Background: Cancer and transplant patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of developing severe and even fatal respiratory diseases, especially as they may be treated with immune-suppressive or immune-stimulating drugs. This review focuses on the effects of these drugs on host immunity against COVID-19.

Given the current SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, the availability of reliable information for clinicians and patients is paramount. There have been a number of reports stating that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticosteroids may exacerbate symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, this review aimed to collate information available in published articles to identify any evidence behind these claims with the aim of advising clinicians on how best to treat patients. This review found no published evidence for or against the use of NSAIDs in COVID-19 patients. Meanwhile, there appeared to be some evidence that corticosteroids may be beneficial if utilised in the early acute phase of infection, however, conflicting evidence from the World Health Organisation surrounding corticosteroid use in certain viral infections means this evidence is not conclusive. Given the current availability of literature, caution should be exercised until further evidence emerges surrounding the use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.

In 1987, the first Regional Prostate Cancer Register was set up in the South-East health-care region of Sweden. Other health-care regions joined and since 1998 virtually all prostate cancer (PCa) cases are registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden to provide data for quality assurance, bench marking and clinical research. NPCR includes data on tumour stage, Gleason score, serum level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and primary treatment. In 2008, the NPCR was linked to a number of other population-based registers by use of the personal identity number. This database named Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) has now been extended with more cases, longer follow-up and a selection of two control series of men free of PCa at the time of sampling, as well as information on brothers of men diagnosed with PCa, resulting in PCBaSe 2.0. This extension allows for studies with case-control, cohort or longitudinal case-only design on aetiological factors, pharmaceutical prescriptions and assessment of long-term outcomes. The NPCR covers >96% of all incident PCa cases registered by the Swedish Cancer Register, which has an underreporting of <3.7%. The NPCR is used to assess trends in incidence, treatment and outcome of men with PCa. Since the national registers linked to PCBaSe are complete, studies from PCBaSe 2.0 are truly population based.

Abstract-Observational studies have shown inconsistent results for the association between blood pressure and cancer risk. We investigated the association in 7 cohorts from Norway, Austria, and Sweden. In total, 577799 adults with a mean age of 44 years were followed for, on average, 12 years. Incident cancers were 22184 in men and 14744 in women, and cancer deaths were 8724 and 4525, respectively. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios of cancer per 10-mmHg increments of midblood pressure, which corresponded with 0.7 SDs and, for example, an increment of systolic/diastolic blood pressure of 130/80 to 142/88 mmHg. All of the models used age as the time scale and were adjusted for possible confounders, including body mass index and smoking status. In men, midblood pressure was positively related to total incident cancer (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg increment: 1.07 [95% CI: 1.04 -1.09]) and to cancer of the oropharynx, colon, rectum, lung, bladder, kidney, malignant melanoma, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. In women, midblood pressure was not related to total incident cancer but was positively related to cancer of the liver, pancreas, cervix, uterine corpus, and malignant melanoma. A positive association was also found for cancer mortality, with HRs per 10-mmHg increment of 1.12 (95% CI: 1.08 -1.15) for men and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.02-1.11) for women. These results suggest a small increased cancer risk overall in men with elevated blood pressure level and a higher risk for cancer death in men and women. ypertension accounts for Ϸ5% of the current global disease burden because of increasing longevity and prevalence of contributing factors, such as obesity, physical inactivity, and an unhealthy diet.1 Increasing age and metabolic aberrations related to obesity, for example, hyperglycemia and hypercholesterolemia, have been linked to increased risk of cancer, 2,3 and several lines of evidence also suggest a link between hypertension and cancer risk.4-8 However, there are only a few observational studies of the association between blood pressure (BP) and cancer incidence and mortality, which show inconsistent findings. 9,10In a meta-analysis based on 10 longitudinal studies of in total 47 119 participants, hypertension was related to a 23% increased risk of cancer mortality, 9 and in another study including 17 498 participants, BP was inversely associated with mortality from leukemia and pancreatic cancer but positively associated with mortality attributed to liver and rectal cancer. 11 The association between hypertension and incident cancer has also been found to differ by cancer site. 10These studies were hampered by small study size and/or lack of information on potential confounders, such as smoking habits and obesity. Moreover, assessment of BP on a single occasion entails a substantial random error attributed to measurement error and within-person variation of BP levels.12,13 Such inaccuracy of exposure assessment dilutes the association with outcome, that is, regression dilution bias. 12,14,15 Risk estimates ...

Increased relative risks of nonfatal and fatal CVD were found among all men with PC, especially those treated with ET. Because ET is currently the only effective treatment for metastatic disease and the ARDs were rather small, our findings indicate that CVD risk should be considered when prescribing ET but should not constitute a contraindication when the expected gain is tangible.

Our results support that there should be a solid indication for ADT in men with PCa so that benefit outweighs potential harm; this is of particular importance among men with a recent history of CVD.

We investigated all the available data from observational studies on hormonal treatment for prostate cancer and its possible cardiovascular adverse effects. We found consistent evidence that this treatment may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines.