Dataset Information

Severity of COVID-19 in Cancer patients versus patients without Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: Data are extremely limited with regards to the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients. Our study explored the distinct clinical features of COVID-19 patients with cancer. Experimental Design: 189 COVID-19 patients, including 16 cancer patients and 173 patients without cancer, were recruited. Propensity score 1:4 matching (PSM) was performed between cancer patients and patients without cancer based on age, gender and comorbidities. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and the difference was compared by the log-rank test. Results: PSM analysis yielded 16 cancer patients and 64 propensity score-matched patients without cancer. Compared to patients without cancer, cancer patients tended to have leukopenia and elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and procalcitonin. For those with critical COVID-19, cancer patients had an inferior survival than those without cancer. Also, cancer patients with severe/critical COVID-19 tended to be male and present with low S_PO₂ and albumin, and high hs-CRP, lactate dehydrogenase and blood urea nitrogen on admission compared to those with mild COVID-19. In terms of risk factors, recent cancer diagnosis (within 1 year of onset of COVID-19) and anti-tumor treatment within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis were associated with inferior survival. Conclusions: We found COVID-19 patients with cancer have distinct clinical features as compared to patients without cancer. Importantly, cancer patients with critical COVID-19 were found to have poorer outcomes compared to those without cancer. In the cancer cohort, patients with severe/critical COVID-19 presented with a distinct clinical profile from those with mild COVID-19; short cancer history and recent anti-cancer treatment were associated with inferior survival.

SUBMITTER: Liu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8120166 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Minimally invasive surgery in obese patients is still challenging, so exploring one more item in this research field ranks among the main goals of this research. We aimed to compare short-term postoperative outcomes of open and video-laparoscopic (VL) approaches in CRC obese patients undergoing colorectal resection. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a surgical database including 138 patients diagnosed with CRC, undergoing VL (n = 87, 63%) and open (n = 51, 37%) colorectal surgery. As a first step, propensity score matching was performed to balance the comparison between the two intervention groups (VL and open) in order to avoid selection bias. The matched sample (N = 98) was used to run further regression models in order to analyze the observed VL surgery advantages in terms of postoperative outcome, focusing on hospitalization and severity of postoperative complications, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: The study sample was predominantly male (N = 86, 62.3%), and VL was more frequent than open surgery (63% versus 37%). The two subgroup results obtained before and after the propensity score matching showed comparable findings for age, gender, BMI, and tumor staging. The specimen length and postoperative time before discharge were longer in open surgery (OS) patients; the number of harvested lymph nodes was higher than in VL patients as well (p < 0.01). Linear regression models applied separately on the outcomes of interest showed that VL-treated patients had a shorter hospital stay by almost two days and about one point less Clavien-Dindo severity than OS patients on average, given the same exposure to confounding variables. Tumor staging was not found to have a significant role in influencing the short-term outcomes investigated. Conclusion: Comparing open and VL surgery, improved postoperative outcomes were observed for VL surgery in obese patients after surgical resection for CRC. Both postoperative recovery time and Clavien-Dindo severity were better with VL surgery.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic hepatectomy with those of open hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) using a propensity score matching (PSM) in two university hospital settings.MethodsA patient in the laparoscopic approach (LA) surgery group was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach (OA) group using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. No patients of the LA group were excluded for the matching. Matching criteria included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American society anesthesiologists score, potential co-morbidities, hepatopathies, synchronous or metachronous lesions, size and number of CCLM, preoperative chemotherapy, minor or major liver resections. Intraoperative, postoperative data, and survival were compared in both groups.ResultsFrom January 2012 to January 2015, a total of 242 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, of which 119 for CCLM, namely 101 in the OA group (84.9%) and 18 in the LA group (15.1%). The conversion rate was 5.6% (n=1). The mortality rate was 1% in the OA group and 0% in the LA group. Prior to PSM, there was a statistically significant difference favorable to the LA group regarding operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay and the rate of medical complications. After PSM, there was no difference regarding operative time or length of hospital stay. However, there was a trend towards less blood loss (P=0.066) and fewer medical complications (44.4% vs.16.7%, P=0.07). The R0 resection rate was 94.4% (n=17) in the two groups. In addition, there was no difference regarding overall survival (P=0.358) and recurrence-free survival [HR =0.99 (0.1-12.7); P=0.99].ConclusionsLaparoscopic liver resections for CCLM seem to yield short- and long-term results, which are similar to open hepatectomies, and could well be considered an alternative to open surgery and become the gold standard in carefully selected patients.

Project description:BackgroundLenvatinib is approved for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to its non-inferiority to sorafenib of overall survival (OR) in clinical trials. This study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the real world.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 338 patients with unresectable HCC who had undergone lenvatinib or sorafenib treatment between January 2018 and August 2020. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed with a 1:2 ratio to reduce the real-life baseline difference between the two groups.ResultsA total of 210 patients (Male/Female: 150/60, mean age: 65.8 years) were recruited including 70 patients in the Lenvatinib group and 140 patients in the Sorafenib group. Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (5.2 vs 3.3 months, p=0.019) but similar OR (13.3 vs 11.8 months, p=0.714). Additionally, lenvatinib had better disease control rates (62.3 vs 48.6%, p=0.029) and equivalent incidences of treatment-related adverse events over sorafenib. In multivariate analysis, lenvatinib was associated with better PFS over sorafenib (hazard ratio: 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.3-0.79, p=0.004) after adjustments of albumin-bilirubin grade and alpha-fetoprotein level; however, different agents using lenvatinib or sorafenib did not contribute to OS, whether in univariate or multivariate analysis. Patients who failed lenvatinib had a lower proportion of having sequential systemic therapies compared with the Sorafenib group (36.2 vs 47.8%, p=0.02). The most frequently used sequential therapy following lenvatinib and sorafenib was chemotherapy (n=9, 42.8%) and regorafenib (n=33, 50.8%), respectively.ConclusionsIn clinical real-life practice, lenvatinib illustrated promising survival benefits and acceptable safety for patients with unresectable HCC, while reducing the risk of progression disease compared with sorafenib. Additionally, lack of approved post-lenvatinib systemic therapies is a serious issue in the real world.

Dataset Information

Severity of COVID-19 in Cancer patients versus patients without Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets