an ILI (ie, fever and cough) in the 4 weeks preceding the interview, and 339 (11.7%) reported close contact with a person with COVID-19 (Table 2). A total of 760 (26.2%) HCWs had undergone RT-PCR testing, 29 (3.8%) of whom had a positive result. Stratifying by workplace, history of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR positivity was reported by 4 of 77 (5.1%) participants from dedicated COVID hospitals compared to (3.7%) participants from the non-COVID hospital (P = .528).

As Table 2 also demonstrates, we found a significantly higher seropositivity rate among HCWs who had a history of ILI (P < .001), a history of positive RT-PCR (P < .001), history of ever being put under quarantine (P = .009), and a self-reported history of close contact with a person with COVID-19 (P = .014). Healthcare workers who had ever worked at a dedicated COVID hospital had a significantly lower seroprevalence of infection (P = .004).

Among HCWs who reported no ILI symptoms in the 4 weeks prior to the interview but who had positive RT-PCR test, 20.8% were seropositive. Of HCWs who reported both ILI and a positive RT-PCR test result, 60.0% were seropositive. Compared to employment at a non-COVID hospital, HCWs working in dedicated COVID hospitals had a reduced multivariate-adjusted risk of seropositivity (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.66).

DISCUSSION

We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs in different hospital settings in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. In general, seroprevalence was low (2.5%), with little difference across gender or occupational group.

Seroprevalence studies of HCWs across divergent workplace environments have revealed estimates ranging from 1% to 10.2%.^16-19 Generally, the seroprevalence rates among HCWs are not significantly different from those of the general population, which reflects how different the dynamics of COVID-19 are compared to other infections in healthcare settings. The low seroprevalence observed in our study coincides with the overall low infection rate in the community population. During the study period, District Srinagar reported a median of 28 new infections daily (interquartile range, 17-46), which is indicative of the early phase of the pandemic in the population at the time of the study.²⁰

Among the HCW occupational groups, ambulance drivers and housekeeping staff had the highest seroprevalence rates, followed by nurses and physicians. Possible explanations for higher seropositivity in these groups are improper use or inadequate supply of protective gear and lack of training on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), resulting in increased exposure risk.²¹ Concordance of HCW and community infection rates in specific geographic areas suggests that community exposure may be the dominant source of healthcare exposure and infection. Additionally, careful in-hospital behavior of HCWs in dedicated COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behavior, which may partially explain our finding that employment at dedicated COVID hospitals was associated with a markedly lower chance of seropositivity. A study of 6,510 HCWs in Chicago, Illinois, showed high seropositivity rates among support service workers, medical assistants, and nurses, with nurses identified as having a markedly higher adjusted odds of seropositivity relative to administrators. The authors of the study concluded that exposure in the community setting plays a crucial role in transmission among HCWs.²² Similarly, higher seroprevalence among housekeeping, nonadministrative staff, and other support service staff has been reported elsewhere.²³ Certain underlying factors related to socioeconomic status and lifestyle may also contribute to higher seroprevalence in some occupational groups.²⁴ Nonadherence to masking, social distancing, and proper hand hygiene outside the hospital setting could result in community-acquired infection.

Interestingly, participants who were working in a dedicated COVID hospital or who had ever worked at one had a seroprevalence of 0.6%, much lower than the 2.8% observed among other participants. This difference remained statistically significant after controlling for age, sex, place of work, and occupational group. As these facilities were dedicated to the management and care of patients with COVID-19, the hospital staff strictly adhered to safety precautions, with particular vigilance during patient contact. These hospitals also strictly adhered to infection prevention and control practices based on the latest guidelines released by India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.¹³

A commitment was made to provide adequate PPE to the dedicated COVID hospitals and staff, commensurate with expected infected patient volumes and associated exposure risks. Healthcare workers were specifically trained on proper donning and doffing of PPE, self-health monitoring, and protocols for reporting symptoms and PPE breaches during patient encounters. Healthcare workers were regularly tested for COVID-19 using nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Of critical importance, these hospitals implemented a buddy system wherein a team of two or more staff members was responsible for ensuring each other’s safety, proper PPE use, conformance to other protective measures, and reporting breaches of PPE compliance.²⁵ Universal masking was mandatory for all hospital staff and patients at the COVID-focused facilities, with the additional use of N-95 masks, gloves, and face shields during times of patient contact. Administrative measures, including visitor restrictions and environmental sanitation, were rigorously enforced. Also, being a potentially high-risk area for transmission of infection, these facilities implemented staff-rationing to reduce the duration of exposure to the healthcare staff. Third, the HCWs of COVID-dedicated hospitals were provided with separate living accommodations during the period in which they were employed at a dedicated COVID hospital.

In contrast, in non-COVID hospitals, with the exception of HCWs, patients and the hospital visitors were not subject to a masking policy. Moreover, an adequate and timely supply of PPE was not prioritized at the non-COVID facilities due to resource constraints. Further, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. Though routine infection prevention and control activities were performed at non-COVID hospitals, we did not assess adherence to infection prevention and control guidelines in the two different categories of hospitals. Our results are also supported by evidence from studies conducted in different hospital settings, the findings of which reiterate the importance of fundamental principles of prevention (eg, proper masking, hand hygiene, and distancing) and are of particular importance in resource-limited settings.^17,26,27 The only published study quantifying seroprevalence among HCWs in India was performed in a single hospital setting with separate COVID and non-COVID units. The authors of that study reported a higher seroprevalence among HCWs in the COVID unit. However, this difference seems to be confounded by other factors as revealed by the multivariable analysis result.²³

We found a two-fold higher seroprevalence (4.4%) in HCWs who reported close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Respiratory infections pose a greater health risk to HCWs in an occupational setting. Substantial evidence has emerged demonstrating that the respiratory system is the dominant route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with proximity and ventilation as key predictive factors.²⁸ Globally, among thousands of HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2, one of the leading risk factors identified was close contact with a patient with COVID-19; other identified risk factors were lack of PPE, poor infection prevention and control practices, work overload, and a preexisting health condition.²⁹

The seroprevalence estimate among participants who reported an ILI in the 4 weeks preceding the interview was only 12.2%, suggesting an alternative etiology of these symptoms. Among those who reported a previously positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, only 27.6% showed the presence of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies. The inability to mount an antibody-mediated immune response or early conversion to seronegative status during the convalescence phase has been suggested as an explanation for such discordant findings.³⁰ On the contrary, seropositivity among participants who reported having a negative RT-PCR test was 1.9%. There are few plausible explanations for such observations. First, several studies have reported false-negative result rates from RT-PCR testing ranging from 2% to 29%.^31-33 Second, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 assay is influenced by the timing of the test after the onset of symptoms or RT-PCR positivity. The sensitivity of the assay we used varies from 53.1% at day 7 to 100% at day 17 postinfection.³⁴ Variable viral load and differences in duration of viral shedding are other possible reasons for false-negative RT-PCR results.^35,36

In our study, seroconversion among asymptomatic HCWs who were RT-PCR-positive was 20.8%. Among HCWs who reported an ILI and were RT-PCR-positive, seropositivity was 60%. In one study, 40% of asymptomatic and 13% of symptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19 became seronegative after initial seropositivity—that is, 8 weeks after hospital discharge.³⁷

Serological testing offers insight into both the exposure history and residual COVID-19 susceptibility of HCWs. However, current immunological knowledge does not allow us to conclude that seropositivity conveys high-level immunity against reinfection. As the epidemic evolves, HCWs will continue to be exposed to COVID-19 in the community and the workplace. Serial cross-sectional serosurveys can help monitor the progression of the pandemic within the healthcare setting and guide hospital authorities in resource allocation.

Strengths and Limitations

We used the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, which has exhibited a high level of consistency and performance characteristics when tested in different patient populations. The participation rate was acceptable compared to similar studies, and we included all the major hospitals in the District Srinagar. The findings from our study can therefore be considered representative of the HCWs in the district.

The study results should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. First, information on risk factors for seropositivity were based on participant report. Also, we did not collect information on the timing of symptoms or the date on which a participant became RT-PCR-positive. Second, information regarding place of exposure (ie, community or hospital setting) was not recorded, limiting conclusions regarding the effect of workplace exposures. Third, given the voluntary nature of participation in the study, there is a possibility of selection bias that may have limited the generalizability of our findings. For example, some HCWs with a recent exposure to COVID-19 or those who were symptomatic at the time of the study might not have participated based on the absence of an individual benefit from IgG testing in the early phase of infection. Conversely, some HCWs who had symptoms in the distant past might have been more likely to have participated in the study. However, we believe that selection bias does not vitiate the validity of the associations based on the plausible assumption that infection risk should be similar between respondents and nonrespondents due to comparable work environments. Finally, with a cross-sectional study design, we cannot ascertain the reconversion from an initial positive-IgG to negative-IgG status, which warrants a cohort study.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was low among HCWs of District Srinagar at the time of the study. Healthcare workers in a dedicated COVID hospital or HCWs who had ever worked in such a facility had lower seroprevalence, suggesting both adherence to and effectiveness of standard protective measures during contact with patients who had COVID-19. Nonetheless, the careful in-hospital behavior of the HCWs at the COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behaviors, which lead to community-acquired infection. On the contrary, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. We believe that our findings highlight the value of implementing infection prevention and control measures in the hospital setting. Moreover, training and retraining of sanitation and other housekeeping staff on standard hygienic practices and appropriate use of the protective gear may further help reduce their rates of exposure.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Principal and Dean of the Government Medical College, Srinagar, Professor Samia Rashid, and District Commissioner, Srinagar, Shahid Iqbal Chowdhary for their support. We also acknowledge the support rendered by the Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir; Chief Medical Officer Srinagar; Block Medical Officers; and Zonal Medical Officers of District Srinagar, Kashmir, and extend our appreciation to the medical interns for their efforts in data collection, and to laboratory in-charge Gulzar Ahmad Wani, PhD scholar, Biochemistry, and his staff, who were involved in this study. Finally, we thank the study participants for their understanding of the importance of this study and for their time and participation.

Data availability statement

Data shall be made available on request through the corresponding author.

India is emerging as one of the world’s largest hotspots for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19)—second only to the United States—with more than 13,000,000 documented infections since the first case was recorded on January 30, 2020.^1,2 Kashmir, a northern territory of India, reported its first case of COVID-19 on March 18, 2020, from the central District Srinagar; this region has accounted for more cases of COVID-19 than any other district throughout the pandemic.³ The large majority of healthcare in District Srinagar is provided by three tertiary care institutions, one district hospital, two subdistrict hospitals, and 70 primary healthcare centers. Potential occupational exposures place healthcare workers (HCWs) at higher risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection, which in turn may serve as an important source of infection for their families and other community members.^4-6 Given the high frequency and geographic variability of asymptomatic infection, growing evidence suggests this hidden reservoir is a source of infection for the general population.^7,8

Many countries have started testing for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, both at the population level and in specific groups, such as HCWs. Seroepidemiological studies are crucial to understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many seroepidemiological studies have been conducted among community populations, but there are insufficient data on HCWs. The World Health Organization also encouraged its member states to conduct seroepidemiological studies to attain a better understanding of COVID-19 infection prevalence and distribution.^9-11 Therefore, to quantify the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs, we conducted a seroepidemiological study by testing for SARS-CoV-2–specific immunoglobulin (IgG) to gain insight into the extent of infection among specific subgroups of HCWs and to identify risk-factor profiles associated with seropositivity.

METHODS

Study Design and Settings

We conducted this seroepidemiological study to ascertain the presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. The 2-week period of data collection began on June 15, 2020. As part of healthcare system pandemic preparedness efforts, India’s Ministry of Health provided specific guidelines for health facilities to manage COVID-19. Hospitals were categorized as dedicated COVID and non-COVID hospitals. Dedicated COVID hospitals provided comprehensive care exclusively to patients with COVID-19 and were equipped with fully functional intensive care units, ventilators, and beds with reliable access to oxygen support.¹² In addition, infection prevention and control strategies to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection were implemented according to guidelines specified by India’s National Center for Disease Control.¹³ To strengthen service provision, HCWs from other hospitals, including resident physicians, were relocated to these dedicated COVID hospitals. The additional staff were selected by administrative leadership, without input from HCWs.

Study Population and Data Collection

We approached administrative heads of the hospitals in District Srinagar for permission to conduct our study and to invite their HCWs to participate in the study. As Figure 1 shows, we were denied permission by the administrative heads of two tertiary care hospitals. Finally, with a point person serving as a study liaison at each institution, HCWs from three dedicated COVID and seven non-COVID tertiary care hospitals, two subdistrict hospitals, and six primary healthcare centers across the District Srinagar were invited to participate. The sample primary healthcare centers were each selected randomly, after stratification, from six major regions of the district. All frontline HCWs, including physicians, administrative and laboratory personnel, technicians, field workers involved in surveillance activity, and other supporting staff were eligible for the study.

We collected information on an interview form using Epicollect5, a free data-gathering tool widely used in health research.¹⁴ Physicians specifically trained in the use of Epicollect5 conducted the face-to-face interview on a prespecified day and recorded the collected information through mobile phones. This information included the participants’ role in providing care to patients with COVID-19 and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (eg, history of travel since January 1, 2020, symptoms of an influenza-like illness [ILI] in the 4 weeks prior to the interview, close contact with a COVID-19 case). We defined close contact as an unmasked exposure within 6 feet of an infected individual for at least 15 minutes, irrespective of location (ie, community or the hospital).

Following the interview, trained phlebotomists collected 3 to 5 mL of venous blood under aseptic conditions. We strictly adhered to standard operating procedures during collection, transportation, and testing of blood samples. Following collection, the blood samples remained undisturbed for at least 30 minutes before centrifugation, which was performed at the collection site (or at the central laboratory for sites lacking the capability). The samples were then transported for further processing and testing through a cold chain supply line, using vaccine carriers with conditioned icepacks. All testing procedures were conducted with strict adherence to the manufacturers’ guidelines.

Laboratory Procedure

In accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, we used a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay to detect SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies in serum samples. The assay is an automated two-step immunoassay for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies against the nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2 in human serum and plasma. The sensitivity and specificity of this test are 100% and 99%, respectively. The test result was considered positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG if the index value was ≥1.4, consistent with guidance provided by the manufacturer.¹⁵

The IgG values were also entered into Epicollect5. Two trained medical interns independently entered the laboratory results in two separate forms. A third medical intern reviewed these forms for discrepancies, in response to which they referenced the source data for adjudication. The information gathered during the interview and the laboratory results were linked with the help of a unique identification number, which was generated at the time of the interview.

Statistical Analysis

We estimated the proportion (and logit-transformed 95% CI) of HCWs with a positive SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibody level, the primary outcome of interest. We compared seroprevalence rates by gender, age group, specific occupational group, and type of health facility (dedicated COVID hospital vs non-COVID hospital). Seroprevalence was also estimated separately for HCWs who reported symptoms in the past 4 weeks, had a history of exposure to a known case of COVID-19, or had undergone testing by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In the case of zero seroprevalences, Jeffreys 95% CIs were reported. We used a chi-square test to report two-sided P values for comparison of seroprevalence between groups. When the expected frequency was <5 in more than 20% of the cells, the exact test was used instead of the chi-square test. We additionally performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the independent association between place of work (primary independent variable) and seropositivity (dependent variable). We adjusted for the following observable covariates by including them as categorical variables: age, gender, occupational group, and history of close contact with a patient who was COVID-positive. We performed data analysis using Stata, version 15.1 (StataCorp LP). The Institutional Ethics Committee of Government Medical College, Srinagar, approved the study (Reference No. 1003/ETH/GMC dated 13-05-2020). We obtained written, informed consent from all participants.

RESULTS

Of the 7,346 HCWs we were granted permission to approach, 2,915 (39.7%) agreed to participate in the study. The participation rate was 49% at the dedicated COVID hospitals (57% physicians and 47% nonphysicians) and 39% at the non-COVID hospitals (46% physicians and 36% nonphysicians). We analyzed information gathered from 2,905 HCWs (Epicollect5 interview forms were missing for nine participants, and the laboratory report was missing for one participant).

The mean age of the participants was 38.6 years, and 35.8% of participants identified as female (Table 1). One third (33.7%) of the participants were physicians, nearly half of whom were residents. In our sample, the overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%).

The distribution of the IgG index value among the study participants is shown in Figure 2.

Of the 2,905 participating HCWs, 123 (4.2%) reported an ILI (ie, fever and cough) in the 4 weeks preceding the interview, and 339 (11.7%) reported close contact with a person with COVID-19 (Table 2). A total of 760 (26.2%) HCWs had undergone RT-PCR testing, 29 (3.8%) of whom had a positive result. Stratifying by workplace, history of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR positivity was reported by 4 of 77 (5.1%) participants from dedicated COVID hospitals compared to (3.7%) participants from the non-COVID hospital (P = .528).

As Table 2 also demonstrates, we found a significantly higher seropositivity rate among HCWs who had a history of ILI (P < .001), a history of positive RT-PCR (P < .001), history of ever being put under quarantine (P = .009), and a self-reported history of close contact with a person with COVID-19 (P = .014). Healthcare workers who had ever worked at a dedicated COVID hospital had a significantly lower seroprevalence of infection (P = .004).

Among HCWs who reported no ILI symptoms in the 4 weeks prior to the interview but who had positive RT-PCR test, 20.8% were seropositive. Of HCWs who reported both ILI and a positive RT-PCR test result, 60.0% were seropositive. Compared to employment at a non-COVID hospital, HCWs working in dedicated COVID hospitals had a reduced multivariate-adjusted risk of seropositivity (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.66).

DISCUSSION

We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs in different hospital settings in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. In general, seroprevalence was low (2.5%), with little difference across gender or occupational group.

Seroprevalence studies of HCWs across divergent workplace environments have revealed estimates ranging from 1% to 10.2%.^16-19 Generally, the seroprevalence rates among HCWs are not significantly different from those of the general population, which reflects how different the dynamics of COVID-19 are compared to other infections in healthcare settings. The low seroprevalence observed in our study coincides with the overall low infection rate in the community population. During the study period, District Srinagar reported a median of 28 new infections daily (interquartile range, 17-46), which is indicative of the early phase of the pandemic in the population at the time of the study.²⁰

Among the HCW occupational groups, ambulance drivers and housekeeping staff had the highest seroprevalence rates, followed by nurses and physicians. Possible explanations for higher seropositivity in these groups are improper use or inadequate supply of protective gear and lack of training on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), resulting in increased exposure risk.²¹ Concordance of HCW and community infection rates in specific geographic areas suggests that community exposure may be the dominant source of healthcare exposure and infection. Additionally, careful in-hospital behavior of HCWs in dedicated COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behavior, which may partially explain our finding that employment at dedicated COVID hospitals was associated with a markedly lower chance of seropositivity. A study of 6,510 HCWs in Chicago, Illinois, showed high seropositivity rates among support service workers, medical assistants, and nurses, with nurses identified as having a markedly higher adjusted odds of seropositivity relative to administrators. The authors of the study concluded that exposure in the community setting plays a crucial role in transmission among HCWs.²² Similarly, higher seroprevalence among housekeeping, nonadministrative staff, and other support service staff has been reported elsewhere.²³ Certain underlying factors related to socioeconomic status and lifestyle may also contribute to higher seroprevalence in some occupational groups.²⁴ Nonadherence to masking, social distancing, and proper hand hygiene outside the hospital setting could result in community-acquired infection.

Interestingly, participants who were working in a dedicated COVID hospital or who had ever worked at one had a seroprevalence of 0.6%, much lower than the 2.8% observed among other participants. This difference remained statistically significant after controlling for age, sex, place of work, and occupational group. As these facilities were dedicated to the management and care of patients with COVID-19, the hospital staff strictly adhered to safety precautions, with particular vigilance during patient contact. These hospitals also strictly adhered to infection prevention and control practices based on the latest guidelines released by India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.¹³

A commitment was made to provide adequate PPE to the dedicated COVID hospitals and staff, commensurate with expected infected patient volumes and associated exposure risks. Healthcare workers were specifically trained on proper donning and doffing of PPE, self-health monitoring, and protocols for reporting symptoms and PPE breaches during patient encounters. Healthcare workers were regularly tested for COVID-19 using nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Of critical importance, these hospitals implemented a buddy system wherein a team of two or more staff members was responsible for ensuring each other’s safety, proper PPE use, conformance to other protective measures, and reporting breaches of PPE compliance.²⁵ Universal masking was mandatory for all hospital staff and patients at the COVID-focused facilities, with the additional use of N-95 masks, gloves, and face shields during times of patient contact. Administrative measures, including visitor restrictions and environmental sanitation, were rigorously enforced. Also, being a potentially high-risk area for transmission of infection, these facilities implemented staff-rationing to reduce the duration of exposure to the healthcare staff. Third, the HCWs of COVID-dedicated hospitals were provided with separate living accommodations during the period in which they were employed at a dedicated COVID hospital.

In contrast, in non-COVID hospitals, with the exception of HCWs, patients and the hospital visitors were not subject to a masking policy. Moreover, an adequate and timely supply of PPE was not prioritized at the non-COVID facilities due to resource constraints. Further, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. Though routine infection prevention and control activities were performed at non-COVID hospitals, we did not assess adherence to infection prevention and control guidelines in the two different categories of hospitals. Our results are also supported by evidence from studies conducted in different hospital settings, the findings of which reiterate the importance of fundamental principles of prevention (eg, proper masking, hand hygiene, and distancing) and are of particular importance in resource-limited settings.^17,26,27 The only published study quantifying seroprevalence among HCWs in India was performed in a single hospital setting with separate COVID and non-COVID units. The authors of that study reported a higher seroprevalence among HCWs in the COVID unit. However, this difference seems to be confounded by other factors as revealed by the multivariable analysis result.²³

We found a two-fold higher seroprevalence (4.4%) in HCWs who reported close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Respiratory infections pose a greater health risk to HCWs in an occupational setting. Substantial evidence has emerged demonstrating that the respiratory system is the dominant route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with proximity and ventilation as key predictive factors.²⁸ Globally, among thousands of HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2, one of the leading risk factors identified was close contact with a patient with COVID-19; other identified risk factors were lack of PPE, poor infection prevention and control practices, work overload, and a preexisting health condition.²⁹

The seroprevalence estimate among participants who reported an ILI in the 4 weeks preceding the interview was only 12.2%, suggesting an alternative etiology of these symptoms. Among those who reported a previously positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, only 27.6% showed the presence of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies. The inability to mount an antibody-mediated immune response or early conversion to seronegative status during the convalescence phase has been suggested as an explanation for such discordant findings.³⁰ On the contrary, seropositivity among participants who reported having a negative RT-PCR test was 1.9%. There are few plausible explanations for such observations. First, several studies have reported false-negative result rates from RT-PCR testing ranging from 2% to 29%.^31-33 Second, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 assay is influenced by the timing of the test after the onset of symptoms or RT-PCR positivity. The sensitivity of the assay we used varies from 53.1% at day 7 to 100% at day 17 postinfection.³⁴ Variable viral load and differences in duration of viral shedding are other possible reasons for false-negative RT-PCR results.^35,36

In our study, seroconversion among asymptomatic HCWs who were RT-PCR-positive was 20.8%. Among HCWs who reported an ILI and were RT-PCR-positive, seropositivity was 60%. In one study, 40% of asymptomatic and 13% of symptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19 became seronegative after initial seropositivity—that is, 8 weeks after hospital discharge.³⁷

Serological testing offers insight into both the exposure history and residual COVID-19 susceptibility of HCWs. However, current immunological knowledge does not allow us to conclude that seropositivity conveys high-level immunity against reinfection. As the epidemic evolves, HCWs will continue to be exposed to COVID-19 in the community and the workplace. Serial cross-sectional serosurveys can help monitor the progression of the pandemic within the healthcare setting and guide hospital authorities in resource allocation.

Strengths and Limitations

We used the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, which has exhibited a high level of consistency and performance characteristics when tested in different patient populations. The participation rate was acceptable compared to similar studies, and we included all the major hospitals in the District Srinagar. The findings from our study can therefore be considered representative of the HCWs in the district.

The study results should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. First, information on risk factors for seropositivity were based on participant report. Also, we did not collect information on the timing of symptoms or the date on which a participant became RT-PCR-positive. Second, information regarding place of exposure (ie, community or hospital setting) was not recorded, limiting conclusions regarding the effect of workplace exposures. Third, given the voluntary nature of participation in the study, there is a possibility of selection bias that may have limited the generalizability of our findings. For example, some HCWs with a recent exposure to COVID-19 or those who were symptomatic at the time of the study might not have participated based on the absence of an individual benefit from IgG testing in the early phase of infection. Conversely, some HCWs who had symptoms in the distant past might have been more likely to have participated in the study. However, we believe that selection bias does not vitiate the validity of the associations based on the plausible assumption that infection risk should be similar between respondents and nonrespondents due to comparable work environments. Finally, with a cross-sectional study design, we cannot ascertain the reconversion from an initial positive-IgG to negative-IgG status, which warrants a cohort study.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was low among HCWs of District Srinagar at the time of the study. Healthcare workers in a dedicated COVID hospital or HCWs who had ever worked in such a facility had lower seroprevalence, suggesting both adherence to and effectiveness of standard protective measures during contact with patients who had COVID-19. Nonetheless, the careful in-hospital behavior of the HCWs at the COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behaviors, which lead to community-acquired infection. On the contrary, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. We believe that our findings highlight the value of implementing infection prevention and control measures in the hospital setting. Moreover, training and retraining of sanitation and other housekeeping staff on standard hygienic practices and appropriate use of the protective gear may further help reduce their rates of exposure.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Principal and Dean of the Government Medical College, Srinagar, Professor Samia Rashid, and District Commissioner, Srinagar, Shahid Iqbal Chowdhary for their support. We also acknowledge the support rendered by the Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir; Chief Medical Officer Srinagar; Block Medical Officers; and Zonal Medical Officers of District Srinagar, Kashmir, and extend our appreciation to the medical interns for their efforts in data collection, and to laboratory in-charge Gulzar Ahmad Wani, PhD scholar, Biochemistry, and his staff, who were involved in this study. Finally, we thank the study participants for their understanding of the importance of this study and for their time and participation.

Data availability statement

Data shall be made available on request through the corresponding author.

India is emerging as one of the world’s largest hotspots for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19)—second only to the United States—with more than 13,000,000 documented infections since the first case was recorded on January 30, 2020.^1,2 Kashmir, a northern territory of India, reported its first case of COVID-19 on March 18, 2020, from the central District Srinagar; this region has accounted for more cases of COVID-19 than any other district throughout the pandemic.³ The large majority of healthcare in District Srinagar is provided by three tertiary care institutions, one district hospital, two subdistrict hospitals, and 70 primary healthcare centers. Potential occupational exposures place healthcare workers (HCWs) at higher risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection, which in turn may serve as an important source of infection for their families and other community members.^4-6 Given the high frequency and geographic variability of asymptomatic infection, growing evidence suggests this hidden reservoir is a source of infection for the general population.^7,8

Many countries have started testing for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, both at the population level and in specific groups, such as HCWs. Seroepidemiological studies are crucial to understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many seroepidemiological studies have been conducted among community populations, but there are insufficient data on HCWs. The World Health Organization also encouraged its member states to conduct seroepidemiological studies to attain a better understanding of COVID-19 infection prevalence and distribution.^9-11 Therefore, to quantify the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs, we conducted a seroepidemiological study by testing for SARS-CoV-2–specific immunoglobulin (IgG) to gain insight into the extent of infection among specific subgroups of HCWs and to identify risk-factor profiles associated with seropositivity.

METHODS

Study Design and Settings

We conducted this seroepidemiological study to ascertain the presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. The 2-week period of data collection began on June 15, 2020. As part of healthcare system pandemic preparedness efforts, India’s Ministry of Health provided specific guidelines for health facilities to manage COVID-19. Hospitals were categorized as dedicated COVID and non-COVID hospitals. Dedicated COVID hospitals provided comprehensive care exclusively to patients with COVID-19 and were equipped with fully functional intensive care units, ventilators, and beds with reliable access to oxygen support.¹² In addition, infection prevention and control strategies to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection were implemented according to guidelines specified by India’s National Center for Disease Control.¹³ To strengthen service provision, HCWs from other hospitals, including resident physicians, were relocated to these dedicated COVID hospitals. The additional staff were selected by administrative leadership, without input from HCWs.

Study Population and Data Collection

We approached administrative heads of the hospitals in District Srinagar for permission to conduct our study and to invite their HCWs to participate in the study. As Figure 1 shows, we were denied permission by the administrative heads of two tertiary care hospitals. Finally, with a point person serving as a study liaison at each institution, HCWs from three dedicated COVID and seven non-COVID tertiary care hospitals, two subdistrict hospitals, and six primary healthcare centers across the District Srinagar were invited to participate. The sample primary healthcare centers were each selected randomly, after stratification, from six major regions of the district. All frontline HCWs, including physicians, administrative and laboratory personnel, technicians, field workers involved in surveillance activity, and other supporting staff were eligible for the study.

We collected information on an interview form using Epicollect5, a free data-gathering tool widely used in health research.¹⁴ Physicians specifically trained in the use of Epicollect5 conducted the face-to-face interview on a prespecified day and recorded the collected information through mobile phones. This information included the participants’ role in providing care to patients with COVID-19 and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (eg, history of travel since January 1, 2020, symptoms of an influenza-like illness [ILI] in the 4 weeks prior to the interview, close contact with a COVID-19 case). We defined close contact as an unmasked exposure within 6 feet of an infected individual for at least 15 minutes, irrespective of location (ie, community or the hospital).

Following the interview, trained phlebotomists collected 3 to 5 mL of venous blood under aseptic conditions. We strictly adhered to standard operating procedures during collection, transportation, and testing of blood samples. Following collection, the blood samples remained undisturbed for at least 30 minutes before centrifugation, which was performed at the collection site (or at the central laboratory for sites lacking the capability). The samples were then transported for further processing and testing through a cold chain supply line, using vaccine carriers with conditioned icepacks. All testing procedures were conducted with strict adherence to the manufacturers’ guidelines.

Laboratory Procedure

In accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, we used a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay to detect SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies in serum samples. The assay is an automated two-step immunoassay for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies against the nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2 in human serum and plasma. The sensitivity and specificity of this test are 100% and 99%, respectively. The test result was considered positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG if the index value was ≥1.4, consistent with guidance provided by the manufacturer.¹⁵

The IgG values were also entered into Epicollect5. Two trained medical interns independently entered the laboratory results in two separate forms. A third medical intern reviewed these forms for discrepancies, in response to which they referenced the source data for adjudication. The information gathered during the interview and the laboratory results were linked with the help of a unique identification number, which was generated at the time of the interview.

Statistical Analysis

We estimated the proportion (and logit-transformed 95% CI) of HCWs with a positive SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibody level, the primary outcome of interest. We compared seroprevalence rates by gender, age group, specific occupational group, and type of health facility (dedicated COVID hospital vs non-COVID hospital). Seroprevalence was also estimated separately for HCWs who reported symptoms in the past 4 weeks, had a history of exposure to a known case of COVID-19, or had undergone testing by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In the case of zero seroprevalences, Jeffreys 95% CIs were reported. We used a chi-square test to report two-sided P values for comparison of seroprevalence between groups. When the expected frequency was <5 in more than 20% of the cells, the exact test was used instead of the chi-square test. We additionally performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the independent association between place of work (primary independent variable) and seropositivity (dependent variable). We adjusted for the following observable covariates by including them as categorical variables: age, gender, occupational group, and history of close contact with a patient who was COVID-positive. We performed data analysis using Stata, version 15.1 (StataCorp LP). The Institutional Ethics Committee of Government Medical College, Srinagar, approved the study (Reference No. 1003/ETH/GMC dated 13-05-2020). We obtained written, informed consent from all participants.

RESULTS

Of the 7,346 HCWs we were granted permission to approach, 2,915 (39.7%) agreed to participate in the study. The participation rate was 49% at the dedicated COVID hospitals (57% physicians and 47% nonphysicians) and 39% at the non-COVID hospitals (46% physicians and 36% nonphysicians). We analyzed information gathered from 2,905 HCWs (Epicollect5 interview forms were missing for nine participants, and the laboratory report was missing for one participant).

The mean age of the participants was 38.6 years, and 35.8% of participants identified as female (Table 1). One third (33.7%) of the participants were physicians, nearly half of whom were residents. In our sample, the overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%).

The distribution of the IgG index value among the study participants is shown in Figure 2.

Of the 2,905 participating HCWs, 123 (4.2%) reported an ILI (ie, fever and cough) in the 4 weeks preceding the interview, and 339 (11.7%) reported close contact with a person with COVID-19 (Table 2). A total of 760 (26.2%) HCWs had undergone RT-PCR testing, 29 (3.8%) of whom had a positive result. Stratifying by workplace, history of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR positivity was reported by 4 of 77 (5.1%) participants from dedicated COVID hospitals compared to (3.7%) participants from the non-COVID hospital (P = .528).

As Table 2 also demonstrates, we found a significantly higher seropositivity rate among HCWs who had a history of ILI (P < .001), a history of positive RT-PCR (P < .001), history of ever being put under quarantine (P = .009), and a self-reported history of close contact with a person with COVID-19 (P = .014). Healthcare workers who had ever worked at a dedicated COVID hospital had a significantly lower seroprevalence of infection (P = .004).

Among HCWs who reported no ILI symptoms in the 4 weeks prior to the interview but who had positive RT-PCR test, 20.8% were seropositive. Of HCWs who reported both ILI and a positive RT-PCR test result, 60.0% were seropositive. Compared to employment at a non-COVID hospital, HCWs working in dedicated COVID hospitals had a reduced multivariate-adjusted risk of seropositivity (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.66).

DISCUSSION

We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs in different hospital settings in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. In general, seroprevalence was low (2.5%), with little difference across gender or occupational group.

Seroprevalence studies of HCWs across divergent workplace environments have revealed estimates ranging from 1% to 10.2%.^16-19 Generally, the seroprevalence rates among HCWs are not significantly different from those of the general population, which reflects how different the dynamics of COVID-19 are compared to other infections in healthcare settings. The low seroprevalence observed in our study coincides with the overall low infection rate in the community population. During the study period, District Srinagar reported a median of 28 new infections daily (interquartile range, 17-46), which is indicative of the early phase of the pandemic in the population at the time of the study.²⁰

Among the HCW occupational groups, ambulance drivers and housekeeping staff had the highest seroprevalence rates, followed by nurses and physicians. Possible explanations for higher seropositivity in these groups are improper use or inadequate supply of protective gear and lack of training on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), resulting in increased exposure risk.²¹ Concordance of HCW and community infection rates in specific geographic areas suggests that community exposure may be the dominant source of healthcare exposure and infection. Additionally, careful in-hospital behavior of HCWs in dedicated COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behavior, which may partially explain our finding that employment at dedicated COVID hospitals was associated with a markedly lower chance of seropositivity. A study of 6,510 HCWs in Chicago, Illinois, showed high seropositivity rates among support service workers, medical assistants, and nurses, with nurses identified as having a markedly higher adjusted odds of seropositivity relative to administrators. The authors of the study concluded that exposure in the community setting plays a crucial role in transmission among HCWs.²² Similarly, higher seroprevalence among housekeeping, nonadministrative staff, and other support service staff has been reported elsewhere.²³ Certain underlying factors related to socioeconomic status and lifestyle may also contribute to higher seroprevalence in some occupational groups.²⁴ Nonadherence to masking, social distancing, and proper hand hygiene outside the hospital setting could result in community-acquired infection.

Interestingly, participants who were working in a dedicated COVID hospital or who had ever worked at one had a seroprevalence of 0.6%, much lower than the 2.8% observed among other participants. This difference remained statistically significant after controlling for age, sex, place of work, and occupational group. As these facilities were dedicated to the management and care of patients with COVID-19, the hospital staff strictly adhered to safety precautions, with particular vigilance during patient contact. These hospitals also strictly adhered to infection prevention and control practices based on the latest guidelines released by India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.¹³

A commitment was made to provide adequate PPE to the dedicated COVID hospitals and staff, commensurate with expected infected patient volumes and associated exposure risks. Healthcare workers were specifically trained on proper donning and doffing of PPE, self-health monitoring, and protocols for reporting symptoms and PPE breaches during patient encounters. Healthcare workers were regularly tested for COVID-19 using nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Of critical importance, these hospitals implemented a buddy system wherein a team of two or more staff members was responsible for ensuring each other’s safety, proper PPE use, conformance to other protective measures, and reporting breaches of PPE compliance.²⁵ Universal masking was mandatory for all hospital staff and patients at the COVID-focused facilities, with the additional use of N-95 masks, gloves, and face shields during times of patient contact. Administrative measures, including visitor restrictions and environmental sanitation, were rigorously enforced. Also, being a potentially high-risk area for transmission of infection, these facilities implemented staff-rationing to reduce the duration of exposure to the healthcare staff. Third, the HCWs of COVID-dedicated hospitals were provided with separate living accommodations during the period in which they were employed at a dedicated COVID hospital.

In contrast, in non-COVID hospitals, with the exception of HCWs, patients and the hospital visitors were not subject to a masking policy. Moreover, an adequate and timely supply of PPE was not prioritized at the non-COVID facilities due to resource constraints. Further, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. Though routine infection prevention and control activities were performed at non-COVID hospitals, we did not assess adherence to infection prevention and control guidelines in the two different categories of hospitals. Our results are also supported by evidence from studies conducted in different hospital settings, the findings of which reiterate the importance of fundamental principles of prevention (eg, proper masking, hand hygiene, and distancing) and are of particular importance in resource-limited settings.^17,26,27 The only published study quantifying seroprevalence among HCWs in India was performed in a single hospital setting with separate COVID and non-COVID units. The authors of that study reported a higher seroprevalence among HCWs in the COVID unit. However, this difference seems to be confounded by other factors as revealed by the multivariable analysis result.²³

We found a two-fold higher seroprevalence (4.4%) in HCWs who reported close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Respiratory infections pose a greater health risk to HCWs in an occupational setting. Substantial evidence has emerged demonstrating that the respiratory system is the dominant route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with proximity and ventilation as key predictive factors.²⁸ Globally, among thousands of HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2, one of the leading risk factors identified was close contact with a patient with COVID-19; other identified risk factors were lack of PPE, poor infection prevention and control practices, work overload, and a preexisting health condition.²⁹

The seroprevalence estimate among participants who reported an ILI in the 4 weeks preceding the interview was only 12.2%, suggesting an alternative etiology of these symptoms. Among those who reported a previously positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, only 27.6% showed the presence of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies. The inability to mount an antibody-mediated immune response or early conversion to seronegative status during the convalescence phase has been suggested as an explanation for such discordant findings.³⁰ On the contrary, seropositivity among participants who reported having a negative RT-PCR test was 1.9%. There are few plausible explanations for such observations. First, several studies have reported false-negative result rates from RT-PCR testing ranging from 2% to 29%.^31-33 Second, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 assay is influenced by the timing of the test after the onset of symptoms or RT-PCR positivity. The sensitivity of the assay we used varies from 53.1% at day 7 to 100% at day 17 postinfection.³⁴ Variable viral load and differences in duration of viral shedding are other possible reasons for false-negative RT-PCR results.^35,36

In our study, seroconversion among asymptomatic HCWs who were RT-PCR-positive was 20.8%. Among HCWs who reported an ILI and were RT-PCR-positive, seropositivity was 60%. In one study, 40% of asymptomatic and 13% of symptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19 became seronegative after initial seropositivity—that is, 8 weeks after hospital discharge.³⁷

Serological testing offers insight into both the exposure history and residual COVID-19 susceptibility of HCWs. However, current immunological knowledge does not allow us to conclude that seropositivity conveys high-level immunity against reinfection. As the epidemic evolves, HCWs will continue to be exposed to COVID-19 in the community and the workplace. Serial cross-sectional serosurveys can help monitor the progression of the pandemic within the healthcare setting and guide hospital authorities in resource allocation.

Strengths and Limitations

We used the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, which has exhibited a high level of consistency and performance characteristics when tested in different patient populations. The participation rate was acceptable compared to similar studies, and we included all the major hospitals in the District Srinagar. The findings from our study can therefore be considered representative of the HCWs in the district.

The study results should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. First, information on risk factors for seropositivity were based on participant report. Also, we did not collect information on the timing of symptoms or the date on which a participant became RT-PCR-positive. Second, information regarding place of exposure (ie, community or hospital setting) was not recorded, limiting conclusions regarding the effect of workplace exposures. Third, given the voluntary nature of participation in the study, there is a possibility of selection bias that may have limited the generalizability of our findings. For example, some HCWs with a recent exposure to COVID-19 or those who were symptomatic at the time of the study might not have participated based on the absence of an individual benefit from IgG testing in the early phase of infection. Conversely, some HCWs who had symptoms in the distant past might have been more likely to have participated in the study. However, we believe that selection bias does not vitiate the validity of the associations based on the plausible assumption that infection risk should be similar between respondents and nonrespondents due to comparable work environments. Finally, with a cross-sectional study design, we cannot ascertain the reconversion from an initial positive-IgG to negative-IgG status, which warrants a cohort study.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was low among HCWs of District Srinagar at the time of the study. Healthcare workers in a dedicated COVID hospital or HCWs who had ever worked in such a facility had lower seroprevalence, suggesting both adherence to and effectiveness of standard protective measures during contact with patients who had COVID-19. Nonetheless, the careful in-hospital behavior of the HCWs at the COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behaviors, which lead to community-acquired infection. On the contrary, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. We believe that our findings highlight the value of implementing infection prevention and control measures in the hospital setting. Moreover, training and retraining of sanitation and other housekeeping staff on standard hygienic practices and appropriate use of the protective gear may further help reduce their rates of exposure.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Principal and Dean of the Government Medical College, Srinagar, Professor Samia Rashid, and District Commissioner, Srinagar, Shahid Iqbal Chowdhary for their support. We also acknowledge the support rendered by the Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir; Chief Medical Officer Srinagar; Block Medical Officers; and Zonal Medical Officers of District Srinagar, Kashmir, and extend our appreciation to the medical interns for their efforts in data collection, and to laboratory in-charge Gulzar Ahmad Wani, PhD scholar, Biochemistry, and his staff, who were involved in this study. Finally, we thank the study participants for their understanding of the importance of this study and for their time and participation.

Data availability statement

Data shall be made available on request through the corresponding author.