Uprety, Dipesh

ABSTRACT Background There has been a lack of updated epidemiological data on the incidence and survival outcomes for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in the United States over the last two decades. Methods A retrospective, population‐based study was conducted utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program to identify patients with SCLC from 2000 to 2020. Trends in cancer incidence, incidence‐based mortality rates, 1‐year relative survival rates and 1‐year observed survival were evaluated utilizing the SEER database. Results The database identified a total of 188,426 SCLC patients during the study period from 2000 through 2020. The age‐adjusted incidence rate slowly declined, on average, by 3% (95% CI: −3.2% to −2.8%) each year from 9 per 100,000 in 2000 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2020. The decline is evident for all age groups, sexes, and races. Incidence‐based mortality also declined slowly from 6.6 in 2005 to 3.5 in 2020. However, survival outcomes, including 1‐year relative survival and 1‐year observed survivals, have not improved significantly over the last two decades. Conclusion This study found that the incidence of SCLC has decreased from 2000 to 2020, likely due to a reduction in smoking rates, underscoring the importance of smoking abstinence. An improvement in incidence‐based mortality is likely related to an enhanced medical care and a decrease in the incidence of SCLC, but the lack of improvement in survival outcomes reflects the need for more effective systemic therapy.

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.

Abstract 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.

9022 Background: Lobectomy is the current standard of care for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is a lack of prospective data on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in patients with negative margins but with high-risk features: lympho-vascular invasion (LVI) or visceral pleural invasion (VPI). We aimed to investigate the benefit of adjuvant CT in patients with pathological stage I NSCLC with high-risk features. Methods: The 2016 National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients with pathological stage I NSCLC (8th edition AJCC staging) diagnosed from 2010-2015 who received lobectomy/pneumonectomy with clear surgical margins. Patients were stratified into high risk (tumor size ≥2 cm with LVI and/or VPI) or low risk group. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matched Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used to compare overall survival between those who received adjuvant CT and those who did not. Results: 34,556 patients were identified with 1114 (3.2%) receiving adjuvant CT. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, high risk tumors (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.25-1.38]) and lack of adjuvant chemotherapy (1.25 [1.09-1.44]) were associated with worse overall survival (OS). Additionally, male sex, age ≥ 60 years, higher comorbidity burden, lack of insurance, low facility volume, low median income, non-squamous histology were associated with worse OS. After propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the high risk subgroup (n = 2923) showed a significant difference in overall survival (OS) between those who received adjuvant CT (n = 1032, 5 year OS, 74.7%; 95% CI, 70.9%-78.0%) and those who did not (n = 1891, 5 year OS, 66.9%; CI, 63.9%-69.6%; p = 0.0002). In patients with no high risk factors for recurrence (n = 384), OS was not significantly different between the patients who received adjuvant CT (n = 78, 5 year OS, 75.8%; CI, 61.3%-85.5%) and those who did not receive adjuvant CT (n = 306, 5 year OS, 77.1%; CI, 70.0%-82.7%; p = 0.3). Conclusions: Our study showed better survival with adjuvant CT in patients with pathological stage I NSCLC who have tumor size greater than 2 cm, LVI and/or VPI.

Background: Primary cutaneous diffuse large B cell lymphoma-leg type (DLBCL-LT) is relatively uncommon lymphoma accounting for about 1 to 3 % of all cutaneous lymphoma and about 10-20% of primary cutaneous B cell lymphomas. There is data for survival outcomes in primary cutaneous B cell lymphoma in general population after introduction of rituximab but little is known about outcomes in DLBCL-LT patients in general population. The available data on survival in DLBCL-LT are from small case series and single institution studies. We conducted this study to evaluate the survival outcome in patients with PCDLBCL-LT after introduction of rituximab. Methods: We utilized SEER 18 database to select adult (18+ years) patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2014 with ICD-3-0 code of 9680/3 (diffuse large B cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified)with localized stage by summary stage 2000 with skin as the primary site of disease to identify patient with DLBCL-LT. Patients were divided into various cohorts based on age (<65 versus 65+ years), sex, race (Caucasians, African American and Others) and median household income of county of residence (< $50,00 versus ≥ $50,000). We utilized SEER*stat to calculate age adjusted incidence rate using 2000 US standard population. Kaplan Meyer curve was utilized to calculate 5-year overall survival. Cox proportional hazard model was used for multivariate analysis of factor associated with survival. Result: A total of 485 patients were identified with DLBCL-LT as the only or first primary cancer case. The median age at diagnosis was 70 years. Its incidence was found to be about 0.09 case per 100,000 population with incidence in males being about 1.6 times that of females. Majority of patient included in our study were males (52 %), older (59.4%), and Caucasians (85.6%). 5-year overall survival was found to be 59%. Older patients were found to have significantly worse 5-year overall survival compared to younger patients with HR of 7.9 with 95% CI of 4.9 to 12.7. There was no disparity in cancer outcome based on race, sex or median income of the county of residence. When we compared the outcome of patients diagnosed in earlier 5 years to later 6 years of the study period, the survival curves almost overlapped suggesting that there has been little if any improvement in outcome in recent years. Conclusion: Our study showed that about 60% of patients with DLBCL-LT live for 5 years in real world setting which is comparable to the outcome reported by other studies on outcome in primary cutaneous B cell lymphoma. Even though this is disease of elderly, as the median age at diagnosis is 70 years, the outcome in older population was found to be significantly worse compared to younger patients. Given this is relatively uncommon disease, we recommend large registry-based studies to try to improve outcome in these patient population. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.