Background Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness.Methods In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. FindingsOf 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57-76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1•84, 95% CI 1•53-2•21), male sex (1•63, 1•07-2•48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1•60, 1•03-2•47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4•50, 1•33-15•28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3•89, 2•11-7•18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5•20, 2•77-9•77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2•93, 1•79-4•79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0•24, 0•07-0•84) or the US-Midwest (0•50, 0•28-0•90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. Interpretation Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments.

Background Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anti-cancer therapies. Patients and Methods Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between March 17-November 18, 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anti-cancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients). Results 4,966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2,872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse ECOG performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count, high absolute neutrophil count, low platelet count, abnormal creatinine, troponin, LDH, and CRP were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anti-cancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality. Conclusions Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anti-cancer therapies.

IMPORTANCE COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness for many patients. Prior studies have established hematologic cancers as a risk factor associated with particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To our knowledge, no studies have established a beneficial role for anti-COVID-19 interventions in this at-risk population. Convalescent plasma therapy may benefit immunocompromised individuals with COVID-19, including those with hematologic cancers.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of convalescent plasma treatment with 30-day mortality in hospitalized adults with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 from a multi-institutional cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry with propensity score matching evaluated patients with hematologic cancers who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Data were collected between

Background Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) is a cell surface protein that can act as a tumor suppressor or activator, depending upon the level of expression and interaction with the microenvironment and chemokines. DPP4 inhibitors are used to treat diabetes. Methods We conducted this Surveillance Epidemiology and Endpoint Research‐Medicare database study to evaluate the role of DPP4 inhibitors on the overall survival (OS) of diabetic patients diagnosed with colorectal (CRC) and lung cancers. Results Diabetic patients with CRC or lung cancer who were treated with DPP4 inhibitors exhibited a statistically significant survival advantage (hazard ratio [HR] of 0.89; CI: 0.82‐0.97, P = 0.007) that remained significant after controlling for all other confounders. When DPP4 inhibitors were used in combination of metformin which is known to suppress cancer, the survival advantage was even more pronounced (HR of 0.83; CI: 0.77‐0.90, P < 0.0001). Data were then analyzed separately for two cancer types. In the CRC‐only cohort, the use of DPP4 inhibitors alone had a positive trend but did not meet statistically significant threshold (HR of 0.87; CI: 0.75‐1.00, P = 0.055), while the combined use of DPP4 inhibitors and metformin was associated with statistically significant survival advantage (HR of 0.77; CI: 0.67‐0.89, P = 0.003). Similarly, for the lung cancer cohort, use of DPP4 alone was not found to be statistically significant (HR of 0.93; CI: 0.83‐1.03, P = 0.153), whereas lung cancer patients treated with the combination of DPP4 inhibitors and metformin showed statistically significant survival advantage (HR of 0.88; CI: 0.80‐0.97, P = 0.010). Conclusions DPP4 inhibition in CRC and lung cancer is associated with improved OS, which possibly may be due to the effect of DPP4 inhibition on immunoregulation of cancer.

Cluster of differentiation 26 (CD26), also known as dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP4), is a cell surface protein with exopeptidase activity and is expressed by most cell types. CD26/DPP4 is a multifunctional molecule with diverse biological effects, including regulatory effects on tumor growth, invasion and metastasis, and is a potential novel therapeutic target for selected cancers. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed diabetic patients with concurrent advanced airway or colorectal cancer to examine the effect of DPP4-inhibitors on progression-free survival (PFS). We performed a multi-center retrospective review of patients with advanced colorectal or airway (lung, head and neck) cancer and a concurrent diagnosis of diabetes. The control group included patients on metformin and a sulfonylurea, and the study group included patients on metformin and a DPP4 inhibitor. Ninety-six patients were eligible for the study. The cancers progressed in 23.7% of patients treated with DPP4 inhibitors compared to 50.9% of patients in the control group with an odds ratio of 0.303 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.106-0.809] and P=0.010. There was a statistically significant improvement in PFS in the study group as compared to the control group, hazard ratio=0.42 (95% CI: 0.21-0.84) and P=0.014. There was a trend toward improvement in overall survival, although this effect was not statistically significant (P=0.11). Exposure to DPP4 inhibitors in the study group led to higher PFS in patients with advanced colorectal and airway cancers. Additional investigations with larger patient cohorts are needed to validate the relationship between DPP4 inhibition and the clinical outcome of selected malignancies.

BackgroundPost-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder is a well-recognized but rare complication of hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplant. Due to rarity of this disease, retrospective studies from major transplant centers has been the main source to provide treatment guidelines, which are still in evolution. The sample size of this study is among one of the largest study on PTLD till date reported throughout the world.MethodsThis study was performed at University of Florida which is one of the largest transplant center in South East United States. We performed treatment and survival analysis along with univariate and multivariate analysis to identify prognostic factors.ResultsWe reviewed 141 patients diagnosed with PTLD over last 22 years with median follow-up of 2.4 years. The estimated median overall survival of the entire group was 15.0 years. Sub group analysis showed that 5-year overall survival rates of pediatric population were 88% (median not reached). For adults, median OS was 5.35 years while for elderly patients it was 1.32 years. The estimated median OS of patients with monomorphic PTLD was 9.0 years while in polymorphic PTLD was 19.3 years. Univariate analysis identified gender, age at transplant and PTLD diagnosis, performance status, IPI score, allograft type, recipient EBV status, multiple acute rejections prior to PTLD diagnosis, PTLD sub-type, extra-nodal site involvement, immunosuppressive drug regimen at diagnosis, initial treatment best response were statistically significant prognostic factors (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, age at PTLD diagnosis, recipient EBV status, bone marrow involvement, and initial best response were statistically significant prognostic factors (p < 0.05). Surprisingly, use of Rituximab alone as upfront therapy had poor hazard ratio in the cumulative group as well less aggressive PTLD subgroup comprising of early lesions and polymorphic PTLD.ConclusionsOur experience with treatment and analysis of outcomes does challenge current role of Rituximab use in treatment of PTLD. Currently as we define role of immunotherapy in cancer treatment, the role of acute rejections and immunosuppressant in PTLD becomes more relevant as noticed in our study. This study was also able to find new prognostic factors and also verified other known prognostic factors.

BackgroundThe recommendations of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation’s “Choosing Wisely®” initiative recognize the importance of improving the appropriateness of testing behavior and reducing the number of duplicate laboratory tests.ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of an electronic medical record Best Practice Alert (BPA or “pop up”) intervention aimed at reducing duplicate laboratory tests and hospital costs.DesignComparison of the number of duplicated laboratory tests performed on inpatients before and after the intervention.SettingUniversity of Florida Health Shands Hospital, Gainesville, FL, USA, during 2014–2017.InterventionThe electronic medical record intervention was a BPA pop-up alert that informed the ordering physician if a recent identical order already existed along with the “ordering time”, “collecting time”, “resulting time”, and the result itself.Main outcome measuresPercentage change in the number of inpatient duplicate orders of selected clinical biochemistry tests and cost savings from reduction of the duplicates. Student’s t-test and beta-binomial models were used to analyze the data.ResultsResults from the beta-binomial model indicated that the intervention reduced the overall duplicates by 18% (OR=0.82, standard error=0.016, P-value<0.000). Percent reductions in 9 of the 17 tests were statistically significant: serum hemoglobin A1C level, vitamin B12, serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum folate, serum iron, lipid panel, respiratory viral panel, serum thyroid stimulating hormone level, and Vitamin D. Additionally, important cost savings were realized from the reduction of duplicates for each lab test (with the exception of CRP) with an estimated overall savings of $72,543 over 17 months in the post-intervention period.ConclusionsThe present study included all hospital inpatients and covered 17 clinical laboratory tests. This rather simple and low-cost intervention resulted in significant reductions in percentage duplicates of several tests and resulted in cost savings. The study also highlights the role of hospitalists in quality improvement.

Carfilzomib is a second-generation proteasome inhibitor (PI) that is approved for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who failed ≥1 prior lines of therapy. We performed a systematic review of carfilzomib literature with meta-analysis to determine cumulative incidence of cardiotoxicity. After the literature search, we included a total of 29 eligible phase I/II, phase II and phase III clinical trials which used carfilzomib. The cumulative incidence and overall odds ratios (OR) were calculated with random effect model, using 'R' software with metaphor package. A total of 4164 patients with various malignancies were included. The overall estimated cumulative incidence of cardiotoxicity was 8.68% and 4.92%, respectively, for all-grade and high-grade (≥ grade 3) toxicity, which seems higher than other PIs. Compared to control group, the odds of developing cardiotoxicity due to carfilzomib was significantly higher with OR of 2.03 (95% CI: 1.19-3.46, p = .010) and 2.04 (95% CI: 1.31-3.17, p = .002) for all-grades and high grades, respectively. Concomitant immunomodulatory agents seem to increase the risk of cardiotoxicity (high-grade cardiotoxicity 6.45% and 4.34% with and without concomitant immunomodulatory agents, respectively (p = .033)). There was no variation in the incidence of cardiotoxicity among newly diagnosed versus RRMM (p = .38), and high versus standard dose carfilzomib (p = .86).