MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Complications and severity of COVID-19 in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC): A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry analysis.

2022· article· en· W4403089994 on OpenAlexaff
Vidhya Karivedu, Chih–Yuan Hsu, John F. Deeken, Daniel G. Stover, Daniel W. Bowles, Clara Hwang, Rana R. McKay, Erika Ruíz‐García, Ziad Bakouny, Arielle Sabbah, Elizabeth J. Klein, Peter Paul Yu, Michael Glover, Michael Wotman, Eric B. Durbin, Amit Kulkarni, Sibel Blau, Sigrun Hallmeyer, Trisha M. Wise‐Draper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Head and neck cancer2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)CancerHead and neckInternal medicineOncologySurgeryVirologyOutbreakDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6031 Background: Patients with cancer have worse outcomes from COVID-19 infection. However, the specific impact of COVID-19 on patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) is largely unknown. The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) maintains an international registry (NCT04354701) aimed to investigate the clinical course and complications of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Here, we report severity of COVID-19 and its complications among HNC patients. Methods: The CCC19 registry was queried for patients with HNC and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The co-primary outcomes were severity of COVID-19 illness on an ordinal scale (0: no complications; 1: hospitalized, no oxygen (O2); 2: hospitalized, required O2; 3: ICU admission; 4: mechanical ventilation (MV); 5: death), and severity of complications (mild, moderate, serious). The outcomes were further stratified by demographics, recent treatment (systemic vs local; surgery, radiation (RT) vs systemic), treatment intent (palliative vs curative), and cancer status (remission, responding, stable, progressing). Results: From March 2020 to December 2021, 356 HNC patients were identified. Median age was 65 (interquartile range 58-74), 29% were female, 56% were white, 67% were former or current smokers, 20% had a BMI >30, 15% had an ECOG performance status >2, and 57% had >2 comorbidities. 154 (43%) had no complications, 61 (17%) were hospitalized without O2, 135 (38%) were hospitalized with O2, 50 (14%) required ICU, 32 (9%) required MV, and 74 (21%) died. 88 (25%) had mild, 59 (17%) had moderate, and 132 (37%) had serious complications. 33% of patients who received systemic therapy and 30% who received RT within 3 mo prior to COVID-19 diagnosis died. Mortality was higher in patients receiving palliative when compared to curative intent treatment (44% vs 16%). In addition, 50% of patients with actively progressing cancer, and 45% who had serious complications died. Importantly, 37 (n=12 palliative systemic therapy and n=25 local therapy) patients had a treatment delay due to COVID-19 diagnosis. Conclusions: Our study is the largest cohort to date describing COVID-19 outcomes in HNC patients and suggest a high rate of mortality even in those receiving local and curative intent treatment. Variables stratified by COVID-19 severity. Note: Ordinal levels 3 and 4 not shown due to small case numbers. Characteristics Worst severity of COVID-19 illness 0(N=150)% 1(N=51)% 2(N=60)% 5(N=74)% Complication severityMildModerateSerious 8425<3 1037<10 <8278 <7845 ECOG>2 15 <10 19 52 Obesity (BMI >30) 49 10 25 10 SmokingNeverFormer/current 4938 1216 1419 1921 Treatment intentCurativePalliative 4825 1615 1915 1644 Treatment modalitySystemic therapyLocal therapy 3430 1910 1128 3327 Cancer statusRemission/NEDResponding/stableProgressing 503925 121814 1824<8 121650 Note: Ordinal levels 3 and 4 not shown due to small case number

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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→