Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials.Significance: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has left patients with current or past history of cancer facing disparate consequences at every stage of the cancer trajectory. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the literature on COVID-19 and cancer, including the immune response to COVID-19, risk factors for severe disease, and impact of anticancer therapies. We also review the latest data on treatment of COVID-19 and vaccination safety and efficacy in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the pandemic on cancer care, including the urgent need for rapid evidence generation and real-world study designs.Significance:. Patients with cancer have faced severe consequences at every stage of the cancer journey due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the field regarding COVID-19 and cancer. We cover the immune response, risk factors for severe disease, and implications for vaccination in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care delivery. Overall, this review provides an in-depth summary of the key issues facing patients with cancer during this unprecedented health crisis.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice. Lung cancer screening has been demonstrated to reduce lung cancer mortality, but its benefits must be weighed against the potential harms of unnecessary procedures, false-positive radiological findings, and overdiagnosis. Individuals at highest risk of lung cancer are more likely to maximize benefits while minimizing harm from screening. Although current lung cancer screening guidelines recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) only consider age and smoking history for screening eligibility, National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other society guidelines recommend screening on the basis of individualized risk assessment including family history, environmental exposures, and presence of chronic lung disease. Risk prediction models have been developed to integrate various risk factors into an individualized risk prediction score. Previous evidence showed that risk prediction model-based screening eligibility could improve sensitivity for detecting lung cancer cases without reducing specificity. Furthermore, recent advances in lung cancer biomarkers have enhanced the performance of risk prediction in identifying lung cancer cases relative to the USPSTF criteria. These risk prediction models can be used to guide shared decision-making discussions before proceeding with lung cancer screening. This study aims to provide a concise overview of these prediction models and the emerging role of biomarker testing in risk prediction to facilitate conversations with patients. The goal was to assist clinicians in assessing individual patient risk, leading to more informed decision making.

PURPOSE: The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the management of patients with cancer. In this pooled retrospective analysis, we describe changes in management patterns for patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 in two academic institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with a current or historical diagnosis of malignancy were identified from the electronic medical record at the University of California, San Francisco, and Stanford University. The proportion of patients undergoing active cancer management whose care was affected was quantified and analyzed for significant differences with regard to management type, treatment intent, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. The duration and characteristics of such changes were compared across subgroups.RESULTS: A total of 131 patients were included, of whom 55 were undergoing active cancer management. Of these, 35 of 55 (64%) had significant changes in management that consisted primarily of delays. An additional three patients not undergoing active cancer management experienced a delay in management after being diagnosed with COVID-19. The decision to change management was correlated with the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, with more delays identified in patients treated with palliative intent earlier in the course of the pandemic (March/April 2020) compared with later (May/June 2020) (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.03 to 17.3; P = .0497). This difference was not seen among patients treated with curative intent during the same timeframe.CONCLUSION: We found significant changes in the management of cancer patients with COVID-19 treated with curative and palliative intent that evolved over time. Future studies are needed to determine the impact of changes in management and treatment on cancer outcomes for patients with cancer and COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Brain metastasis is common in lung cancer, and treatment of brain metastasis can lead to significant morbidity. Although early detection of brain metastasis may improve outcomes, there are no prediction models to identify high-risk patients for brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance. Our goal is to develop a machine learning–based clinicogenomic prediction model to estimate patient-level brain metastasis risk. METHODS: A penalized regression competing risk model was developed using 330 patients diagnosed with lung cancer between January 2014 and June 2019 and followed through June 2021 at Stanford HealthCare. The main outcome was time from the diagnosis of distant metastatic disease to the development of brain metastasis, death, or censoring. RESULTS: Among the 330 patients, 84 (25%) developed brain metastasis over 627 person-years, with a 1-year cumulative brain metastasis incidence of 10.2% (95% CI, 6.8 to 13.6). Features selected for model inclusion were histology, cancer stage, age at diagnosis, primary site, and RB1 and ALK alterations. The prediction model yielded high discrimination (area under the curve 0.75). When the cohort was stratified by risk using a 1-year risk threshold of > 14.2% (85th percentile), the high-risk group had increased 1-year cumulative incidence of brain metastasis versus the low-risk group (30.8% v 6.1%, P < .01). Of 48 high-risk patients, 24 developed brain metastasis, and of these, 12 patients had brain metastasis detected more than 7 months after last brain MRI. Patients who missed this 7-month window had larger brain metastases (58% v 33% largest diameter > 10 mm; odds ratio, 2.80, CI, 0.51 to 13) versus those who had MRIs more frequently. CONCLUSION: The proposed model can identify high-risk patients, who may benefit from more intensive brain MRI surveillance to reduce morbidity of subsequent treatment through early detection.