Outcomes of COVID-19 in Patients With Cancer: A Closer Look at Pre-Emptive Routine Screening Strategies

PURPOSE

The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]).

METHODS

A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19-related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 10⁹/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

Insurance status and survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A National Cancer Database study before and after the Affordable Care Act

6539

Background: The impact of insurance status on survival in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the most common aggressive lymphoma, has not been evaluated after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The aim of this study is to compare overall survival (OS) in patients across insurance status groups and in the periods before and after the ACA. Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL were identified from the National Cancer Database. The analysis was restricted to patients 64 years of age or younger as most patients 65 years or older are eligible for Medicare under the ACA. The 2004-2017 period was chosen to represent the immunochemotherapy era preceding and following the ACA. Logistic regression was used to explore associations between abstracted variables and insurance status groups. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival analysis. Results: 93,692 adults (age < 64 years) with newly diagnosed DLBCL and known insurance status were identified (41.3% female, median age 54 years [range: 18 – 64], 81.8% White and 12.1% Black). 7,211 (7.7%) patients were uninsured, 64,744 (69.1%) had private insurance, 11,936 (12.7%) had Medicaid, and 9,801 (10.5%) had Medicare. When compared to insured patients (private insurance, Medicaid or Medicare), uninsured patients were more likely to have a median household outcome of < $38,000 [OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.79-2.07)], less likely to receive chemotherapy [OR 0.69 (0.64-0.77)], more likely to be male [OR 1.14 (1.07-1.21)], more likely to be non-White [OR 1.30 (1.20-1.40], and more likely to present with stage III or IV disease [OR 1.24 (1.16-1.32)]. Uninsured patients had an inferior OS [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.15-1.27)] when compared to insured patients after adjustment for baseline comorbidity (Charlson-Deyo score ≥2), advanced stage, treatment with chemotherapy, and sociodemographic factors including sex, age, race, household income, facility type (academic/community), and location (urban/rural). With a median follow-up time of 14.8 years (95% CI 14.6-not reached), median OS was lower in uninsured patients [13.4 years (12.3-not reached) vs 14.8 years (14.7-not reached); p < 0.0001]. Despite the lack of major changes in DLBCL therapies, a diagnosis after the implementation of the ACA (in 2010 or later) was associated with a superior OS when compared with the outcomes of patients diagnosed in 2010 or earlier [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.95)]. Similarly, five-year OS was superior in the insured group [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.89-0.96)]. Conclusions: Uninsured patients with DLBCL and < 64 years old had inferior OS when compared with insured patients, and uninsured status emerged as an independent risk factor for inferior OS. Our data highlight the independent effect of insurance disparities - a potential indicator of variations in access to health care - on survival in DLBCL.

Survival trends of older adult patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A National Cancer Database analysis

7542

Background: 60-70% of patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can be cured with R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like immunochemotherapy. However, patients ≥80 years of age were either excluded or underrepresented in modern DLBCL trials, and their outcomes are understudied. The aim of this study is to define the survival trends and risk factors for inferior survival in older adult patients with DLBCL. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2017, representing the rituximab era). Clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes were compared between patients ages ≥ 80, 65-79, and < 65 years. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival analysis. Results: A total of 231,756 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL were identified; 46,250 (20%) were ≥80 years, 87,702 (38%) were 65-79 years, and 97,904 (42%) were < 65 years. Patients ≥80 years were more likely to have a higher Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score (CDS) (CDS ≥2, 12% vs 11% vs 8%, p = 0.001), less likely to receive systemic chemotherapy (63% vs 83% vs 89%, p < 0.001), and more likely to receive treatment at a non-academic center (71% vs 65% vs 48%, p < 0.001), compared to patients 65-79 and < 65 years, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly worse for patients ≥80 years compared to patients 65-79 years (11.6 vs 61.0 months, p = 0.001) and patients < 65 years (11.6 vs 178.1 months, p = 0.001). During the study period, the median OS had only minimally improved for patients ≥80 years (10.6 months in 2004-2007 vs 11.5 months in 2008-2011 vs 12.3 months in 2012-2016, p = 0.006). In contrast, the OS improvement appears more meaningful in patients 65-79 years (median in months: 51 vs 61.2 vs 65.9, p = < 0.001) and patients < 65 years (median in years: 14.6 vs 11.3 vs not reached, p < 0.001) in the prespecified intervals (2004-07, 2008-11, and 2012-16). In multivariate analysis, the most substantial risk factor for worse survival in patients ≥80 years was not receiving systemic therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.26, 95%CI = 3.01-3.54, p = 0.001). Other risk factors associated with worse survival included high-risk IPI score (HR = 2.16, 95%CI = 1.96-2.39, p = 0.001), CDS score ≥2 (HR = 1.56, 95%CI = 1.40-1.73, p = 0.001), male sex (HR = 1.16, 95%CI = 1.09-1.24, p = 0.001), B symptoms at diagnosis (HR = 1.16, 95%CI = 1.08-1.25, p = 0.001), and treatment at a non-academic center (HR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.01-1.20, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Patients ≥ 80 years of age with DLBCL have a significantly inferior survival which has not meaningfully improved in recent years. More than 1/3 of patients ≥ 80 years did not receive systemic therapy. Older adult patients with DLBCL should be assessed for fitness for chemotherapy using validated geriatric assessment tools. Novel therapeutic strategies with favorable safety profiles are urgently needed for this expanding patient population.

Novel Therapies in the Treatment of Hodgkin Lymphoma

OPINION STATEMENT

Patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) can achieve excellent response and survival rates following frontline combination chemo- and radiation therapy. However, about 10-15% of patients will experience disease relapse which is associated with poor outcomes. Recent breakthroughs in understanding the mechanisms of oncogenicity and interactions within the tumor microenvironment have resulted in development of novel drugs for treatment of patients with HL. Utilizing this information, treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed HL has become a rapidly evolving field with multiple clinical trials evaluating novel treatment approaches incorporating targeted immunotherapy. In the frontline setting, the use of novel drugs may allow for de-escalation of therapy to avoid long-term complications associated with bleomycin and consolidation radiation therapy. Patients with early-stage, non-bulky disease are candidates for omitting radiation therapy using treatment combinations that include upfront use of brentuximab vedotin or nivolumab. In patients with advanced disease, the addition of brentuximab vedotin to a chemotherapy backbone is currently the standard of care in our practice, particularly in patients with a contraindication for receiving bleomycin. Future investigations in patients with advanced-stage HL will focus on establishing a new standard of care by comparing brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy (BV-AVD vs. N-AVD) and decreasing the risk of relapse by exploring consolidation therapy in patients with high-risk disease. In patients who have relapsed or are refractory to first-line therapy, salvage treatment has incorporated brentuximab vedotin or PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors to improve response rates of cytotoxic chemotherapy thereby improving the probability of a successful stem cell transplant. Post-transplant consolidation with brentuximab is currently standard of care in patients with high-risk disease. Patients who relapse following autologous stem cell transplant now have an expanded armamentarium of chemo- and immunotherapy options. However, the challenge is to determine the sequence of therapy after prior brentuximab or checkpoint inhibitor exposure.

Abstract S06-03: Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion

Abstract Importance: The benefit of routine screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by routine screening in comparison with those diagnosed based on clinical suspicion or exposure history (non-routine screening). Objective: To describe and compare the outcomes of cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 on routine screening vs. non-routine screening at a multi-site tertiary cancer center. To identify risk factors for COVID-19-related hospital admission. Design: A multi-site prospective observational study was conducted between March 18 and July 31, 2020. Setting: Three major and 5 satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Participants: Adult patients diagnosed with active cancer within the past five years and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Primary Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and laboratory data were assessed as independent variables. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and all-cause mortality. Results: Between March 18 and July 31, 2020, 5452 patients underwent routine screening in the outpatient setting, 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Routine screening detected additional 19 patients from inpatient and pre-procedural settings; 161 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on non-routine screening. The median age of the entire cohort at diagnosis was 54 years, and 95 patients (42.2%) were female. COVID-19 related-hospitalization rate (17.5% vs. 26.7%, p=0.14), ICU admission (1.6% vs. 5.6%, p=0.19), and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.7%, p=0.72) were not significantly different between routine screening and non-routine screening groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio: 4.4, p=0.023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio: 9.2, p=0.002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low based on routine screening. Comparing the outcome with the non-routine screening cohort, there was no significant difference. These results led to an important practice change at our cancer center. We currently follow a testing strategy based on symptoms, exposure, risk factors, and clinical judgment.

Citation Format: Zhuoer Xie, Antoine N. Saliba, Jithma Abeykoon, Umair Majeed, Daniel Almquist, Julia Wiedmeier-Nutor, Evandro Bezerra, Xavier Andrade-Gonzalez, Ashley Hickman, Karl Sorenson, Sagar Rakshit, Christopher Wee, Sri Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Nadine Abdallah, Joshua Pritchett, Mariza De Andrade, Dipesh Uprety, Andrew Badley, Joleen Hubbard, Naseema Gangat, Carrie A. Thompson, Thomas Witzig, Robert R. McWilliams, Konstantinos Leventakos, Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson. Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2021 Feb 3-5. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(6_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-03.