MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

COVID-19 in patients with gynecologic cancer: A preliminary report from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19).

2022· article· en· W4282021311 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia Beeghly‐Fadiel, Lauren S. Prescott, Erika Ruíz‐García, Clara Hwang, Hannah Heilman, Rana R. McKay, Renée Maria Saliby, Suzie Lau, Gayathri Nagaraj, Matthew Puc, Emese Zsíros, Sumit Shah, Chinmay Jani, Jonathan A. Cosin, Elizabeth S. Nakasone, Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, Marta A. Crispens, Alaina J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCancerIntensive care unitCervical cancerOvarian cancerMechanical ventilationOdds ratioEndometrial cancerLogistic regressionLung cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5508 Background: Limited information exists regarding the severity of short-term outcomes among patients with gynecologic cancer who are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Methods: Patients with gynecologic cancer and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified from the international CCC19 registry. We estimated odds ratios (OR) from ordinal logistic regression for associations with severity of COVID-19 outcomes, defined from least to most severe as hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admittance, mechanical ventilation, and 30-day mortality. Results: Of 842 patients identified, 48% had endometrial cancer, 24% had ovarian cancer, 22% had cervical cancer, and 6% had dual primary/other gynecologic cancers. The majority were from the United States (86%), most were non-Hispanic White (46%), and the median age was 62 years (IQR 52-72). The majority were diagnosed with localized disease (68%); only 18 (2%) and 15 (2%) were fully or partially vaccinated, respectively. In the 3 months prior to COVID-19, 36% had any cancer treatment, with chemotherapy the most common (23%). When diagnosed with COVID-19, most patients were in remission (50%), while 37% had active disease, including 22% with metastatic disease. Most patients presented with typical COVID-19 symptoms (76%); few had a poor ECOG performance status (PS ≥2, 14%). Outcomes included hospitalization (50%), ICU admittance (12%), mechanical ventilation (8%), and death within 30 days of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (10%). In unadjusted models, increasing age (OR: 1.03 1.02-1.04) and Black race (OR 1.91, 1.31-2.77) were associated with increased severity of COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to patients in remission for ≥5 years, those with progressive disease had increased severity (OR 1.88, 1.25-2.82), while those in remission for < 5 years or with stable disease had decreased severity of COVID-19 outcomes (OR 0.55, 0.39-0.76). In multivariable models that included adjustment for age, race, and cancer status, additional factors associated with increased COVID-19 outcome severity included cardiac (OR 1.57, 1.13-2.19) and renal (OR 2.00, 1.33-3.00) comorbidities, an ECOG PS ≥2 (OR 5.15, 3.21-8.27), having pneumonia or pneumonitis (OR 4.08, 2.94-5.66), venous thromboembolism (OR 4.67, 2.49-8.75), sepsis (OR 14.2, 9.05-22.1), or a co-infection within ±2 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 (OR: 4.40, 2.91-6.65); asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severity of outcomes (OR: 0.25, 0.16-0.38). The overall case fatality rate was 15.7%. Conclusions: Patients with gynecologic cancer experience significant morbidity and mortality related to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Age, race, cancer status, co-morbidities, and COVID-19 complications were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes, along the continuum from least to most, of hospitalization, ICU admittance, mechanical ventilation, and 30-day mortality.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→