Dataset Information

Risk of COVID-19 death in cancer patients: an analysis from Guy's Cancer Centre and King's College Hospital in London.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Using an updated dataset with more patients and extended follow-up, we further established cancer patient characteristics associated with COVID-19 death.

Methods

Data on all cancer patients with a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) at Guy's Cancer Centre and King's College Hospital between 29 February and 31 July 2020 was used. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to identify which factors were associated with COVID-19 mortality.

Results

Three hundred and six SARS-CoV-2-positive cancer patients were included. Seventy-one had mild/moderate and 29% had severe COVID-19. Seventy-two patients died of COVID-19 (24%), of whom 35 died <7 days. Male sex [hazard ratio (HR): 1.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-3.38)], Asian ethnicity [3.42 (1. 59-7.35)], haematological cancer [2.03 (1.16-3.56)] and a cancer diagnosis for >2-5 years [2.81 (1.41-5.59)] or ≥5 years were associated with an increased mortality. Age >60 years and raised C-reactive protein (CRP) were also associated with COVID-19 death. Haematological cancer, a longer-established cancer diagnosis, dyspnoea at diagnosis and raised CRP were indicative of early COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (<7 days from diagnosis).

Conclusions

Findings further substantiate evidence for increased risk of COVID-19 mortality for male and Asian cancer patients, and those with haematological malignancies or a cancer diagnosis >2 years. These factors should be accounted for when making clinical decisions for cancer patients.

SUBMITTER: Russell B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8366163 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe professional development of under-represented faculty may be enhanced by mentorship, but we understand very little about the mechanisms by which mentoring brings about change. Our study posed the research question, what are the mechanisms by which mentoring may support professional development in under-represented groups? The study aims to: (i) to pilot a mentoring scheme for female academics; (ii) to compare various health-related and attitudinal measures in mentees at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year into the mentoring relationship and, (iii) to compare pre-mentoring expectations to outcomes at 6 months and 1 year follow-up for mentees and mentors.MethodsFemale academic mentees were matched 1:1 or 2:1 with more senior academic mentors. Online surveys were conducted to compare health-related and attitudinal measures and expectations of mentoring at baseline with outcomes at 6 months and 1 year using paired t-tests and McNemar's test for matched cohort data.ResultsN = 46 mentoring pairs, 44 (96%) mentees completed the pre-mentoring survey, 37 (80%) at 6 months and 30 (65%) at 1 year. Job-related well-being (anxiety-contentment), self-esteem and self-efficacy all improved significantly and work-family conflict diminished at 1 year. Highest expectations were career progression (39; 89%), increased confidence (38; 87%), development of networking skills (33; 75%), better time-management (29; 66%) and better work-life balance (28; 64%). For mentees, expectations at baseline were higher than perceived achievements at 6 months or 1 year follow-up. For mentors (N = 39), 36 (92%) completed the pre-mentoring survey, 32 (82%) at 6 months and 28 (72%) at 1 year. Mentors' highest expectations were of satisfaction in seeing people progress (26; 69%), seeing junior staff develop and grow (19; 53%), helping solve problems (18; 50%), helping women advance their careers (18; 50%) and helping remove career obstacles (13; 36%). Overall, gains at 6 months and 1 year exceeded pre-mentoring expectations.ConclusionsThis uncontrolled pilot study suggests that mentoring can improve aspects of job-related well-being, self-esteem and self-efficacy over 6 months, with further improvements seen after 1 year for female academics. Work-family conflict can also diminish. Despite these gains, mentees' prior expectations were shown to be unrealistically high, but mentors' expectations were exceeded.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore risk factors associated with COVID-19 susceptibility and survival in patients with pre-existing hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) conditions.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingEast London Pancreatic Cancer Epidemiology (EL-PaC-Epidem) Study at Barts Health National Health Service Trust, UK. Linked electronic health records were interrogated on a cohort of participants (age ≥18 years), reported with HPB conditions between 1 April 2008 and 6 March 2020.ParticipantsEL-PaC-Epidem Study participants, alive on 12 February 2020, and living in East London within the previous 6 months (n=15 440). The cohort represents a multi-ethnic population with 51.7% belonging to the non-White background.Main outcome measureCOVID-19 incidence and mortality.ResultsSome 226 (1.5%) participants had confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between 12 February and 12 June 2020, with increased odds for men (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.04) and Black ethnicity (2.04; 1.39 to 2.95) as well as patients with moderate to severe liver disease (2.2; 1.35 to 3.59). Each additional comorbidity increased the odds of infection by 62%. Substance misusers were at more risk of infection, so were patients on vitamin D treatment. The higher ORs in patients with chronic pancreatic or mild liver conditions, age >70, and a history of smoking or obesity were due to coexisting comorbidities. Increased odds of death were observed for men (3.54; 1.68 to 7.85) and Black ethnicity (3.77; 1.38 to 10.7). Patients having respiratory complications from COVID-19 without a history of chronic respiratory disease also had higher odds of death (5.77; 1.75 to 19).ConclusionsIn this large population-based study of patients with HPB conditions, men, Black ethnicity, pre-existing moderate to severe liver conditions, six common medical multimorbidities, substance misuse and a history of vitamin D treatment independently posed higher odds of acquiring COVID-19 compared with their respective counterparts. The odds of death were significantly high for men and Black people.