Citations

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making regarding the pros and cons of early versus delayed interventions for localized skin cancer. Patients at highest risk of COVID‐19 complications are older; are immunosuppressed; and have diabetes, cancer, or cardiopulmonary disease, with multiple comorbidities associated with worse outcomes. Physicians must weigh the patient's risk of COVID‐19 complications in the event of exposure against the risk of worse oncologic outcomes from delaying cancer therapy. Herein, the authors have summarized current data regarding the risk of COVID‐19 complications and mortality based on age and comorbidities and have reviewed the literature assessing how treatment delays affect oncologic outcomes. They also have provided multidisciplinary recommendations regarding the timing of local therapy for early‐stage skin cancers during this pandemic with input from experts at 11 different institutions. For patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, the authors recommend prioritizing treatment, but a short delay can be considered for patients with favorable T1 disease who are at higher risk of COVID‐19 complications. For patients with melanoma, the authors recommend delaying the treatment of patients with T0 to T1 disease for 3 months if there is no macroscopic residual disease at the time of biopsy. Treatment of tumors ≥T2 can be delayed for 3 months if the biopsy margins are negative. For patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, those with Brigham and Women's Hospital T1 to T2a disease can have their treatment delayed for 2 to 3 months unless there is rapid growth, symptomatic lesions, or the patient is immunocompromised. The treatment of tumors ≥T2b should be prioritized, but a 1‐month to 2‐month delay is unlikely to worsen disease‐specific mortality. For patients with squamous cell carcinoma in situ and basal cell carcinoma, treatment can be deferred for 3 months unless the individual is highly symptomatic.

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing cardiac catheterization face risks for embolic and bleeding events, yet information on strategies to mitigate these risks in contemporary practice is lacking. Methods: We aimed to describe the clinical/procedural characteristics of a contemporary cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation on OAC who underwent cardiac catheterization. Use of bleeding avoidance strategies and bridging therapy were described and outcomes including death, stroke, and major bleeding at 30 days and 1 year were compared by OAC type. Results: Of 13 404 patients in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II Registry from 2013 to 2016, 741 underwent cardiac catheterization (139 with percutaneous coronary intervention) in the setting of OAC. The patients’ median age was 71, 61.8% were male, white (87.2%), had hypertension (83.7%), hyperlipidemia (72.1%), diabetes mellitus (31.6%), and chronic kidney disease (28.2%); 20.2% received warfarin while 79.8% received direct acting oral anticoagulant. One third of patients underwent radial artery access, and bivalirudin was used in 4.6%. Bridging therapy was used more often in patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant (16.7% versus10.0%). OAC was interrupted in 93.8% of patients. Patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant were equally likely to restart OAC (58.0% versus 60.7%), had similar use of antiplatelet therapy (44.0% versus 41.3%) after catheterization, and had similar rates of myocardial infarction and death at 1 year, but higher rates of major bleeding (43.3 versus 12.9 events/100 patient years) and stroke (4.9 versus 1.9 events/100 patient years). Conclusions: In a real-world registry of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac catheterization, most cases are elective, performed by femoral access, with interruption of OAC. Bleeding avoidance strategies such as radial artery access and bivalirudin were used infrequently and use of bridging therapy was uncommon. Nearly 40% of patients did not restart OAC postprocedure, exposing patients to risk for stroke. Further research is necessary to optimize the management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac catheterization.

AbstractBackgroundPostmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) is associated with a decreased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. As CRC is a heterogeneous disease, we evaluated whether the association of HT and CRC differs across etiologically relevant, molecularly defined tumor subtypes and tumor location.MethodsWe pooled data on tumor subtypes (microsatellite instability status, CpG island methylator phenotype status, BRAF and KRAS mutations, pathway: adenoma-carcinoma, alternate, serrated), tumor location (proximal colon, distal colon, rectum), and HT use among 8220 postmenopausal women (3898 CRC cases and 4322 controls) from 8 observational studies. We used multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of ever vs never HT use with each tumor subtype compared with controls. Models were adjusted for study, age, body mass index, smoking status, and CRC family history. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsAmong postmenopausal women, ever HT use was associated with a 38% reduction in overall CRC risk (OR =0.62, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.69). This association was similar according to microsatellite instability, CpG island methylator phenotype and BRAF or KRAS status. However, the association was attenuated for tumors arising through the serrated pathway (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.01) compared with the adenoma-carcinoma pathway (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.73; Phet =.04) and alternate pathway (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.72). Additionally, proximal colon tumors had a weaker association (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.80) compared with rectal (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.63) and distal colon (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.66; Phet =.01) tumors.ConclusionsWe observed a strong inverse association between HT use and overall CRC risk, which may predominantly reflect a benefit of HT use for tumors arising through the adenoma-carcinoma and alternate pathways as well as distal colon and rectal tumors.