Twelve-month observational study of children with cancer in 41 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction Childhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality. Methods Prospective cohort study in 109 institutions in 41 countries. Inclusion criteria: children <18 years who were newly diagnosed with or undergoing active treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, retinoblastoma, Wilms tumour, glioma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, medulloblastoma and neuroblastoma. Of 2327 cases, 2118 patients were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 12 months. Results All-cause mortality was 3.4% (n=71/2084) at 30-day follow-up, 5.7% (n=113/1969) at 90-day follow-up and 13.0% (n=206/1581) at 12-month follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to multidisciplinary team (MDT) plan was longest in low-income countries (7 days, IQR 3-11). Multivariable analysis revealed several factors associated with 12-month mortality, including low-income (OR 6.99 (95% CI 2.49 to 19.68); p<0.001), lower middle income (OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.96 to 5.61); p<0.001) and upper middle income (OR 3.49 (95% CI 2.02 to 6.03); p<0.001) country status and chemotherapy (OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.86); p=0.008) and immunotherapy (OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.91); p=0.035) within 30 days from MDT plan. Multivariable analysis revealed laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 5.33 (95% CI 1.19 to 23.84); p=0.029) was associated with 30-day mortality. Conclusions Children with cancer are more likely to die within 30 days if infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, timely treatment reduced odds of death. This report provides crucial information to balance the benefits of providing anticancer therapy against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with cancer

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Giant Splenic Artery Pseudoaneurysms: Two Case Reports and Cumulative Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Giant splenic artery pseudoaneurysms (GSAPs) &gt; 5 cm are a rare clinical entity. The aim of this study was to present our experience with 2 such patients successfully treated by coil embolization and surgery and review the pertinent literature. METHODS: A 58-year-old woman and 57-year-old man with a history of chronic pancreatitis were diagnosed with GSAP based on computed tomography (CT) angiography. The first patient had a 6-cm pseudoaneurysm, which was successfully treated with transcatheter coil embolization using a sandwich exclusion method. The second patient had two 7-cm lesions, which were successfully treated with distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. RESULTS: Postembolization CT angiography at 12 months showed remaining calcified pseudocyst without evidence of pseudoaneurysm in the first patient. Both patients remained well and symptom-free at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Combined with the experience of the previous literature, we believe that management of GSAP should be tailored for each individual case depending on the location and number of pseudoaneurysms, the underlying etiology, and the patient's hemodynamic status. Embolization should be considered as the first-line treatment for clinically stable patients with GSAP, whereas GSAPs with a pseudocyst are best treated with surgery

A systematic review on clinical features and management of true giant splenic artery aneurysms

BACKGROUND: True giant splenic artery aneurysms (GSAAs) &gt;5 cm are rare and present unique therapeutic challenges. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anatomic and clinical characteristics of these lesions and the current surgical and endovascular techniques available for their treatment. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from 2004 to 2018 and the personal experience of the authors with management of GSAAs are presented. A total of 92 GSAA cases were reviewed. Analyses were performed on anatomic and clinical features and management modalities and outcomes of GSAA, including reintervention, morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: GSAA presented at a mean age of 56.1 \ub1 17.3 years, with no sex predilection; 73% were symptomatic at presentation. Abdominal pain was the presenting symptom in &gt;50% of cases; 34% percent were ruptured, with an overall mortality rate of 12.5%. This group often presented with gastrointestinal bleeding or hemodynamic collapse. The aneurysms were almost evenly distributed across the splenic artery and were not uncommonly associated with arteriovenous fistula formation (8.7%). There were 88 patients who had surgical (53.4%), endovascular (44.3%), or combination (2.3%) therapy. The most commonly performed procedure was aneurysmectomy and splenectomy with or without additional resection. Overall, surgical treatment had a lower morbidity (P = .041) than endovascular therapy and comparable reintervention and mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: GSAAs are uncommon vascular lesions, with distinct clinical features and aneurysm characteristics. Considering their high risk of rupture, timely diagnosis and management are essential to attain a satisfactory outcome. Surgery remains the standard treatment of these lesions. Endovascular intervention is a viable alternative in high-risk patients, particularly those with lesions &lt;10 cm or with anomalous origin

Serious complications of pancreatoduodenectomy correlate with lower rates of adjuvant chemotherapy: Results from the recurrence after Whipple's (RAW) study

Introduction: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) can prolong overall survival (OS) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, fitness for AC may be influenced by postoperative recovery. We aimed to investigate if serious (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) postoperative complications affected AC rates, disease recurrence and OS. Materials and methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple's (RAW) study (n = 1484), a retrospective study of PD outcomes (29 centres from eight countries). Patients who died within 90-days of PD were excluded. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare OS in those receiving or not receiving AC, and those with and without serious postoperative complications. The groups were then compared using univariable and multivariable tests. Results: Patients who commenced AC (vs no AC) had improved OS (median difference: (MD): 201 days), as did those who completed their planned course of AC (MD: 291 days, p < 0.0001). Those who commenced AC were younger (mean difference: 2.7 years, p = 0.0002), more often (preoperative) American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I-II (74% vs 63%, p = 0.004) and had less often experienced a serious postoperative complication (10% vs 18%, p = 0.002). Patients who developed a serious postoperative complication were less often ASA grade I-II (52% vs 73%, p = 0.0004) and less often commenced AC (58% vs 74%, p = 0.002). Conclusion: In our multicentre study of PD outcomes, PDAC patients who received AC had improved OS, and those who experienced a serious postoperative complication commenced AC less frequently. Selected high-risk patients may benefit from targeted preoperative optimisation and/or neoadjuvant chemotherapy