22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Multidisciplinary Recommendations Regarding Post-Vaccine Adenopathy and Radiologic Imaging: Radiology Scientific Expert Panel

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Vaccination-associated adenopathy is a frequent imaging finding after administration of COVID-19 vaccines that may lead to a diagnostic conundrum in patients with manifest or suspected cancer, in whom it may be indistinguishable from malignant nodal involvement. To help the medical community address this concern in the absence of studies and evidence-based guidelines, this paper offers recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from three of the leading tertiary care cancer centers in the United States. According to these recommendations, some routine imaging examinations, such as those for screening, should be scheduled before or at least 6 weeks after the final vaccination dose to allow for any reactive adenopathy to resolve. However, there should be no delay of other clinically indicated imaging (e.g., for acute symptoms, short-interval treatment monitoring, urgent treatment planning or complications) due to prior vaccination. The vaccine should be administered on the side contralateral to the primary or suspected cancer, and both doses should be administered in the same arm. Vaccination information (date(s) administered, injection site(s), laterality, and type of vaccine) should be included in every pre-imaging patient questionnaire, and this information should be made readily available to interpreting radiologists. Clear and effective communication between patients, radiologists, referring physician teams and the general public should be considered of the highest priority when managing adenopathy in the setting of COVID-19 vaccination.

          Summary

          COVID-19-vaccination–related adenopathy is a frequent imaging finding that may lead to a diagnostic conundrum in patients with manifest or suspected cancer, in whom it may be indistinguishable from malignant nodal involvement. This special report offers recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from three of the leading tertiary care cancer centers in the United States.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study

            Summary Background Since a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types. Methods In this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15–84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data. Findings We collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9–9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266–295) and 344 (329–358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392–1591) to 1563 (1534–1592) additional deaths, a 15·3–16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220–1254) to 1372 (1343–1401) additional deaths, a 4·8–5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324–335) to 342 (336–348) additional deaths, 5·8–6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291–3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204–63 229 years. Interpretation Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer. Funding UK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              COVID-19 prevalence and mortality in patients with cancer and the effect of primary tumour subtype and patient demographics: a prospective cohort study

              Summary Background Patients with cancer are purported to have poor COVID-19 outcomes. However, cancer is a heterogeneous group of diseases, encompassing a spectrum of tumour subtypes. The aim of this study was to investigate COVID-19 risk according to tumour subtype and patient demographics in patients with cancer in the UK. Methods We compared adult patients with cancer enrolled in the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project (UKCCMP) cohort between March 18 and May 8, 2020, with a parallel non-COVID-19 UK cancer control population from the UK Office for National Statistics (2017 data). The primary outcome of the study was the effect of primary tumour subtype, age, and sex and on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence and the case–fatality rate during hospital admission. We analysed the effect of tumour subtype and patient demographics (age and sex) on prevalence and mortality from COVID-19 using univariable and multivariable models. Findings 319 (30·6%) of 1044 patients in the UKCCMP cohort died, 295 (92·5%) of whom had a cause of death recorded as due to COVID-19. The all-cause case–fatality rate in patients with cancer after SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with increasing age, rising from 0·10 in patients aged 40–49 years to 0·48 in those aged 80 years and older. Patients with haematological malignancies (leukaemia, lymphoma, and myeloma) had a more severe COVID-19 trajectory compared with patients with solid organ tumours (odds ratio [OR] 1·57, 95% CI 1·15–2·15; p<0·0043). Compared with the rest of the UKCCMP cohort, patients with leukaemia showed a significantly increased case–fatality rate (2·25, 1·13–4·57; p=0·023). After correction for age and sex, patients with haematological malignancies who had recent chemotherapy had an increased risk of death during COVID-19-associated hospital admission (OR 2·09, 95% CI 1·09–4·08; p=0·028). Interpretation Patients with cancer with different tumour types have differing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 phenotypes. We generated individualised risk tables for patients with cancer, considering age, sex, and tumour subtype. Our results could be useful to assist physicians in informed risk–benefit discussions to explain COVID-19 risk and enable an evidenced-based approach to national social isolation policies. Funding University of Birmingham and University of Oxford.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Radiology
                Radiology
                Radiology
                Radiology
                Radiological Society of North America
                0033-8419
                1527-1315
                24 February 2021
                : 210436
                Affiliations
                [1]From Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York NY (A.S.B., R.P-J., M.E.H., K.N.F., K.M.G., A.T.L., R.Y., M.E.M., H.H., H.A.V.); Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston MA (S.A.C., A.B.S.); Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston MA (S.A.C., A.B.S.); Division of Diagnostic Imaging, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston TX (M.M.C., M.H.); Department of Head and Neck Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston TX (E.Y.H.); Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston MA (E.L.M.)
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Hedvig Hricak, MD, PhD Chair, Department of Radiology Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 1275 York Avenue, Room H-704 New York, NY 10065
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8372-6496
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9063-2615
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7326-4312
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3274-2653
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8483-3653
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1400-6385
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9830-4915
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3241-2440
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0727-8980
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8701-6042
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5430-8957
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2945-5546
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8786-8686
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2240-9694
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1169-133X
                Article
                210436
                10.1148/radiol.2021210436
                7909071
                33625298
                3ea2783d-f175-4a76-b8c8-13431fd0ca87
                2021 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                Categories
                Special Report

                Comments

                Comment on this article