Skip to main content
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Feb 1;17(5):661–674. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.12.015

A Definitive Prognostication System for Patients With Thoracic Malignancies Diagnosed With Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Update From the TERAVOLT Registry

Jennifer G Whisenant a, Javier Baena b, Alessio Cortellini c,, Li-Ching Huang a, Giuseppe Lo Russo d, Luca Porcu e, Selina K Wong a, Christine M Bestvina f, Matthew D Hellmann g, Elisa Roca h, Hira Rizvi g, Isabelle Monnet i, Amel Boudjemaa i, Jacobo Rogado j, Giulia Pasello k,l, Natasha B Leighl m, Oscar Arrieta n, Avinash Aujayeb o, Ullas Batra p, Ahmed Y Azzam q, Mojca Unk r, Mohammed A Azab s, Ardak N Zhumagaliyeva t, Carlos Gomez-Martin b, Juan B Blaquier u, Erica Geraedts v, Giannis Mountzios w, Gloria Serrano-Montero j, Niels Reinmuth x, Linda Coate y,z, Melina Marmarelis aa, Carolyn J Presley bb, Fred R Hirsch cc, Pilar Garrido dd, Hina Khan ee, Alice Baggi ff, Celine Mascaux gg,hh, Balazs Halmos ii, Giovanni L Ceresoli jj, Mary J Fidler kk, Vieri Scotti ll, Anne-Cécile Métivier mm, Lionel Falchero nn, Enriqueta Felip oo, Carlo Genova pp,qq, Julien Mazieres rr, Umit Tapan ss, Julie Brahmer tt, Emilio Bria uu,vv, Sonam Puri ww, Sanjay Popat xx,yy, Karen L Reckamp zz, Floriana Morgillo aaa, Ernest Nadal bbb, Francesca Mazzoni ccc, Francesco Agustoni ddd, Jair Bar eee, Federica Grosso fff, Virginie Avrillon ggg, Jyoti D Patel hhh, Fabio Gomes iii, Ehab Ibrahim jjj, Annalisa Trama kkk, Anna C Bettini lll, Fabrice Barlesi mmm, Anne-Marie Dingemans nnn, Heather Wakelee ooo, Solange Peters ppp, Leora Horn a, Marina Chiara Garassino f, Valter Torri e; TERAVOLT study group¥
PMCID: PMC8804493  PMID: 35121086

Abstract

Introduction

Patients with thoracic malignancies are at increased risk for mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and a large number of intertwined prognostic variables have been identified so far.

Methods

Capitalizing data from the Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) registry, a global study created with the aim of describing the impact of COVID-19 in patients with thoracic malignancies, we used a clustering approach, a fast-backward step-down selection procedure, and a tree-based model to screen and optimize a broad panel of demographics and clinical COVID-19 and cancer characteristics.

Results

As of April 15, 2021, a total of 1491 consecutive eligible patients from 18 countries were included in the analysis. With a mean observation period of 42 days, 361 events were reported with an all-cause case fatality rate of 24.2%. The clustering procedure screened 73 covariates in 13 clusters. A further multivariable logistic regression for the association between clusters and death was performed, resulting in five clusters significantly associated with the outcome. The fast-backward step-down selection procedure then identified the following seven major determinants of death: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group—performance status (ECOG-PS) (OR = 2.47, 1.87–3.26), neutrophil count (OR = 2.46, 1.76–3.44), serum procalcitonin (OR = 2.37, 1.64–3.43), development of pneumonia (OR = 1.95, 1.48–2.58), C-reactive protein (OR = 1.90, 1.43–2.51), tumor stage at COVID-19 diagnosis (OR = 1.97, 1.46–2.66), and age (OR = 1.71, 1.29–2.26). The receiver operating characteristic analysis for death of the selected model confirmed its diagnostic ability (area under the receiver operating curve = 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.75–0.81). The nomogram was able to classify the COVID-19 mortality in an interval ranging from 8% to 90%, and the tree-based model recognized ECOG-PS, neutrophil count, and c-reactive protein as the major determinants of prognosis.

Conclusions

From 73 variables analyzed, seven major determinants of death have been identified. Poor ECOG-PS was found to have the strongest association with poor outcome from COVID-19. With our analysis, we provide clinicians with a definitive prognostication system to help determine the risk of mortality for patients with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19.

Keywords: COVID-19, Cancer, Thoracic, NSCLC, TERAVOLT, Registry

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory tract infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has had an impact on health care that will be felt for decades to come. The rapid global spread of this unpredictable virus led the WHO to declare a pandemic in March 2020, with more than 219 million confirmed cases and 4.5 million deaths as of September 13, 2021.

Early on it was determined that certain populations, including the elderly and those with underlying comorbidities, were more susceptible to develop severe forms of COVID-19 and experience detrimental outcomes as compared with the general population.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 The initial reports from single institutions reported conflicting data among patients with a cancer diagnosis, which led the oncology community to create registries and determine the true impact of COVID-19 on this vulnerable patient population. As the pandemic spread, the data identified prognostic factors, including patient demographics, comorbidities and concomitant medications, tumor characteristics and anticancer treatments, and clinical and laboratory findings at COVID-19 diagnosis, including COVID-19–related complication and COVID-19–specific therapies associated with mortality in patients with cancer.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Professional societies began to release guidelines for treatment and surveillance, whereas the health care environment restructured to accommodate telemedicine and remote visits to minimize patient contact with an infected health care system.13

The Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) is an active global registry that was established in March 2020 to understand the impact of COVID-19 infection on patients with thoracic malignancies in academic and community practices globally. Given the disease characteristics and the common target organ, patients with thoracic malignancies have been found to experience higher morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection, with case fatality rates ranging from 22% to 41%.6 , 7 , 14, 15, 16 In addition to reporting on outcomes associated with morbidity and mortality, TERAVOLT aims to determine the risk factors associated with poor outcomes, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapies that may affect survival to COVID-19, and to evaluate long-term impacts on care and the delay in care to patients with both curable and incurable thoracic malignancies.8 , 9 , 15 The aim of this update of the TERAVOLT registry is to identify and select the variables with the greatest prognostic impact to ensure continual and timely care of our patient population.

Materials and Methods

Study Procedures

The database was designed to collect cross-sectional data, including patient and disease characteristics for both cancer and COVID-19 along with treatments received and complications and longitudinal cohort data that are related to the association between potential prognostic factors and clinical outcomes.

Institutions across the globe were invited to participate in the study. In total, 114 centers across 19 countries have activated the study, of which 92 have contributed data. Eligibility criteria were patients with thoracic cancer (NSCLC, SCLC, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other neuroendocrine tumors with pulmonary origin) with a COVID-19 diagnosis defined as any of the following: laboratory-confirmed (using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction/serology) infection or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection on the basis of radiological findings consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and clinical symptoms (i.e., body temperature >37.5°C, cough, decrease of oxygen saturation of at least 5%, cough, diarrhea, otitis, dysgeusia, myalgia, arthralgia, conjunctivitis, and rhinorrhea). Asymptomatic patients found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 were included in this analysis; these patients were tested by their centers on the basis of institutional policies or known exposure to a confirmed-positive individual. Patients of any age, sex, primary tumor, or stage of disease were eligible, including those receiving active anticancer treatment and in clinical follow-up.

Investigators from participating institutions entered data into a REDCap (research electronic data capture) database, with each institution assigned a unique center number and used their own deidentified patient number. This numbering scheme allowed for the opportunity to query investigators for additional clarification regarding the data entered and ask for additional clinical data that emerged as our understanding of COVID-19 expanded during the pandemic. REDCap is a secure web platform10 for building and managing online databases and surveys; it provides easy data handling (with audit trails for reporting, monitoring, and querying patient records) and an automated export mechanism to common statistical packages (SPSS, SAS, Stata, R/S-Plus).

Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients starting March 23, 2020, and will be collected until the end of the pandemic; retrospective data collection from patients diagnosed with having COVID-19 earlier than this date was allowed. The database is divided into the following four main categories: demographics, comorbidities, oncological history, and course of COVID-19, including diagnosis, clinical, radiological, and laboratory outcomes and COVID-19–specific therapy. Basic demographics included age, sex, race and ethnicity, smoking status, stage of cancer at COVID-19 diagnosis (American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stages11), type of thoracic malignancy, past and current (>3 mo relative to COVID-19 diagnosis) oncological treatments, comorbidities, concomitant medications, and need for hospital admission. Oncological outcomes were also collected to evaluate the effect of this pandemic on treatment delays. Initial database fields were chosen on the basis of available literature data and are updated on the basis of emerging evidence of COVID-19 and its impact on the general population and patients with cancer.

Aims and Clinical End Points

In this study, we presented a comprehensive analysis with a definitive prognostic stratification of the TERAVOLT study population, which has been updated and further implemented with new data.12 , 17 Our aim was to provide a more comprehensive prognostic model for patients with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19, encompassing and optimizing the broad variety of available information.

Acknowledging the competing influence of the underlying thoracic malignancy in determining mortality within the medium-longer term, we attempted at a possible distinction of acute, likely COVID-19–related deaths from later, likely cancer-related deaths as already done elsewhere.18 , 19 In doing that, we elected mortality within the observation period (from COVID-19 diagnosis to death/last follow-up) as clinical end point of interest. Considering the study design, which was not developed for reporting long-term outcomes, a dichotomized end point allowed us to discriminate early deaths (e.g., death during hospitalization) as opposed to alive/discharged patients who were considered censored with respect to COVID-19–related mortality.

All the considered variables were screened at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis and included the following: (1) patient demographics (sex, age, body mass index, smoking status); (2) comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and other forms of lung fibrosis, diabetes, history of immunodeficiency, cardiovascular diseases, chronic renal disease, autoimmune diseases, hypertension, chronic hepatitis, history of hepatitis B/C, history of tuberculosis, and other comorbidities); (3) baseline medications at COVID-19 diagnosis (preexistent oxygen therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, immune suppressants, acetylsalicylic acid, anticoagulation therapy); (4) oncological features (histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group—performance status [ECOG-PS], tumor stage at COVID-19 diagnosis, receipt of chemotherapy within 3 mo of COVID-19 diagnosis, line of therapy, previous radiotherapy, previous oncological surgery); (5) full blood cell count information (hemoglobin, neutrophils, lymphocytes, eosinophils, platelets, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; (6) general biochemistry and metabolic profile (triglycerides, glucose, creatinine, sodium, potassium, calcium, ferritin, albumin, creatine phosphokinase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate transaminase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, lactate dehydrogenase, interleukin 6, C-reactive protein (CRP), bilirubin, procalcitonin (PCT), fibrinogen, D-dimer, troponin I, troponin T, prothrombin time); (7) respiratory parameters (peripheral capillary oxygen saturation, partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, carbon dioxide); and (8) radiological findings at COVID-19 diagnosis (bilateral involvement, consolidations, interstitial abnormalities, vascular thickening, COVID-19 pneumonia, pleural effusion, image changes, ground-glass images). All covariates are also summarized as additional appendix.

Statistical Analysis

Given the descriptive nature of the project, which focused on estimation rather than hypothesis testing, no formal power calculation was performed. At the beginning of the study, we estimated that 150 participating institutions each entering at least five consecutive patients, a sample size of 750 patients, would have produced confidence intervals (CIs) of plus or minus 2% for estimates of proportions. Descriptive statistics of patient demographics and clinical characteristics were reported as frequencies (proportions) for categorical variables and median with interquartile range for continuous variables. All variables have been dichotomized for the analysis, and summary measures for association with the outcome were evaluated by univariable binary logistic models. Results were reported through ORs with 95% CIs. Patients with missing values were excluded from univariable but included in multivariable analyses as reference terms.

Considering the high number of variables and the likelihood of overlap, we used an orthoblique principal component–based clustering (OPCC) approach as a system of variable reduction. The OPCC approach was used to screen and identify specific subsets of variables revealing association with mortality. The VARCLUS and SCORE procedures were used according to the SAS code provided by Black and Watanabe.20 A further backward stepwise selection was performed to define clusters with strongest association with the outcome.

Binary logistic regression was also used to develop and internally validate the definitive predictive multivariable model for mortality, by introducing each binary predictor in a fully fitted model. A fast-backward step-down selection with total residual Akaike information criteria as the stopping rule was used to identify the variables that explain the bulk of mortality. The variable selection and the prognostic nomogram were performed and drawn up using the fastbw and the nomogram functions of the “rms” package in R.21 The validate function of the “rms” package in R was used to internally validate and calibrate the prediction model; bootstrap was performed with 1000 resamples.

A receiver operating characteristic curve with the estimation of the area under the receiver operating curve was then used to evaluate the diagnostic ability of the built prediction model. The classification and regression tree (CART) methodology developed by Breiman et al.22 was used for the recursive partitioning analysis encompassing the variables selected by the previous model, to define a tree with a hierarchical classification of variables. The “rpart” package in R was used to apply the CART methodology.23 For the purpose of the CART analysis, patients with missing values were included as reference terms.

In view of the registry design, which was not developed to evaluate long-term outcomes, patients reported as alive/discharged were considered right censored. Nevertheless, because the point estimate for follow-up was not available for right-censored patients and considering the study aim of reporting COVID-19–related mortality, the restricted mean survival time was used to estimate the mean follow-up. All analyses were done using the SAS software version 9.4 (Copyright 2016 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Predictive multivariable regression model was developed and internally validated using the R software version 4.1.0 (May 18, 2021)—R Core Team (2021).24

Results

Patient Characteristics

From March 2020 to April 2021, a total of 1591 consecutive patients were entered into the database and evaluated for inclusion in the present analysis. Overall, 100 were excluded on the basis of eligibility criteria (Fig. 1 ) and 1491 eligible patients from 89 institutions across 18 countries were included in the analysis (Supplementary Table 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Consort flow diagram for the included population. COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; RT-PCR, reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction.

Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction/serology/antigen) was reported for 1432 patients (96%), and 59 (6%) were diagnosed on the basis of highly suspicious radiological/clinical findings. A summary of all demographic and clinical characteristics is included in Table 1 , and a full detailed list of all cancer- and COVID-19–related features according to the outcome is available in Supplementary Table 2. Most of the patients were male (57.3%), white (72.2%), and former/current smokers (77.8%); median age was 67 years with 57.3% aged more than or equal to 65 years. As expected, most patients had at least one comorbidity (82.3%), including hypertension (48%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (24.5%), diabetes (19.3%), ischemic heart disease (13.1%), and were receiving concomitant non–cancer-related medications at COVID-19 diagnosis (73.4%). Of note, 13% of the patients were on corticosteroids before COVID-19 diagnosis. Median body mass index was 25 (range: 11–87). The most represented type of tumor was NSCLC (79.7%), followed by SCLC (12.4%); other thoracic malignancies represented 7.9% of the cohort. Most patients had stage IV disease at COVID-19 diagnosis (67.8%), with an ECOG-PS of 0 to 1 (71.9%) and had received antineoplastic treatments within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis (64.5%), most often chemotherapy alone (38.8%). COVID-19–oriented therapy included anticoagulation (37.2%), antibiotics (48.7%), antivirals (18.9%), antifungals (2.6%), corticosteroids (33.4%), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (3.1%), and antimalarials (16.4%). The mean observation period was 42 days (range: 1–60); 361 events were reported, resulting in an all-cause case fatality rate of 24.2%.

Table 1.

Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Patients' Characteristics All Patients (N = 1491)
Age, y (median) 67.0 (60.0–74.0)
>65 855/1491 (57.3%)
≤65 636/1491 (42.7%)
Total 1491
Sex
 Female 634/1489 (42.6%)
 Male 853/1489 (57.3%)
 Other 2/1489 (0.1%)
 Total 1489
Smoking status
 Current 264/1429 (18.5%)
 Former 848/1429 (59.3%)
 Never 317/1429 (22.2%)
 Total 1429
Race
 White 1058/1465 (72.2%)
 Black or African American 123/1465 (8.4%)
 Other 284/1465 (19.4%)
 Total 1465
Region
 Europe 875 (58.8%)
 North America 504 (33.9%)
 North Africa 31 (2.1%)
 Central America 27 (1.8%)
 South Asia 20 (1.3%)
 Middle East 15 (1.0%)
 Central Asia 10 (0.7%)
 South America 9 (0.6%)
 Total 1491
Cancer stage at COVID-19 diagnosis
 I 115/1443 (8.0%)
 II 79/1443 (5.5%)
 III 270/1443 (18.7%)
 IV 979/1443 (67.8%)
 Total 1443
Cancer diagnosis
 SCLC 184/1489 (12.4%)
 NSCLC, squamous 277/1489 (18.6%)
 NSCLC, nonsquamous 841/1489 (56.5%)
 NSCLC, NOS 69/1489 (4.6%)
 Malignant pleural mesothelioma 58/1489 (3.9%)
 Thymic carcinoma 8/1489 (0.5%)
 Thymoma 23/1489 (1.5%)
 Carcinoid/neuroendocrine 29/1489 (1.9%)
 Total 1489
ECOG—performance status
 0 332/1315 (25.2%)
 1 612/1315 (46.5%)
 2 253/1315 (19.2%)
 3 95/1315 (7.2%)
 4 23/1315 (1.7%)
 Total 1315
Currently undergoing anticancer treatment
 Yes 954/1480 (64.5%)
 No 526/1480 (35.5%)
 Total 1480
Lines of therapy
 0 312/1379 (22.6%)
 1 638/1379 (46.3%)
 2 242/1379 (17.5%)
 3 116/1379 (8.4%)
 ≥4 71/1379 (5.1%)
 Total 1379

COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; NOS, not otherwise specified.

Cluster Analysis

Overall, 73 variables were included in the analysis. Supplementary Table 3 summarizes the univariable binary logistic regression analysis with relevant cutoffs for each covariate. A significant association with the outcome was reported for three variables among demographics, five variables among comorbidities, three variables among concomitant medications, three variables among oncological features, six variables among the full blood cell count information, 17 variables among the general biochemistry and metabolic profile, two variables among the respiratory function parameters, and seven variables among the radiological findings. The OPCC procedure grouped the 73 covariates into 13 clusters, as reported in the clustering dendrogram in Supplementary Figure 1. Clusters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13 revealed a significant correlation between mortality and the linear combination of all variables within each cluster (Supplementary Table 4). The further multivariable backward stepwise selection (entry level p = 0.0038) individuated clusters 3, 4, 5, 9, and 13 as significantly associated with the outcome.

Development of the Prognostic Nomogram and CART Methodology

With the aim of defining key determinants of mortality, we included each of 73 variables in a full fitted model using a fast-backward step-down selection, with total residual Akaike information criteria as the stopping rule. The resulting multivariable model is reported in Table 2 and consisted of seven major determinants of the outcome, including age (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.29–2.25), ECOG-PS (OR = 2.47, 95% CI: 1.86–3.26), stage at COVID-19 diagnosis (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.45–2.65), neutrophils (OR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.76–3.44), PCT (OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.63–3.43), CRP (OR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.89–3.43), and pneumonia (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.48–2.57). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the computed multivariable model confirmed its good performance in estimating the outcome, with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75–0.80) (Supplementary Fig. 2). On the basis of the estimated regression coefficients from the obtained final multivariable prognostic model, we developed a prognostic nomogram (Fig. 2 ) to assign patients with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19 a death probability.

Table 2.

Final Multivariable Logistic Model for the Association With Death. Fast-Backward Step-Down Variable Selection With Total Residual AIC as Stopping Rule

Variables OR (95% CI); p Value
Age (>65 vs. ≤65 y) 1.71 (1.29–2.25); 0.0001
ECOG-PS (≥2 vs. 0–1) 2.47 (1.86–3.26); <0.0001
Stage at COVID-19 diagnosis (VI vs. <IV) 1.96 (1.45–2.65); <0.0001
Neutrophils (> vs. ≤ULN) 2.46 (1.76–3.44); <0.0001
Procalcitonin (> vs. ≤ULN) 2.37 (1.63–3.43); <0.0001
CRP (> vs. ≤ULN) 1.89 (1.43–3.43); <0.0001
Pneumonia (yes vs. no) 1.95 (1.48–2.57); <0.0001

AIC, Akaike information criteria; CI, confidence interval; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; CRP, C-reactive protein; ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group—performance status; ULN, upper limit of normal.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Prognostic nomogram including the following major determinants of mortality: occurrence of pneumonia (yes versus no), age (≤65 versus >65 y old), neutrophil count (> versus ≤ ULN), procalcitonin (> versus ≤ ULN), C-reactive protein (> versus ≤ ULN), ECOG-PS (≥2 versus 0–1), and disease stage at COVID-19 (stage IV versus stages I–III). The nomogram is able to classify the COVID-19 mortality risk in an interval ranging from 8% to 90%. In the nomogram, the determinants of mortality are represented with two symbols. On one hand, ○ represents the presence of this predictor. On the other hand, the symbol ♦ reveals the absence of it. The sum of the different determinants establishes the risk of death. COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group—performance status; ULN, upper limit of normal.

The Sankey diagram provided in Figure 3 offers a visual expression of the CART analysis with the hierarchical classification of variables. The first node was split on the basis of ECOG-PS. Among patients with an ECOG-PS of 0 to 1, the second split was defined by serum CRP, whereas among patients with an ECOG-PS greater than or equal to 2, by neutrophil count. Third-generation splits were defined by tumor stage at COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with neutrophil count greater than the upper limit of normal (ULN), by serum PCT among patients with CRP greater than the ULN, and by radiological finding of pneumonia among patients with neutrophil count less than or equal to the ULN and with CRP less than or equal to the ULN.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Sankey diagram offering a visual expression of the CART analysis with the hierarchical classification of variables. The first node was split on the basis of ECOG-PS (0–1: 1120 patients versus ≥2: 371 patients). Among the patients with an ECOG-PS of 0 to 1, the second split was defined by serum CRP (normal: 741 patients versus high: 379 patients), whereas among the patients with an ECOG-PS of greater than or equal to 2, by neutrophil count (normal: 269 patients versus high: 102 patients). Third-generation splits were defined by tumor stage at COVID-19 diagnosis among the patients with neutrophil count > ULN (stages I–III: 26 patients with a CFR of 38.5% versus stage IV: 76 patients with a CFR of 64.5%), by serum PCT among patients with CRP > ULN (PCT normal: 302 patients with a CFR of 25.7% versus PCT high: 77 patients with a CFR of 50.5%), and by radiological finding of pneumonia among patients with CRP less than or equal to ULN and with neutrophil count less than or equal to ULN (pneumonia present: 224 with a CFR of 25.7% and 50.5%, respectively, versus pneumonia absent: 786 patients with a CFR of 8.2% and 31.1%, respectively). Diagram created using SankeyMATIC web tool (available at: https://sankeymatic.com/). Patients with missing values were included as reference terms. CART, classification and regression tree; CFR, case fatality rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group—performance status; PCT, procalcitonin; ULN, upper limit of normal.

Discussion

During the first year of the pandemic, the registry-based response allowed health care systems to promptly adapt to the escalating threat posed by SARS-CoV-2 and progressively develop guidelines and recommendations to balance patient shielding and oncological continuity of care with a reliance on telemedicine.25 Moreover, in this context, TERAVOLT has been the landmark tumor-specific registry devoted to the understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on patients with thoracic malignancies to provide practitioners and patients with outcomes data describing the impact of infection on mortality to allow for an informed decision on care. Although mortality data suggest that patients with thoracic malignancies experience worse COVID-19 outcomes overall, the identified baseline prognostic factors among demographics, comorbidities, tumor, and COVID-19 characteristics seem to be similar across different malignancies.7 , 26

The final analysis included 1491 patients and reported an all-cause case fatality rate of 24.2%, which is similar to other published data.27 , 28 Capitalizing on the extended sample size and the granularity of clinical information collected from 73 variables, we have identified seven major determinants of mortality, including age, ECOG-PS, tumor stage, neutrophil count, PCT, CRP, and development of pneumonia. In addition, the OPCC procedure clearly revealed how among the wide range of factors typically considered in clinical practice, there are often several associations and their unrestricted inclusion in prognostic models generate a high level of collinearity and redundancy. These findings might be highly informative in the clinic, allowing providers an impartial patient assessment before prescribing care.

To that purpose, we developed both the inference tree and the prognostic nomogram. The CART methodology firmly established an ECOG-PS greater than or equal to 2 as the strongest determinant of mortality, suggesting clinicians should take it into consideration first when assessing patients, followed by neutrophil count and tumor stage in patients with a poor PS, and by serum CRP and PCT in patients with a good PS. The importance of ECOG-PS is pointed out in different cohort studies, such as CCC19 and ACHOCC-19.29 , 30 These additional few characteristics should be included in the diagnostic algorithm of patients with thoracic neoplasia. Our data revealed that special consideration to neutrophilia and serum PCT should be considered.

Neutrophilia is already an established marker of worse COVID-19 in the general population, and it is closely linked to lymphopenia as a proxy of immunopathology of severe COVID-19.31 It has been described that a systemic proinflammatory response driven by excess cytokines affects the lymphopoiesis alongside an aberrant compensatory granulopoiesis.32 Although some publications support the effectiveness of PCT in patients with cancer,33, 34, 35 its considerable cost means that it is not available as a routine test in all centers. Several evidence links a rise in PCT to a worse outcome from COVID-19,33 but its mechanistic role in driving severe disease remains partially unexplained and mainly relies on the identification of bacterial co-infection in COVID-19, thus explaining its negative prognostic role.36 In fact, a high PCT is usually sustained by a rise in IL-6, IL-1β, and tumor necrosis factor-α, whereas viral infections tend to prevent PCT production through the interferon-γ–mediated signaling.37 Nevertheless, the prevalence of bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 also suggests that a deranged cytokine activity may independently enhance PCT secretion in severe COVID-19.38

We acknowledge that a weakness in the current study is the time frame by which data were collected and from various countries where access to care and mortality fluctuated during the course of the pandemic. From the time the database originated to the cutoff date, our understanding of the disease has increased leading to early hospitalizations, and empirical treatments have fallen into disuse while effective therapy was approved.39, 40, 41, 42, 43 In addition, both testing and hospital capacity have been enhanced44, 45, 46 and initial specific safety and efficacy data of anti–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with cancer are emerging.47 , 48 From this perspective, with the inclusion of more recently diagnosed patients, our own data revealed a decline in mortality from 33% to 24%.15 This finding was expected and mirrors a general time-dependent improvement of clinical outcomes as reported elsewhere.19 , 49 On that note, we must recognize that we did not include the effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in the development of our algorithm given that our database was initiated in March 2020. Furthermore, the data cutoff of April 2021 allows us to assume that a very few patients would have received at least one dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine before infection and that the effect of immunization campaigns did not affect the presented results.

One of the major study limitations, stemming from the registry design, is the relatively short observation period for each patient. The database was initially designed to capture the acute effects from COVID-19 infection. Nevertheless, the mean follow-up of 42 days allows us to assume that the median observation period exceeds 60 days. In addition, we purposely focused this analysis on a dichotomized end point to depict early and COVID-19–related mortality. We must also acknowledge as a study limitation the lack of some variables that are routinely evaluated in oncological care of patients with thoracic cancer, including genomic features (e.g., EGFR status), other systemic anticancer therapies (e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors), and historical oncological data other than stage of tumor at COVID-19 diagnosis. Nevertheless, variable selection was based on our previous findings, which established chemotherapy as the only systemic therapy affecting the outcome8 and SCLC as the tumor type with the highest mortality.14

The ongoing efforts including immunization campaigns and enhanced capacity will likely allow a progressive return to normal on a global scale. Despite that, SARS-CoV-2 will still affect the continuity of care of patients with cancer, given to the evolutionary nature of pandemics, vaccine hesitancy or access to it in low-income countries, and emerging new viral strains which may trigger immune-escape mechanisms.50, 51, 52, 53 Against this evolving scenario, a more tailored, comprehensive, and properly powered prognostication system such as the one presented in this study will be a useful tool for clinicians as they develop oncology treatment plans for their patients.

CRediT Authorship Contribution Statement

Marina Chiara Garassino, Valter Torri, Jennifer G. Whisenant: Conceptualization.

Javier Baena, Alessio Cortellini, Valter Torri, Luca Porcu: Methodology.

Valter Torri: Software.

Javier Baena, Alessio Cortellini: Validation.

Valter Torri, Luca Porcu: Formal analysis.

Alessio Cortellini, Valter Torri, Javier Baena: Investigation.

Jennifer G. Whisenant, Valter Torri, Marina Chiara Garassino, Leora Horn: Resources.

Jennifer G. Whisenant, Javier Baena, Alessio Cortellini, Li-Ching Huang, Giuseppe Lo Russo, Luca Porcu, Selina K Wong, Christine M. Bestvina, Matthew Hellman, Isabelle Monnet, Jacobo Rogado Revuelta, Giulia Pasello, Natasha B. Leighl, Alice Baggi, Amel Boudjemaa, Hira Rizvi, Carlos Gomez-Martin, Juan B Blaquier, Oscar Arrieta, Avinash Aujayeb, Ullas Batra, Ahmed Y. Azzam, Jair Bar, Mojca Unk, Mohammed Atef Azab, Ardak Nazilovna Zhumagaliyeva, Gonzalo Recondo, Erica Geraedts, Giannis Mountzios, Niels Reinmuth, Linda Coate, Melina Marmarelis, Carolyn J. Presley, Fred Hirsch, Pilar Garrido, Hina Khan, Celine Mascaux, Balazs Halmos, Giovanni L Ceresoli, May J Fidler, Vieri Scotti, Anne-Cécile Métivier, Lionel Falchero, Enriqueta Felip, Carlo Genova, Julien Mazieres, Elisa Roca, Umit Tapan, Julie Brahmer, Ullas Batra, Emilio Bria, Sonam Puri, Sanjay Popat, Karen L Reckamp, Floriana Morgillo, Ernst Nadal, Francesca Mazzoni, Francesco Agustoni, Jair Bar, Federica Grosso, Virginie Avrillon, Jyoti D Patel, Fabio Gomes, Ehab Ibrahim, Annalisa Trama, Fabrice Barlesi, Anne-Marie Dingemans, Heather Wakelee, Solange Peters, Leora Horn, Marina Chiara Garassino, Valter Torri: Data curation.

Alessio Cortellini, Javier Baena, Marina Chiara Garassino: Writing - original draft.

Jennifer G. Whisenant, Javier Baena, Alessio Cortellini, Li-Ching Huang, Giuseppe Lo Russo, Luca Porcu, Selina K Wong, Christine M. Bestvina, Matthew Hellman, Isabelle Monnet, Jacobo Rogado Revuelta, Giulia Pasello, Natasha B. Leighl, Alice Baggi, Amel Boudjemaa, Hira Rizvi, Carlos Gomez-Martin, Juan B Blaquier, Oscar Arrieta, Avinash Aujayeb, Ullas Batra, Ahmed Y. Azzam, Jair Bar, Mojca Unk, Mohammed Atef Azab, Ardak Nazilovna Zhumagaliyeva, Gonzalo Recondo, Erica Geraedts, Giannis Mountzios, Niels Reinmuth, Linda Coate, Melina Marmarelis, Carolyn J. Presley, Fred Hirsch, Pilar Garrido, Hina Khan, Celine Mascaux, Balazs Halmos, Giovanni L Ceresoli, May J Fidler, Vieri Scotti, Anne-Cécile Métivier, Lionel Falchero, Enriqueta Felip, Carlo Genova, Julien Mazieres, Elisa Roca, Umit Tapan, Julie Brahmer, Ullas Batra, Emilio Bria, Sonam Puri, Sanjay Popat, Karen L Reckamp, Floriana Morgillo, Ernst Nadal, Francesca Mazzoni, Francesco Agustoni, Jair Bar, Federica Grosso, Virginie Avrillon, Jyoti D Patel, Fabio Gomes, Ehab Ibrahim, Annalisa Trama, Fabrice Barlesi, Anne-Marie Dingemans, Heather Wakelee, Solange Peters, Leora Horn, Marina Chiara Garassino, Valter Torri: Writing - review & editing.

Jennifer G. Whisenant, Valter Torri, Marina Chiara Garassino, Leora Horn: Visualization.

Marina Chiara Garassino, Leora Horn, Jennifer G. Whisenant: Supervision.

Jennifer G. Whisenant, Li-Ching Huang: Project administration.

Jennifer G. Whisenant, Marina Chiara Garassino, Leora Horn: Funding acquisition.

Jennifer G. Whisenant, Javier Baena, Alessio Cortellini, Li-Ching Huang, Giuseppe Lo Russo, Luca Porcu, Selina K. Wong, Christine M. Bestvina, Matthew D. Hellmann, Elisa Roca, Hira Rizvi, Isabelle Monnet, XX,iAmel Boudjemaa, Jacobo Rogado, Giulia Pasello, Natasha B. Leighl, Oscar Arrieta, Avinash Aujayeb, Ullas Batra, Ahmed Y. Azzam, Mojca Unk, Mohammed A. Azab, Ardak N, Zhumagaliyeva, Carlos Gomez-Martin, Juan B. Blaquier, Erica Geraedts, Giannis Mountzios, Gloria Serrano-Montero, Niels Reinmuth, Linda Coate, Melina Marmarelis, Carolyn J. Presley, Fred R. Hirsch, Pilar Garrido, Hina Khan, Alice Baggi, Celine Mascaux, Balazs Halmos, Giovanni L. Ceresoli, Mary J. Fidler, Vieri Scotti, Anne-Cécile Métivier, Lionel Falchero, Enriqueta Felip, Carlo Genova, Julien Mazieres, Umit Tapan, Julie Brahmer, Emilio Bria, Sonam Puri, Sanjay Popat, Karen L. Reckamp, Floriana Morgillo, Ernest Nadal, Francesca Mazzoni, Francesco Agustoni, Jair Bar, Federica Grosso, Virginie Avrillon, Jyoti D. Patel, Fabio Gomes, Ehab Ibrahim, Annalisa Trama, Anna C. Bettini, Fabrice Barlesi, Anne-Marie Dingemans, Heather Wakelee, Solange Peters, Leora Horn, Marina Chiara Garassino, Valter Torri: All authors read and approved the submitted version of the manuscript (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study). Each author have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Acknowledgments

This study was awarded a grant from the Lung Ambition that supported database development and maintenance.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Local Institutional Review Board approval was required for each center before receiving instructions on how to access the database and enter data. Written informed consent was obtained if required by the Institutional Review Board. All study procedures were in accordance with the precepts of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. According to the regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016, the following requirements regarding personal data were guaranteed: pseudonymization and encryption, confidentiality, integrity, availability, resilience of treatment systems and services, and the ability to restore the availability and access of data in the event of a physical or technical accident.

Availability of Data and Material

The data sets generated during and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available owing to privacy and ethical restrictions but are available from the corresponding author and the study steering committee on reasonable request, under a relevant data-sharing agreement with the coordinating center.

Footnotes

Drs Whisenant and Baena contributed equally in this work.

Disclosure: Dr. Whisenant reports receiving support for this research from IASLC/Lung Ambition Alliance and personal royalties/licenses from Anasys Instruments. Dr. Baena reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche and nonfinancial support from Angelini. Dr. Cortellini reports receiving speaker fees/grant consultancies from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Lo Russo reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Italfarmaco, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; support for attending meetings/travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Italfarmaco, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; and participation as a DSMB or advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi. Dr. Porcu reports receiving personal fees from Ipsen and Italfarmaco. Dr. Bestvina declares receiving personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CVS, Genentech, Jazz, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; speakers bureau for Merck; and institutional contracted research from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Monnet declares receiving travel support from Pfizer, Takeda, and Behringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rogado reports receiving personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck, Ferrer, Persan Farma, and Fresenius Kabi; travel expenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and AstraZeneca; and advisor consultancies from Fresenius Kabi. Dr. Arrieta reports receiving institutional grants and contracts from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche and personal payments from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Unk reports receiving personal consulting fees and participation in a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Zhumagaliyeva reports receiving support for the work of this manuscript from the Center for Nuclear Medicine and Oncology of Semey, Semy, Kazakhstan. Dr. Blaquier reports receiving payment for an educational event and travel support from Amgen. Dr. Mountzios reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Gilead Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and support for meetings/travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Marmarelis reports receiving consulting/honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novocure, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Takeda, Blueprint Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Ikena; research support from Eli Lilly, Trizell, Merck, and AstraZeneca; stock from Gilead, Merck, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Bluebird Biosciences, Novartis, Janssen, and Pfizer; and medical writing support for Novartis. Dr. Hirsch reports receiving personal consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/Daiichi, Sanofi/Regeneron, Novartis, Merck, Amgen, and OncoCyte. Dr. Garrido declared having advisory roles or receiving speakers fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Medscape, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, and TouchIme; support for travel/meetings from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche. Dr. Khan reports receiving study funding from the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation for Diversity in Clinical Trials and participated to advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Mascaux reports receiving personal consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kephren, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; receiving support for travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche; and having European Patent Application EP19305434.3. Dr. Ceresoli declared having consulting/advisory role for Novocure and speaker’s bureau from Novocure, Zai Laboratory, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex. Dr. Fidler reports receiving consulting fees from Silverback, G1 Therapeutics AstraZeneca, Rakuten, Beigene, and Daiichi; speakers bureau from Beigene and Jazz; and research support from Biodesix, Pfizer/EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, Jounce, CytomX Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Rakuten, and Alkermes. Dr. Métivier reports receiving personal payment for expert testimony from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Takeda. Dr. Felip reports receiving research funding to the institution from Grant for Oncology Innovation, Merck Healthcare KGAa, and Fundacion Merck Salud; personal consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medical Trends, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda; serving in data safety and monitoring for Syneos Health; serving in the speakers bureau and participating in manuscript writing or educational events for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Peervoice, Pfizer, Springer, and Touch Medical; and serving as member of the board for Grifols. Dr. Genova reports receiving personal honoraria for presentations from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Julien Mazieres reports receiving personal fees from Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Daiichi, and Pfizer and grants from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre. Dr. Bria reports receiving speakers’ and travels’ fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche and institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Roche. Dr. Puri reports receiving advising/consulting fees from AstraZeneca and G1 Therapeutics. Dr. Tapan declares receiving advisory fees from Sanofi and educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Reckamp reports receiving personal consulting fees from Amgen, Calithera, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGA, Mirati, Takeda, and Tesaro; nonfinancial support from Seattle Genetics; and research support to institution from Calithera, Blueprint, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Elevation Oncology, and Janssen. Dr. Nadal reports receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Pfizer, and Roche; personal consulting fees or honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Lilly, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi, and Bayer; and participation in data safety monitoring board for Apollomics. Dr. Mazzoni reports receiving personal fees for participation in an advisory board from Lilly, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Grosso reports receiving personal fees for advisory role, speaker engagements, and travel and accommodation expenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novocure, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pharmamar, and Novartis. Dr. Grosso reports receiving personal fees and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novocure, and Pharmamar; speakers bureau for Novocure; and honoraria for educational events from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novartis. Dr. Gomes reports receiving personal payments for educational events from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Dingemans reports receiving research support from Amgen; consulting fees from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, Bayer, Sanofi, and Amgen; payment for lectures or presentations from Eli Lily, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Pfizer, Takeda, and Jansen; and participation in data safety monitoring board for Roche and Takeda. Dr. Wakelee reports receiving research funding to the institution from ACEA Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Xcovery, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Helsinn; compensated advisory board from AstraZeneca, Xcovery, Jannsen, Daiichi Sankyo, Blueprint, Mirati, and Helsinn; and uncompensated advisory board for Merck, Takeda, Genentech/Roche, and Cellworks. Dr. Peters reports serving as consultant/advisory board member for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Imedex, IQVIA, Incyte, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, OncologyEducation, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, PER, Pfizer, PRIME, Regeneron, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; receiving speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, PER, Pfizer, Prime, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, and Takeda; and receiving grants/research supports from (sub)investigator in trials (institutional financial support for clinical trials) sponsored by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, Illumina, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Phosplatin Therapeutics, and Roche/Genentech (all to institution). Dr. Chiara Garassino reports receiving grants and research support to the institution from Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer (MISP), AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ignyta, Incyte, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tiziana, Foundation Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Mirati, Daiichi Sankyo, Regeneron, and Merck; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Takeda; and travel and accommodation expenses from Roche. All the declared conflict of interests are outside the submitted work. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Note: To access the supplementary material accompanying this article, visit the online version of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology at www.jto.org and at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2021.12.015.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary material
mmc1.docx (195KB, docx)

References

  • 1.Liang W., Guan W., Chen R., et al. Cancer patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide analysis in China. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:335–337. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30096-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wang D., Hu B., Hu C., et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1061–1069. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wang H., Zhang L. Risk of COVID-19 for patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:e181. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30149-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Xia Y., Jin R., Zhao J., Li W., Shen H. Risk of COVID-19 for patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21 doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30150-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhang L., Zhu F., Xie L., et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19-infected cancer patients: a retrospective case study in three hospitals within Wuhan, China. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:894–901. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lee L.Y., Cazier J.B., Angelis V., et al. COVID-19 mortality in patients with cancer on chemotherapy or other anticancer treatments: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395:1919–1926. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31173-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lee L.Y.W., Cazier J.B., Starkey T., et al. COVID-19 prevalence and mortality in patients with cancer and the effect of primary tumour subtype and patient demographics: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1309–1316. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30442-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Whisenant J.G., Trama A., Torri V., et al. TERAVOLT: thoracic cancers international COVID-19 collaboration. Cancer Cell. 2020;37:742–745. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.05.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Trama A., Proto C., Whisenant J.G., et al. Supporting clinical decision-making during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through a global research commitment: the TERAVOLT experience. Cancer Cell. 2020;38:602–604. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.10.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Harris P.A., Taylor R., Thielke R., Payne J., Gonzalez N., Conde J.G. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Amin M.B., Greene F.L., Edge S.B., et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:93–99. doi: 10.3322/caac.21388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Luo J., Rizvi H., Egger J.V., Preeshagul I.R., Wolchok J.D., Hellmann M.D. Impact of PD-1 blockade on severity of COVID-19 in patients with lung cancers. Cancer Discov. 2020;10:1121–1128. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lee A.J.X., Purshouse K. COVID-19 and cancer registries: learning from the first peak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Br J Cancer. 2021;124:1777–1784. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01324-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cortellini A., Dingemans A.C., Arrieta O., et al. Thoracic cancers international COVID-19 collaboration (TERAVOLT): small-cell lung cancer and other rare thoracic malignancies. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(suppl 18) S12-03. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Garassino M.C., Whisenant J.G., Huang L.C., et al. COVID-19 in patients with thoracic malignancies (TERAVOLT): first results of an international, registry-based, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:914–922. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30314-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pinato D.J., Zambelli A., Aguilar-Company J., et al. Clinical portrait of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in European cancer patients. Cancer Discov. 2020;10:1465–1474. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Luo J., Rizvi H., Preeshagul I.R., et al. COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1386–1396. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pinato D.J., Scotti L., Gennari A., et al. Determinants of enhanced vulnerability to coronavirus disease 2019 in UK patients with cancer: a European study. Eur J Cancer. 2021;150:190–202. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.03.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.OnCovid Study Group. Pinato D.J., Patel M., et al. Time-dependent covid-19 mortality in patients with cancer: an updated analysis of the oncovid registry. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8:114–122. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Black M.H., Watanabe R.M. A principal components-based clustering method to identify variants associated with complex traits. Hum Hered. 2011;71:50–58. doi: 10.1159/000323567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Frank E. Harrell Jr. rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R Package Version 6.2-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rms
  • 22.Friedman J.H., Olshen R.A., Stone C.J. Classification and regression trees, by Leo Breiman, Jerome H. Friedman, Richard A. Olshen, and Charles J. Stone. Brooks/Cole Publishing, Monterey, 1984,358 pages, $27.95. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cyto.990080516
  • 23.Therneau T., Atkinson B. Rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees. R package version 4.1-15. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rpar
  • 24.R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R package. https://www.gbif.org/tool/81287/r-a-language-and-environment-for-statistical-computing
  • 25.Elkaddoum R., Haddad F.G., Eid R., Kourie H.R. Telemedicine for cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic: between threats and opportunities. Future Oncol. 2020;16:1225–1227. doi: 10.2217/fon-2020-0324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Passaro A., Bestvina C., Velez Velez M., Garassino M.C., Garon E., Peters S. Severity of COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer: evidence and challenges. J Immunother Cancer. 2021;9 doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-002266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Provencio M., Mazarico Gallego J.M., Calles A., et al. Lung cancer patients with COVID-19 in Spain: GRAVID study. Lung Cancer. 2021;157:109–115. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.05.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tian J., Yuan X., Xiao J., et al. Clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with COVID-19 disease severity in patients with cancer in Wuhan, China: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:893–903. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30309-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kuderer N.M., Choueiri T.K., Shah D.P., et al. Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395:1907–1918. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31187-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ospina A.V., Bruges R., Mantilla W., et al. Impact of COVID-19 infection on patients with cancer: experience in a Latin American country: the ACHOCC-19 study. Oncologist. 2021;26:e1761–e1773. doi: 10.1002/onco.13861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Henry B., Cheruiyot I., Vikse J., et al. Lymphopenia and neutrophilia at admission predicts severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis. Acta Biomed. 2020;91 doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i3.10217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fathi N., Rezaei N. Lymphopenia in COVID-19: therapeutic opportunities. Cell Biol Int. 2020;44:1792–1797. doi: 10.1002/cbin.11403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Schuetz P., Wirz Y., Sager R., et al. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;10:CD007498. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007498.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Harrison M., Collins C.D. Is procalcitonin-guided antimicrobial use cost-effective in adult patients with suspected bacterial infection and sepsis? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:265–272. doi: 10.1017/ice.2014.60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ahmed S., Jafri L., Hoodbhoy Z., Siddiqui I. Prognostic value of serum procalcitonin in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2021;25:77–84. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Han J., Gatheral T., Williams C. Procalcitonin for patient stratification and identification of bacterial co-infection in COVID-19. Clin Med (Lond) 2020;20:e47. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.Let.20.3.3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Schuetz P., Albrich W., Mueller B. Procalcitonin for diagnosis of infection and guide to antibiotic decisions: past, present and future. BMC Med. 2011;9:107. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bell L.C.K., Meydan C., Kim J., et al. Transcriptional response modules characterize IL-1β and IL-6 activity in COVID-19. iScience. 2021;24:101896. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Horby P., Mafham M., et al. Effect of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2030–2040. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Biran N., Ip A., Ahn J., et al. Tocilizumab among patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit: a multicentre observational study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020;2:e603–e612. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30277-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Tomazini B.M., Maia I.S., Cavalcanti A.B., et al. Effect of dexamethasone on days alive and ventilator-free in patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19: the CoDEX randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324:1307–1316. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cao B., Wang Y., Wen D., et al. A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1787–1799. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Beigel J.H., Tomashek K.M., Dodd L.E., et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19 - final report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1813–1826. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chu D.K., Akl E.A., Duda S., et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020;395:1973–1987. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hasell J., Mathieu E., Beltekian D., et al. A cross-country database of COVID-19 testing. Sci Data. 2020;7:345. doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-00688-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.McCabe R., Schmit N., Christen P., et al. Adapting hospital capacity to meet changing demands during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med. 2020;18:329. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01781-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pimpinelli F., Marchesi F., Piaggio G., et al. Fifth-week immunogenicity and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with multiple myeloma and myeloproliferative malignancies on active treatment: preliminary data from a single institution. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14:81. doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01090-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Monin L., Laing A.G., Muñoz-Ruiz M., et al. Safety and immunogenicity of one versus two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with cancer: interim analysis of a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:765–778. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00213-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Grivas P., Khaki A.R., Wise-Draper T.M., et al. Association of clinical factors and recent anticancer therapy with COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer: a report from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:787–800. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.02.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Villarreal-Garza C., Vaca-Cartagena B.F., Becerril-Gaitan A., et al. Attitudes and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:1242–1244. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.1962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Harvey W.T., Carabelli A.M., Jackson B., et al. SARS-CoV-2 variants, spike mutations and immune escape. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:409–424. doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00573-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kissler S.M., Tedijanto C., Goldstein E., Grad Y.H., Lipsitch M. Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science. 2020;368:860–868. doi: 10.1126/science.abb5793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Barrière J., Gal J., Hoch B., et al. Acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among French patients with cancer: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:673–674. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.01.066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material
mmc1.docx (195KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data sets generated during and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available owing to privacy and ethical restrictions but are available from the corresponding author and the study steering committee on reasonable request, under a relevant data-sharing agreement with the coordinating center.


Articles from Journal of Thoracic Oncology are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES