Search

Background: The COICA study is an ambispective, observational trial that was conceived to assess the clinical course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in cancer patients. A recently published, population-based, case-control study reported a reduced vaccine efficacy at 3–6 months in cancer patients compared to individuals without cancer. Objectives: The aim of the study was to describe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) outcomes in cancer patients and analyze differences in SARS-CoV-2 outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Methods: Descriptive statistics and frequency counts were used to summarize characteristics of the study population. χ2 test and the log-rank test were used to compare outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: A total of 141 cancer patients (80 males, 61 females) were recruited at two participating Institutions from March 2020 until April 2022 and observed from the time of positive SARS-CoV-2 test to the time of negativization or death. Approximately 35% of patients had been vaccinated at the time of infection with 2 (16 patients) or 3 (33 patients) vaccine doses. Vaccinated patients consistently and significantly showed improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to unvaccinated patients, with CT-diagnosed pneumonia, hospitalization, O2 therapy, and death reported in 0% versus 48.6%, 2.0% versus 15.2%, 0% versus 14.1%, and 0% versus 7.6%, respectively, of assessable patients (p < 0.05). Vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients showed a significantly shorter time to negativization, with a median (95% confidence interval) time of 12 (10–14) versus 20 (17–23) days, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Vaccination consistently improved all COVID-19 outcomes. No death was recorded among vaccinated patients. Additional research is especially warranted to establish optimal timing and patient selection for administration of the fourth vaccination dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cancer aggravates COVID-19 prognosis. Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly frequent in cancer patients, who need to attend hospitals regularly. Since March 2020, all cancer patients having access to the Oncology Unit at the "Andrea Tortora" Hospital (Pagani, Salerno – referred to as "the Hospital") as inpatients or outpatients receiving intravenous therapy have been screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab. The ongoing COICA (COVID-19 infection in cancer patients) study is an ambispective, multicenter, observational study designed to assess the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. The aim of the study presented here was to explore potential differences in COVID-19-related outcomes among screening-detected versus nonscreening-detected SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Methods: The COICA study enrolled cancer patients who had received any anticancer systemic therapy within 3 months since the day they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. The target accrual is 128 patients, and the study was approved by the competent Ethics Committee. Only the subgroup of patients enrolled at the Hospital was considered in this unplanned interim analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of screening-based versus nonscreening-based diagnosis. Results: Since March 15, 2020, until August 15, 2021, a total of 931 outpatients and 230 inpatients were repeatedly screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab at the Hospital. Among these, 71 asymptomatic patients were positive on routine screening and 5 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 outside the institutional screening. Seven patients died because of COVID-19. At univariate analysis, nonscreening- versus screening-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of O2 therapy (OR = 16.2; 95% CI = 2.2–117.1; p = 0.006), hospital admission (OR = 31.5; 95% CI = 3.1–317.8; p = 0.003), admission to ICU (OR = 23.0; 95% CI = 2.4–223.8; p = 0.007), and death (OR = 8.8; 95% CI = 1.2–65.5; p = 0.034). Conclusion: Routine screening with RT-PCR may represent a feasible and effective strategy in reducing viral circulation and possibly COVID-19 mortality in patients with active cancer having repeated access to hospital facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On March 11, 2020, the WHO has declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a global pandemic. As the last few months have profoundly changed the delivery of health care in the world, we should recognize the effort of numerous comprehensive cancer centers to share experiences and knowledge to develop best practices to care for oncological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients as well as physicians must be aware of all these constraints and profound social, personal, and medical challenges posed by the tackling of this deadly disease in everyday life in order to adjust to such a completely novel scenario. This review will discuss facing the challenges and the current approaches that cancer centers in Italy and United States are adopting in order to cope with clinical and research activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) agents were associated with increased risk of several cardiovascular events, while one meta-analysis did not show any significantly increased risk of cardiotoxicity associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) was designed to compare cardiovascular toxicity of anti-VEGF agents plus ICI vs anti-VEGF agents without ICIs. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to include all full papers reporting about phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with solid malignancies randomized to an anti-VEGF agent plus an ICI vs. an anti-VEGF agent without an ICI. Overall incidences of cardiovascular events were compared between these two treatment groups estimating the corresponding odds ratios. This analysis suggests that ICIs may increase the risk of cardiovascular toxicities associated with anti-VEGF therapies. Further research, including real world studies, is warranted. • The pooled analysis showed a statistically significant 45% higher odds of experiencing grade 3–4 hypertension for patients receiving anti-VEGF plus ICI compared to anti-VEGF alone. • Patients receiving the combination of anti-VEGF plus ICI also had significantly higher odds of experiencing various cardiovascular adverse events compared to those receiving anti-VEGF therapy without ICI. • The increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events observed in the combination therapy group highlights the need for careful monitoring of cardiovascular health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]