MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3096109600 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-141235

Outcomes of Adult and Pediatric Patients with Hematologic Malignancies and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1847 Patients

2020· review· en· W3096109600 on OpenAlexaff
Abi Vijenthira, Inna Y. Gong, Thomas A. Fox, Stephen Booth, Gordon Cook, Bruno Fattizzo, Fernando Martín‐Moro, Jérôme Razanamahery, John C. Riches, Jeffrey I. Zwicker, Rushad Patell, Marie Christiane Vekemans, Lydia Scarfò, Thomas Chatzikonstantinou, Halil Yıldız, Raphaël Lattenist, Ioannis Mantzaris, William A. Wood, Lisa K. Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalInternal medicinePopulationMalignancyMechanical ventilationCancerHematologic malignancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Clinical outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19 have not been aggregated. We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of death and other important outcomes for these patients. Methods: We searched Pubmed and EMBASE up to July 25, 2020, to identify reports of patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19 (including papers where the patients with hematologic malignancy were a subset of the total study population). The primary outcome was a pooled mortality estimate, considering all patients and only hospitalized patients. Secondary outcomes included pooled estimates for the risk of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and non-invasive ventilation in hospitalized patients. Mortality data were stratified by age, treatment status, and malignancy subtype. For treatment status, "systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT)" was defined as patients on any anti-cancer therapy. "Cytotoxic SACT" was defined as patients on cytotoxic therapy only. "Not on treatment" was defined as patients on observation or those who were at least 28 days beyond their last active treatment. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the primary outcomes limiting to studies with low risk of bias, and to studies including both outpatients and hospitalized patients. Due to data limitations, only the primary outcome was assessed for pediatric studies. Pooled prevalence and risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model using MetaXL and Revman 5.4 software. Results: A total of 25 adult studies and 4 pediatric studies comprising 1847 patients from China, Europe, the United Kingdom, and North America were included (Figure 1 and Table 1). The majority of patients were hospitalized (83%). The overall risk of death amongst all patients was 36% (95% CI 31-41, N=1763), and amongst hospitalized patients was 40% (95% CI 36-45, 24 studies with 1295 patients) (Figure 2). Patients aged >60 years had a significantly higher risk of death than patients <60 years (46% vs. 26%, RR 1.56, 95%CI 1.15-2.13, N=597) (Figure 3). The pooled risk of death in pediatric patients was 4% (95% CI 1-9, N=102) (Figure 2). The risk of ICU admission among hospitalized adult patients was 23% (95% CI 17-29, N=1165); mechanical ventilation 16% (95% CI 12-21, N= 826); and non-invasive ventilation 16% (95% CI 9-26%, N=373). The estimated RR of death among patients on SACT compared to no treatment was 1.22 (95% CI 0.84-1.78; N=457, Figure 3a). The RR of death among patients on cytotoxic SACT versus no treatment was similar at 1.29 (95% CI 0.78-2.15; N=176, Figure 3b). All subgroups of hematologic malignancy had high risks of overall mortality: acquired bone marrow dysfunction syndromes 57% (95% CI 42-72, 11 studies, 42 patients); leukemias 44% (95% CI 31-58, 15 studies, 159 patients), plasma cell dyscrasias 38% (95% CI 29-47, 18 studies, 387 patients); lymphomas (including CLL) 32% (95% CI 26-38, 16 studies, 696 patients); lymphomas (excluding CLL) 32% (95% CI 18-48, 11 studies, 156 patients); CLL 31% (95% CI 24-39, 13 studies, 457 patients); myeloproliferative neoplasms 37% (95% CI 25-49, 9 studies, 62 patients). Sensitivity analysis including only studies with a low risk of bias showed a similar estimate for risk of death among all patients (37% (95% CI 31-42, 20 studies with 1412 patients)) compared to all studies. Sensitivity analysis including only studies reporting on a combination of outpatients and hospitalized patients also showed a similar estimate for risk of death among all patients (38% (95% CI 32-44), 11 studies with 1214 patients) compared to all studies. Conclusion: Adult patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19, especially hospitalized patients, appear to experience a high risk of dying (pooled risk estimate 36%). Older patients experience higher mortality, and pediatric patients appear to be relatively spared. Importantly, based on the observational data available to date, recent cancer treatment does not appear to significantly increase the risk of dying. These data highlight the need for robust strategies to prevent patients with hematologic malignancy from contracting COVID-19, and may help inform discussions about prevention strategies, treatment, and goals of care. Disclosures Cook: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; IQVIA: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Zwicker:Dova: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Portola: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Incyte: Research Funding; Quercegen: Research Funding; Parexel: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; CSL: Consultancy; Pfizer/BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board. Scarfo:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Wood:Pfizer: Research Funding; Best Doctors/Teladoc: Consultancy; Koneksa Health: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elektra Labs: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH Research Collaborative: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding. Hicks:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.032
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→