Citations

Abstract Background Cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported to have double the case fatality rate of the general population. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was done for studies on cancer patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions were calculated for categorical variables. Odds ratio (OR) and forest plots (random-effects model) were constructed for both primary and secondary outcomes. Results This systematic review of 38 studies and meta-analysis of 181 323 patients from 26 studies included 23 736 cancer patients. Our meta-analysis shows that cancer patients with COVID-19 have a higher likelihood of death (n = 165 980, OR = 2.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.47 to 4.42), which was largely driven by mortality among patients in China. Cancer patients were more likely to be intubated. Among cancer subtypes, the mortality was highest in hematological malignancies (n = 878, OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.17 to 4.87) followed by lung cancer (n = 646, OR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.00 to 3.37). There was no association between receipt of a particular type of oncologic therapy and mortality. Our study showed that cancer patients affected by COVID-19 are a decade older than the normal population and have a higher proportion of comorbidities. There was insufficient data to assess the association of COVID-19–directed therapy and survival outcomes in cancer patients. Conclusion Cancer patients with COVID-19 disease are at increased risk of mortality and morbidity. A more nuanced understanding of the interaction between cancer-directed therapies and COVID-19–directed therapies is needed. This will require uniform prospective recording of data, possibly in multi-institutional registry databases.

ObjectiveThe aim of this systemic review is to compare different treatments for patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) to inform evidence‐based recommendations for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Vasculitis Foundation (VF) Vasculitis Management Guidelines.MethodsA systemic review was conducted by searching articles in English using OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing PICO questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference.ResultsA total of 729 full‐text articles addressing GPA and MPA PICO questions were reviewed. For remission induction, rituximab was shown to be noninferior to cyclophosphamide (CYC) (odds ratio [OR]: 1.55, moderate certainty of evidence). The addition of plasma exchange to induction therapy in severe disease did not improve the composite end point of death or end stage renal disease (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86 [95% confidence interval CI: 0.65, 1.13], moderate certainty of evidence). In nonsevere disease, methotrexate was noninferior to CYC for induction of remission (remission at 6 months of 90% vs. 94%). For maintenance of remission, methotrexate and azathioprine showed no difference in the risk of relapse over a mean follow‐up of 29 months (HR: 0.92, [95% CI: 0.52, 1.65]low certainty of evidence). As maintenance therapy, rituximab was superior to a tapering azathioprine strategy in major relapse‐free survival at 28 months (HR: 6.61, [95% CI: 1.56, 27.96], moderate certainty of evidence). In two randomized trials, longer‐term azathioprine maintenance therapy (>24 months) is associated with fewer relapses without an increase in adverse events.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and toxicities of different treatment options for GPA and MPA.

Abstract Background The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Methods A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis. Results A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215). Conclusion Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

Abstract Context.—The diagnosis and classification of leukemia is becoming increasingly complex. Current classification schemes incorporate morphologic features, immunophenotype, molecular genetics, and clinical data to specifically categorize leukemias into various subtypes. Although sophisticated methodologies are frequently used to detect characteristic features conferring diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic implications, a thorough microscopic examination remains essential to the pathologic evaluation. Detailed blast immunophenotyping can be performed with lineage- and maturation-specific markers. Although no one marker is pathognomonic for one malignancy, a well-chosen panel of antibodies can efficiently aid the diagnosis and classification of acute leukemias. Objective.—To review important developments from recent and historical literature. General immunohistochemical staining patterns of the most commonly encountered lymphoid and myeloid leukemias are emphasized. The goal is to discuss the immunostaining of acute leukemias when flow cytometry and genetic studies are not available. Data Sources.—A comprehensive review was performed of the relevant literature indexed in PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and referenced medical texts. Additional references were identified in the reviewed manuscripts. Conclusions.—Immunophenotyping of blasts using an immunohistochemical approach to lymphoid and myeloid malignancies is presented. Initial and subsequent additional antibody panels are suggested to confirm or exclude each possibility in the differential diagnosis and a general strategy for diagnostic evaluation is discussed. Although the use of immunohistochemistry alone is limited and evaluation by flow cytometry and genetic studies is highly recommended, unavoidable situations requiring analysis of formalin-fixed tissue specimens arise. When performed in an optimized laboratory and combined with a careful morphologic examination, the immunohistochemical approach represents a useful laboratory tool for classifying various leukemias.

ObjectiveTakayasu’s arteritis (TAK) is a granulomatous large‐vessel vasculitis primarily affecting the aorta and its proximal branches. TAK can be a difficult disease to diagnose and manage given the rarity of the disease as well as current limitations in biomarkers, imperfect imaging modalities, and few randomized controlled trials.MethodsIn developing the American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of TAK, we performed an extensive systematic literature review to guide our recommendations. We included RCTs first. When RCTs were not available, we included observational studies that reported on patient‐important outcomes for the intervention and comparison. When studies with comparative data were not available, we included case series that present patient‐important outcomes for either the intervention or the comparison.ResultsThree hundred forty‐seven articles were included for full review to answer 27 population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions related to TAK. Ten studies were evaluated that addressed the use of glucocorticoids (GCs), non‐GC nonbiologic therapies, as well as biologics in treating TAK. A total of 33 studies, including 8 comparative studies, were included to determine the test accuracy of commonly available diagnostic tests for TAK.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and harms of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the management of TAK.

ObjectiveThe object of this study was to analyze the benefits and harms of different treatment options and to analyze test accuracy used in the evaluation of patients with primary systemic polyarteritis nodosa (PAN).MethodsA systematic search of published English‐language literature was performed in Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from the inception of each database through August 2019. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference.ResultsOf 137 articles selected for data abstraction, we analyzed 21 observational studies and seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The results showed indirect evidence that a deep skin biopsy provides good diagnostic accuracy. A combined nerve and muscle biopsy should be obtained for patients with PAN with peripheral neuropathy. Cyclophosphamide with high‐dose glucocorticoids (GCs) is effective as an induction treatment for newly diagnosed active and severe PAN. GC monotherapy is adequate in the majority of patients with nonsevere PAN, although it has a high relapse rate with GC taper. There was insufficient data in determining the optimal duration of non‐GC and GC maintenance therapy. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are effective treatment for patients with deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2 (DADA2) with stroke and vasculitis manifestations.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the harms and benefits of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the diagnosis of systemic PAN. Data for diagnosis and management of PAN and DADA2 are mostly limited to observational studies. More high‐quality RCTs are needed.

ObjectiveEosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is part of a group of vasculitides commonly referred to as antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV), in addition to granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and renal‐limited vasculitis. Patients with EGPA characteristically have asthma and marked peripheral eosinophilia with only approximately 30% to 35% of patients being myeloperoxidase (MPO)‐ANCA positive, distinguishing it from other forms of AAV (1,2). The aim of this systematic review is to support the development of the American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of EGPA.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of the literature for seven forms of primary systemic vasculitis (GPA, MPA, EGPA, polyarteritis nodosa, Kawasaki disease, giant cell arteritis, and Takayasu arteritis). The search was done for articles in English using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing population/patients, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference. Two independent reviewers conducted a title/abstract screen and full‐text review for each eligible study.ResultsThe initial search, conducted in August 2019, included 13 800 articles, of which 2596 full‐text articles were reviewed. There were 190 articles (addressing 34 PICO questions) reporting on the diagnosis and management of EGPA.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the accuracy of commonly used tests for EGPA as well as benefits and toxicities of different treatment options.

Abstract Background: Evidence for aspirin's chemopreventative properties on colorectal cancer (CRC) is substantial, but its mechanism of action is not well-understood. We combined a proteomic approach with Mendelian randomization (MR) to identify possible new aspirin targets that decrease CRC risk. Methods: Human colorectal adenoma cells (RG/C2) were treated with aspirin (24 hours) and a stable isotope labeling with amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) based proteomics approach identified altered protein expression. Protein quantitative trait loci (pQTLs) from INTERVAL (N = 3,301) and expression QTLs (eQTLs) from the eQTLGen Consortium (N = 31,684) were used as genetic proxies for protein and mRNA expression levels. Two-sample MR of mRNA/protein expression on CRC risk was performed using eQTL/pQTL data combined with CRC genetic summary data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR), Colorectal Transdisciplinary (CORECT), Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer (GECCO) consortia and UK Biobank (55,168 cases and 65,160 controls). Results: Altered expression was detected for 125/5886 proteins. Of these, aspirin decreased MCM6, RRM2, and ARFIP2 expression, and MR analysis showed that a standard deviation increase in mRNA/protein expression was associated with increased CRC risk (OR: 1.08, 95% CI, 1.03–1.13; OR: 3.33, 95% CI, 2.46–4.50; and OR: 1.15, 95% CI, 1.02–1.29, respectively). Conclusions: MCM6 and RRM2 are involved in DNA repair whereby reduced expression may lead to increased DNA aberrations and ultimately cancer cell death, whereas ARFIP2 is involved in actin cytoskeletal regulation, indicating a possible role in aspirin's reduction of metastasis. Impact: Our approach has shown how laboratory experiments and population-based approaches can combine to identify aspirin-targeted proteins possibly affecting CRC risk.

Abstract Background: It is not known whether modifiable lifestyle factors that predict survival after invasive breast cancer differ by subtype. Methods: We analyzed data for 121,435 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 67 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium with 16,890 deaths (8,554 breast cancer specific) over 10 years. Cox regression was used to estimate associations between risk factors and 10-year all-cause mortality and breast cancer–specific mortality overall, by estrogen receptor (ER) status, and by intrinsic-like subtype. Results: There was no evidence of heterogeneous associations between risk factors and mortality by subtype (Padj > 0.30). The strongest associations were between all-cause mortality and BMI ≥30 versus 18.5–25 kg/m2 [HR (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19 (1.06–1.34)]; current versus never smoking [1.37 (1.27–1.47)], high versus low physical activity [0.43 (0.21–0.86)], age ≥30 years versus <20 years at first pregnancy [0.79 (0.72–0.86)]; >0–<5 years versus ≥10 years since last full-term birth [1.31 (1.11–1.55)]; ever versus never use of oral contraceptives [0.91 (0.87–0.96)]; ever versus never use of menopausal hormone therapy, including current estrogen–progestin therapy [0.61 (0.54–0.69)]. Similar associations with breast cancer mortality were weaker; for example, 1.11 (1.02–1.21) for current versus never smoking. Conclusions: We confirm associations between modifiable lifestyle factors and 10-year all-cause mortality. There was no strong evidence that associations differed by ER status or intrinsic-like subtype. Impact: Given the large dataset and lack of evidence that associations between modifiable risk factors and 10-year mortality differed by subtype, these associations could be cautiously used in prognostication models to inform patient-centered care.