PURPOSE: SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is a systemic infection. Patients with cancer are immunocompromised and may be vulnerable to COVID-related morbidity and mortality. The objectives of this study were to determine if patients with cancer have worse outcomes compared with patients without cancer and to identify demographic and clinical predictors of morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer.METHODS: We used data from adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to two New York–Presbyterian hospitals between March 3 and May 15, 2020. Patients with cancer were matched 1:4 to controls without cancer in terms of age, sex, and number of comorbidities. Using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test, we compared morbidity (intensive care unit admission and intubation) and mortality outcomes between patients with cancer and controls. Among those with cancer, we identified demographic and clinical predictors of worse outcomes using Cox proportional hazard models.RESULTS: We included 585 patients who were COVID-19 positive, of whom 117 had active malignancy, defined as those receiving cancer-directed therapy or under active surveillance within 6 months of admission. Presenting symptoms and in-hospital complications were similar between the cancer and noncancer groups. Nearly one half of patients with cancer were receiving therapy, and 45% of patients received cytotoxic or immunosuppressive treatment within 90 days of admission. There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity or mortality ( P = .894) between patients with and without cancer.CONCLUSION: We observed that patients with COVID-19 and cancer had similar outcomes compared with matched patients without cancer. This finding suggests that a diagnosis of active cancer alone and recent anticancer therapy do not predict worse COVID-19 outcomes and therefore, recommendations to limit cancer-directed therapy must be considered carefully in relation to cancer-specific outcomes and death.

Phenomenon: Medical students commonly participate in patient care in a variety of different settings. However, a systematic review of patients' attitudes toward medical student participation across specialties has not been performed. Approach: The authors searched 7 databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science) between January 1, 1999, and August 5, 2014. Two authors independently screened the results and selected articles that were written in English, were published in a peer-reviewed journal, and used a structured or semistructured survey or interview to determine patients' attitudes toward medical student participation in their care. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Findings: Fifty-nine studies were included. Average study quality was low. Sixty-one unique evaluation instruments were used, and 34 instruments (56%) lacked validity data. Patient satisfaction was not significantly affected by medical student participation. However, patients' acceptance of medical student participation varied widely between studies and depended on the type of participation. The most common reason for acceptance was a desire to contribute to the education of others, and the most common reason for refusal was concerns about privacy. Minorities were more likely to refuse medical student participation. Patients preferred to be informed before medical students participated in their care. Insights: Patient satisfaction is not significantly affected by medical student participation. However, patient satisfaction may be a poor surrogate marker of patients' acceptance of medical students. Future research should employ validated evaluation instruments to further explore patients' attitudes toward medical student participation.

Outcomes for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients relapsing after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) have been historically poor. We studied outcomes of such patients using data from 4 transplantation centers. Eligibility criteria included adult patients (age ≥18 years) with DLBCL experiencing disease relapse after auto-HCT performed during 2006 to 2015. The time period was stratified into 2 eras (era 1, 2006-2010; era 2, 2011-2015). The primary end point was postrelapse overall survival (PR-OS). Secondary end points were factors prognostic of PR-OS. Of the 700 patients with DLBCL who underwent auto-HCT, 248 (35%) relapsed after auto-HCT. Median PR-OS of all relapsed DLBCL patients after auto-HCT (n = 228) was 9.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-15). Median PR-OS was significantly better for patients in complete (17.8 months; 95% CI, 7.9-41.6) vs partial remission at auto-HCT (7.1 months; 95% CI, 5.4-11; P = .01), those undergoing auto-HCT >1 year (12.8 months; 95% CI, 7.6-24.9) vs ≤1 year after DLBCL diagnosis (6.3 months; 95% CI, 4.5-9.2; P = .01), and those with late (56.4 months; 95% CI, 23.7-∞) vs early relapse (5.9 months; 95% CI, 4.5-8.8; P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, although late relapse (hazard ratio [HR], 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.34; P < .0001) was associated with significantly lower mortality, the risk of mortality increased with age (HR, 1.25 per decade; 95% CI, 1.06-1.48; P = .009). This is the largest study to date to evaluate outcomes of DLBCL patients relapsing after auto-HCT. Our study provides benchmarking for future trials of chimeric antigen receptor T cells and other promising agents evaluating PR-OS after auto-HCT.

Background: Population‐based studies previously showed an improvement in overall survival (OS) for patients with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who received chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab. However, there is limited data (especially at the population level) that show a similar trend in OS improvement, in the most recent time period. We hypothesized that survival for DLBCL patients diagnosed in the United States has continued to improve in recent years and intended to measure outcome improvements.Methods: Using the SEER‐18 registries, we compared the incidence and relative survival rates (RSRs) of DLBCL patients between 2002‐2007 and 2008‐2013 (availability of novel agents, broader use of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation and improvement in supportive care). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess associations between the year of diagnosis and OS while controlling for age, gender, stage, and ethnicity.Results: There were a total of 53 439 patients with DLBCL who were diagnosed between 2002 and 2013. Of these, 25 810 were diagnosed during time period‐1 and 27 629 diagnosed during time period‐2. There was a slight decline in incidence of DLBCL (time period‐1 vs time period‐2), 7.75 (95% CI = 7.66‐7.84) vs 7.43 (95% CI = 7.34‐7.52) cases per 100 000 persons, respectively (P < .0001). Overall, there was a modest improvement in DLBCL RSRs, with 5‐year RSR improving from 61% (time period‐1) to 64% (time period‐2) and the improvement was noted across all subsets of patients. On multivariable analysis, patients diagnosed in time period‐2 had lower mortality relative to time period‐1 (HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.85‐0.89).Conclusions: Our study shows an improvement in the outcomes of DLBCL patients beyond the introduction of rituximab, although the magnitude of improvement is small. It will be interesting to see the impact of chimeric antigen receptor‐T cell therapy translating to population‐level survival in the next 5 years.

Key Points: PR-OS of cHL patients has improved in recent years, likely due to incorporation of novel therapies and more effective use of allo-HCT. Future research should focus on earlier integration of novel therapies for patients with refractory disease to improve outcomes further.

Histologic transformation (HT) of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) carries a poor prognosis. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-17 database, we conducted a population-based study of adult patients with transformed follicular lymphoma (t-FL), marginal zone lymphoma (t-MZL), lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström macroglobulinemia (t-LPL/WM), and de novo DLBCL. Primary outcome was relative survival (RS), and secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS). Outcomes were modeled using flexible parametric survival models, while multivariable modeling was used to compare RS, OS, and LSS. The incidence of HT was highest in splenic MZL (SMZL, 6.78%) and lowest in extranodal MZL (EMZL, 1.62%). Median follow-up times were similar for patients with de novo DLBCL and transformed indolent lymphomas. The 5-year RS and OS were longer in de novo DLBCL compared to all other transformed iNHL subtypes (68 versus 59%, respectively). For t-FL, early transformation (within 2 years of diagnosis, Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.34) and prior treatment (HR = 1.89) were associated with inferior survival. This association was not observed in other transformed lymphoma subtypes. This is the first comparative study to show that the outcomes of t-LPL/WM were inferior compared to de novo DLBCL and highlights the need to incorporate early experimental therapies in patients with t-FL with early transformation and receipt of prior chemotherapy.