Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are commonly encountered in patients with lymphoma. Several risk assessments models (RAM) had attempted to identify higher risk patients with varying success. The International Prognostic Index (IPI) is a clinicopathological tool developed to help predict both response to treatment and prognosis of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).In this study, we utilize the IPI index to identify group of patients with DLBCL at higher risk for VTE.Patients with pathologically-confirmed diagnosis of DLBCL and with image-confirmed VTE, treated and followed at our institution were included. Rates of VTE was calculated for each risk category.A total of 373 patients, median age 49 (range: 18-90) years were included. VTE were reported in 56 (15.0%) patients; 51 (91.1%) had active disease while 29 (51.8%) were ambulatory at time of VTE diagnosis. VTE rates were particularly high among patients with poor performance status (26.2%, P=0.028) and high LDH (19.0%, P=0.023). Applying the age-adjusted IPI separated patients into two risk categories; VTE were diagnosed in 9.7% in patients with "low and low-intermediate" scores compared to 19.8% in patients with "high and high-intermediate" scores, P=0.020.The original IPI and its modified versions, routinely used at diagnosis as a prognostic and predictive tool for patients with DLBCL, can also be utilized to define high risk patients for VTE; the risk of whom might be high enough to recommend thromboprophylaxis even in the ambulatory settings. More work is needed to refine and improve currently available RAMs.
High neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is linked to poor overall survival (OS) in gastrointestinal tract cancers. This study explores the clinical value of NLR, in addition to absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and other hematologic parameters in association with distant metastases and OS in primary gastric lymphoma (PGL) patients.Clinical data of 139 PGL patients who received treatment at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Amman-Jordan were retrospectively evaluated. Using data from complete blood count (CBC) tests, the following hematologic parameters: absolute neutrophil count (ANC), ALC, absolute eosinophil count (AEC), absolute monocyte count (AMC), NLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) were assessed in association with the following clinical outcomes: presence or absence of baseline distant metastases and OS. We conducted univariate and multivariate analyses assessing the various hematologic parameters in association with distant metastases.Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that patients with an elevated NLR (>3.14) displayed more baseline distant metastases compared to patients with a low NLR (≤3.14), (P value: 0.02 and 0.018, respectively). High baseline ALC (>1,819/µL) was associated with lower baseline distant metastases (P value: 0.04). In the OS analysis, high baseline ANC (>5,100/µL), NLR (>2.75), and PLR (>0.16) were associated with poor OS, (P value: 0.027, 0.016, and 0.011 respectively).High NLR and ALC were associated with baseline distant metastases. High baseline ANC, NLR, and PLR were associated with poor OS. Hematologic parameters might be potentially helpful in assessing and correlating NLR with the response success to treatment in PGL.
Background: The World Health organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic in March of 2020. Many studies have assessed the association between different comorbidities and COVID-19 outcomes. In this overview of reviews, we aim to summarize the association between CKD and different COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: We performed a systematic search through Embase, PubMed, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane as well as preprint databases from January 1, 2020 to January 5, 2021. After searching systematic reviews, we updated the search by identifying primary studies published after August 2020, which was the date of last search in the reviews. We focused on systematic reviews and large primary studies. We followed the GRADE methodology to assess the certainty in effect estimates. Data was pooled based on random effects model. Results: We included a total of 69 systematic reviews and 66 primary studies in our overview. We did not identify any systematic reviews that directly reports on CKD and the risk of contracting COVID-19. There was no convincing difference on the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection in patients with and without CKD in primary studies (OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.76-1.33). CKD is associated with higher risk of COVID-19 related mortality pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.48 (95% CI 1.33-1.65) and pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.77 (95% CI 1.54-2.02)(moderate certainty), hospitalization pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.63 (95% CI 1.03-2.58) (moderate certainty) and disease severity pooled RR 1.56 (95% CI 1.3-1.86) (moderate certainty). Notably, the risk of COVID-19 attributed hospitalization and mortality were higher in patients with more advanced CKD stage. Conclusions: Evidence consistently demonstrated an increased risk of mortality, hospitalization and disease severity in patients with CKD and COVID-19 infection. The results highlight the importance of recognizing patients with CKD as a high-risk group and of prioritizing these patients for COVID-19 prevention strategies including vaccination.
Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.
Chemotherapy may cause ovarian toxicity and infertility. Cancer patients are usually overwhelmed, and focus exclusively on cancer diagnosis and may not pay attention to fertility-related issues. In this paper we look at the rate of amenorrhea and fertility counseling among such young patients.Premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer treated with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy were recruited. Amenorrhea was defined as absence of menstruation for ≥12 months after the completion of chemotherapy.A total of 94 patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in this analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 35.7 (range, 22-44) years. Seventy-nine (85.9%) respondents were counseled about amenorrhea and 37 (40.2%) were considering having children. Long-term amenorrhea was reported by 51 (54.3%) patients. The addition of taxanes to anthracyclines, in 2 different regimens, increased the risk of amenorrhea to 69.2% and 66.7% compared to 38.9% with anthracycline-alone, P < .0001. Longer duration of chemotherapy (≥24 weeks) might also be associated with higher rate of amenorrhea (67.7%) compared to 43.4% in those who had shorter duration (<24 weeks), P = .031.The addition of taxanes to anthracycline-based chemotherapy increased the risk of amenorrhea. However, shorter duration of chemotherapy, even with taxanes, may lower such risk. Our study highlights the importance of fertility counseling to improve fertility preservation rates. Given the importance of taxanes, shorter regimens are associated with lower amenorrhea rates and should be preferred over longer ones.
Women with endometrial carcinomas that express PD-L1 may respond better to immunotherapy. Our aim was to investigate the differential characteristics of PD-L1-positive endometrial carcinomas and the prognostic significance of PD-L1. We performed a retrospective chart review of 231 women with endometrial carcinomas who were managed at King Hussein Cancer Center (2007-2016) and performed immunohistochemistry for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6, p53, and PD-L1. Overall, 89 cases (38.5%) were MMR-deficient. PD-L1 was expressed in 49 cases (21.2%) and its expression was significantly associated with MLH1/PMS2 deficiency (p = 0.044) but not MSH2/MSH6 deficiency (p = 0.59). p53 was mutant in 106 cases (46.5%), and its mutation was significantly associated with MMR proficiency (p < 0.001) but not PD-L1 expression (p = 0.78). In women with endometrioid adenocarcinomas, PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with the Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique (FIGO) grade (p = 0.008). Overall, PD-L1 expression did not significantly predict overall survival in unadjusted or adjusted analyses (p = 0.92 and 0.54, respectively). In conclusion, tumors with MLH1/PMS2 loss and high-grade endometrioid adenocarcinomas were more likely to express PD-L1 in tumor cells. Further research is required to investigate whether the presence of either characteristic signals a higher likelihood of a favorable response if immunotherapy is administered.
Abstract PURPOSE: The Palestinian Ministry of Health (MoH) routinely refers Palestinian patients with cancer to the King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), the largest cancer center in the Middle East. Our aim was to describe the characteristics of these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all Palestinian patients with cancer who were treated at the KHCC during 2018 and 2019. We retrieved data from the Cancer Registry and described the demographic and clinical characteristics of the cohort. RESULTS: Out of 521 Palestinian patients, we excluded 41 patients who were misdiagnosed and included the remaining 480. Most patients were adults ( n = 426, 88.8%). The most common cancer sites in men ( n = 200) were the hematolymphoid system ( n = 47, 23.5%), followed by the digestive system ( n = 35, 17.5%), and lung and pleura ( n = 23, 11.5%). In women ( n = 226), the most common cancer sites were the breast ( n = 104, 46.0%), followed by the digestive system ( n = 34, 15.0%), and hematolymphoid system ( n = 23, 10.2%). Children and adolescents accounted for 11.3% ( n = 54) of the total cases. The hematolymphoid system was the most common cancer site ( n = 27, 50%), followed by the brain ( n = 8, 14.8%). More than a third of all patients presented with distant metastasis. CONCLUSION: The most common cancer sites in our cohort are generally similar to data from the Palestinian territories. Many patients presented with advanced-stage disease, which signals the need for awareness campaigns and screening programs. Cancer is misdiagnosed in many patients with benign tumors, which is a consequence of a shortage in specialists and limited diagnostic equipment.
Background: COVID-19 provided a real challenge for evidence synthesis due to the rapid growth of evidence. We aim to assess the impact of including all studies versus including larger studies only in systematic reviews when there is plethora of evidence. We use a case study of COVID-19 and chronic kidney disease (CKD).Methods: The review team conducted a systematic review of multiple databases. The review assessed the effect of CKD on mortality in patients with COVID-19. We performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of study size on the robustness of the results based on cutoffs of 500, 1000 and 2000 patients.Results: We included 75 studies. Out of which there were 40 studies with a sample size of >2,000 patients, seven studies with 1,000-2,000 patients, 11 studies with 500-1,000 patients, and 17 studies with <500 patients. CKD increased the risk of mortality with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 - 1.73), odds ratio (OR) 1.86 (95%CI 1.64 - 2.11), and risk ratio (RR) 1.74 (95%CI 1.13 - 2.69). Across the three cutoffs, excluding the smaller studies resulted in no statistical significance difference in the results with an overlapping confidence interval.Conclusions: These findings suggested that, in prognosis reviews, it could be acceptable to limit meta-analyses to larger studies when there is abundance of evidence. Specific thresholds to determine which studies are considered large will depend on the context, clinical setting and number of studies and participants included in the review and meta-analysis.