Desai, Aakash

1503 Background: Patients with cancer and COVID-19 are at risk for poor clinical outcomes. An established multi-site remote patient monitoring (RPM) service was rapidly adapted to support a novel, interdisciplinary COVID-19 program for outpatient management of patients at high-risk for severe illness. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of the RPM program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a multi-site prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC). All adult patients with active cancer – defined as currently receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance – and PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020 were included. RPM was comprised of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nurse and physician oversight. Results: During the study timeframe 224 cancer patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 at MCCC. Initial management included urgent hospitalization (within 48 hours of diagnosis) in 34 patients (15%). Of the remaining 190 patients (85%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.036 to 12.01, P = 0.044). Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity weighting, rates of hospital admission for RPM and non-RPM patients were 3.1% and 11% respectively, implying that RPM was associated with an 8% reduction in hospital admission rate (-0.077; 95% CI: -0.315 to -0.019, P = 0.009). Use of RPM was also associated with lower rates of prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality, though these trends did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In the midst of a global pandemic associated with inpatient bed, ventilator, and PPE shortages, the RPM program provided an effective strategy for outpatient clinical management and was associated with decreased rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19. This care model enabled simultaneous opportunity to mitigate the increased risks of exposure, transmission, and resource utilization associated with conventional care.

Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care in malignant hematology by clinicians and payers in the US. The level of scientific evidence in NCCN guidelines for malignant hematological conditions has not been recently investigated. We describe the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common hematologic malignancies with regard to recommendations for staging, initial and salvage therapy, and surveillance. Methods: NCCN uses a system of guideline development distinct from other major professional organizations. The NCCN definitions for EC are: category I, high level of evidence such as randomized controlled trials with uniform consensus; category IIA, lower level of evidence with uniform consensus; category IIB, lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement; and category III, any level of evidence but with major disagreement. We compared our results with previously published results from 2011 guidelines. Results: Total recommendations increased by 16.6% from 1160 (2011) to 1353 (2020). Of the 1353 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 5%, 91%, 4%, 1% while in 2011 they were 3%, 93%, 4% and 0% respectively. Recommendations with category 1 EC were found in all guidelines, except for Burkitt's Lymphoma. 6.3% of therapeutic recommendations were category 1 EC with the majority (56.4%) pertaining to initial therapy. Guidelines with highest proportions of therapeutic recommendations with category 1 EC were Multiple Myeloma (12.4%), CLL/SLL (6.9%) and AML (5.6%). Between 2011 and 2020, the proportion of category I recommendations increased significantly only in Follicular lymphoma and CLL/SLL. No category 1 EC recommendations existed in staging or surveillance. Conclusion: Recommendations issued in the 2020 NCCN guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence but with uniform expert opinion. Despite the major advances in hematology in the past decade, this is largely unchanged. Our study underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand the current evidence base in malignant hematological disorders which forms the platform for clinical practice guidelines. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background Heterogeneous evidence exists on the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) on the clinical outcomes of patients with cancer. Methods A systematic review was performed using the Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases and the World Health Organization Novel Coronavirus website to identify studies that reported mortality and characteristics of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID‐19. The primary study outcome was mortality, defined as all‐cause mortality or in‐hospital mortality within 30 days of initial COVID‐19 diagnosis. The pooled proportion of mortality was estimated using a random‐effects model, and study‐level moderators of heterogeneity were assessed through subgroup analysis and metaregression. Results Among 2922 patients from 13 primarily inpatient studies of individuals with COVID‐19 and cancer, the pooled 30‐day mortality rate was 30% (95% CI, 25%‐35%). The overall pooled 30‐day mortality rate among 624 patients from 5 studies that included a mixture of inpatient and outpatient populations was 15% (95% CI, 9%‐22%). Among the hospitalized studies, the heterogeneity (I 2 statistic) of the meta‐analysis remained high (I 2 , 82%). Cancer subtype (hematologic vs solid), older age, male sex, and recent active cancer therapy each partially explained the heterogeneity of mortality reporting. In multivariable metaregression, male sex, along with an interaction between the median patient age and recent active cancer therapy, explained most of the between‐study heterogeneity (R 2 , 96%). Conclusions Pooled mortality estimates for hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID‐19 remain high at 30%, with significant heterogeneity across studies. Dedicated community‐based studies are needed in the future to help assess overall COVID‐19 mortality among the broader population of patients with cancer.

AbstractNational Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care, financial reimbursements and quality improvement initiatives in oncology. We studied the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) in the guidelines for the common cancers in the United States. We evaluated the EC categories in staging, therapy and surveillance recommendations in 2019 guidelines and compared them with the same in 2010. The latest 2019 version of NCCN guidelines were obtained. The definitions for various categories of EC used were, Category 1 (high level evidence, uniform consensus), Category 2A (lower level of evidence [LOE], uniform consensus), Category 2B (lower LOE, no uniform consensus but with no major disagreement) and Category 3 (any LOE, major disagreement). We compared our results with previously published results from 2010 guidelines. Total number of recommendations increased by 77% from 1023 (2010) to 1818 (2019). Of the 1818 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 7%, 87%, 6% and 0%, respectively, while in 2010 they were 6%, 83%, 10% and 1%. Breast (30%), lung (10%) and kidney (10%) cancer had the highest proportions of Category 1 therapeutic recommendations in their respective guidelines. No Category 1 recommendations were found in screening or surveillance guidelines or in pancreatic and uterine cancer guidelines. Recommendations in 2019 NCCN guidelines are largely Category 2A (lower levels of evidence, uniform expert opinion), unchanged from the previous study in 2010.