Determinants of enhanced vulnerability to coronavirus disease 2019 in UK patients with cancer: a European study

Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100,000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of death in UK patients with cancer versus those in continental EU. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of patients with cancer consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from 27th February to 10th September 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline including oncological and COVID-19-specific therapy across UK and EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk of adverse outcomes in multivariable Cox regression models. Findings: Compared with EU (n = 924), UK patients (n = 468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%; p < 0.0001; HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often men, were of older age and have more comorbidities than EU counterparts (p < 0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK than in EU patients (p < 0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK patients with cancer were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, antivirals and interleukin-6 antagonists (p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, independent of the patient's age, gender, tumour stage and status; number of comorbidities; COVID-19 severity and receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy after COVID-19 were similar in the UK and EU cohorts. Interpretation: UK patients with cancer have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anticancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK patients with cancer highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted

Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for the diagnosis of melanoma in adults

Background: Melanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Although history-taking and visual inspection of a suspicious lesion by a clinician are usually the first in a series of ‘tests’ to diagnose skin cancer, dermoscopy has become an important tool to assist diagnosis by specialist clinicians and is increasingly used in primary care settings. Dermoscopy is a magnification technique using visible light that allows more detailed examination of the skin compared to examination by the naked eye alone. Establishing the additive value of dermoscopy over and above visual inspection alone across a range of observers and settings is critical to understanding its contribution for the diagnosis of melanoma and to future understanding of the potential role of the growing number of other highresolution image analysis techniques. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults, and to compare its accuracy with that of visual inspection alone. Studies were separated according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in-person) or based on remote (image-based) assessment. Search methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. Selection criteria: Studies of any design that evaluated dermoscopy in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. Data on the accuracy of visual inspection, to allow comparisons of tests, was included only if reported in the included studies of dermoscopy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated accuracy using hierarchical summary ROC methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of sensitivity at the point on the SROC curve with 80% fixed specificity and values of specificity with 80% fixed sensitivity. We investigated the impact of in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; observer expertise; and dermoscopy training. Main results: A total of 104 study publications reporting on 103 study cohorts with 42,788 lesions (including 5700 cases) were included, providing 354 datasets for dermoscopy. The risk of bias was mainly low for the index test and reference standard domains and mainly high or unclear for participant selection and participant flow. Concerns regarding the applicability of study findings were largely scored as ‘High’ concern in three of four domains assessed. Selective participant recruitment, lack of reproducibility of diagnostic thresholds and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic. The accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants was reported in 86 datasets; 26 for evaluations conducted in-person (dermoscopy added to visual inspection) and 60 for image-based evaluations (diagnosis based on interpretation of dermoscopic images). Analyses of studies by prior testing revealed no obvious effect on accuracy; analyses were hampered by the lack of studies in primary care, lack of relevant information and the restricted inclusion of lesions selected for biopsy or excision. Accuracy was higher for in-person diagnosis compared to image-based evaluations (relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) of 4.6; 95% CI 2.4, 9.0, P<0.001). Accuracy was compared for (a) in-person evaluations of dermoscopy (26 evaluations; 23,169 lesions and 1664 melanomas) versus visual inspection alone (13 evaluations; 6740 lesions and 459 melanomas) and for (b) image-based evaluations of dermoscopy (60 evaluations; 13,475 lesions and 2851 melanomas) versus image-based visual inspection (11 evaluations; 1740 lesions and 305 melanomas). For both comparisons, meta-analysis found dermoscopy to be more accurate than visual inspection alone, with RDORs of (a) 4.7 (95% CI: 3.0 to 7.5; P < 0.001) and (b) 5.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 8.5; P < 0.001). These effects correspond to predicted differences in sensitivity of (a) 16% (95% CI: 8%, 23%) (92% for dermoscopy+visual inspection vs 76% for visual inspection) and (b) 35% (95% CI 24% to 46%) (81% for dermoscopy vs 47% for visual inspection) at a fixed specificity of 80%; and topredicted differences in specificity of (a) 20% (95% CI 7%, 33) (95% for dermoscopy plus visual inspection vs 75% for visual inspection) and (b) 40% (95% CI 27, 57) (82% for dermoscopy vs 42% for visual inspection) at a fixed sensitivity of 80%. Using the median prevalence of disease in each set of studies ((a) 12% for in-person and (b) 24% for image-based) for a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions, an increase in sensitivity of (a) 16% (in-person) and (b) 35% (image-based) from using dermoscopy at a fixed specificity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of melanomas missed of (a) 19 and (b) 81 with (a) 176 and (b) 152 false positive results. An increase in specificity of (a) 20% (in-person) and (b) 40% (image-based) at a fixed sensitivity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of unnecessary excisions from using dermoscopy of (a) 176 and (b) 304 with (a) 24 and (b) 48 melanomas missed. The use of a named or published algorithm to assist dermoscopy interpretation (as opposed to no reported algorithm or reported use of pattern analysis) had no significant impact on accuracy either for in-person (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.34, 5.6; P=0.17) or image-based (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60, 3.3; P=0.22) evaluations. This result was supported by subgroup analysis according to algorithm used. Higher accuracy for observers reported as having high experience and for those classed as ‘expert consultants’ in comparison to those considered to have less experience in dermoscopy was observed, particularly for image-based evaluations. Evidence for the effect of dermoscopy training on test accuracy was very limited but suggested associated improvements in sensitivity. Authors' conclusions: Despite the observed limitations in the evidence base, dermoscopy is a valuable tool to support the visual inspection of a suspicious skin lesion for the detection of melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, particularly in referred populations and in the hands of experienced users. Data to support its use in primary care is limited however it may assist in triaging suspicious lesions for urgent referral when employed by suitably trained clinicians. Formal algorithms may be of most use for dermoscopy training purposes and for less expert observers, however reliable data comparing approaches using dermoscopy in-person are lacking

Fifteen years of research on oral–facial–digital syndromes: from 1 to 16 causal genes

Oral–facial–digital syndromes (OFDS) gather rare genetic disorders characterised by facial, oral and digital abnormalities associated with a wide range of additional features (polycystic kidney disease, cerebral malformations and several others) to delineate a growing list of OFDS subtypes. The most frequent, OFD type I, is caused by a heterozygous mutation in the OFD1 gene encoding a centrosomal protein. The wide clinical heterogeneity of OFDS suggests the involvement of other ciliary genes. For 15 years, we have aimed to identify the molecular bases of OFDS. This effort has been greatly helped by the recent development of whole-exome sequencing (WES). Here, we present all our published and unpublished results for WES in 24 cases with OFDS. We identified causal variants in five new genes (C2CD3, TMEM107, INTU, KIAA0753 and IFT57) and related the clinical spectrum of four genes in other ciliopathies (C5orf42, TMEM138, TMEM231 and WDPCP) to OFDS. Mutations were also detected in two genes previously implicated in OFDS. Functional studies revealed the involvement of centriole elongation, transition zone and intraflagellar transport defects in OFDS, thus characterising three ciliary protein modules: the complex KIAA0753-FOPNL-OFD1, a regulator of centriole elongation; the Meckel-Gruber syndrome module, a major component of the transition zone; and the CPLANE complex necessary for IFT-A assembly. OFDS now appear to be a distinct subgroup of ciliopathies with wide heterogeneity, which makes the initial classification obsolete. A clinical classification restricted to the three frequent/well-delineated subtypes could be proposed, and for patients who do not fit one of these three main subtypes, a further classification could be based on the genotype

COVID-19 Sequelae and the Host Pro-Inflammatory Response: An Analysis From the OnCovid Registry

Background: Fifteen percent of patients with cancer experience symptomatic sequelae, which impair post–COVID-19 outcomes. In this study, we investigated whether a proinflammatory status is associated with the development of COVID-19 sequelae. / Methods: OnCovid recruited 2795 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection between February 27, 2020, and February 14, 2021. This analysis focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent a clinical reassessment after the exclusion of patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated the association of inflammatory markers collected at COVID-19 diagnosis with sequelae, considering the impact of previous systemic anticancer therapy. All statistical tests were 2-sided. / Results: Of 1339 eligible patients, 203 experienced at least 1 sequela (15.2%). Median baseline C-reactive protein (CRP; 77.5 mg/L vs 22.2 mg/L, P < .001), lactate dehydrogenase (310 UI/L vs 274 UI/L, P = .03), and the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; 6.0 vs 4.3, P = .001) were statistically significantly higher among patients who experienced sequelae, whereas no association was reported for the platelet to lymphocyte ratio and the OnCovid Inflammatory Score, which includes albumin and lymphocytes. The widest area under the ROC curve (AUC) was reported for baseline CRP (AUC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 0.69), followed by the NLR (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.61) and lactate dehydrogenase (AUC = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.61). Using a fixed categorical multivariable analysis, high CRP (odds ratio [OR] = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.67 to 3.91) and NLR (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.10) were confirmed to be statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of sequelae. Exposure to chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of sequelae (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.91), whereas no associations with immune checkpoint inhibitors, endocrine therapy, and other types of systemic anticancer therapy were found. / Conclusions: Although the association between inflammatory status, recent chemotherapy and sequelae warrants further investigation, our findings suggest that a deranged proinflammatory reaction at COVID-19 diagnosis may predict for sequelae development

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry

Background COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. Methods OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [ 50 center dot 7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49 center dot 3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16 center dot 6%; 95% CI 14 center dot 8-18 center dot 5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the prevaccination phase (191 [19 center dot 1%; 95% CI 16 center dot 4-22 center dot 0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16 center dot 8%; 13 center dot 8- 20 center dot 3] of 653 patients, p=0 center dot 24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6 center dot 2%; 3 center dot 5-10 center dot 2] of 256 patients, p<0 center dot 0001). In the alpha- delta phase, 84 (18 center dot 3%; 95% CI 14 center dot 6-22 center dot 7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 9- 27 center dot 3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7 center dot 4%; 95% CI 3 center dot 5-13 center dot 5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9 center dot 8%; 5 center dot 8-15 center dot 5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [ 18 center dot 5%; 16 center dot 5-20 center dot 9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0 center dot 0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 6-9 center dot 6], 11 [6 center dot 0%; 3 center dot 0-10 center dot 7] vs 148 [9 center dot 9%; 8 center dot 4- 11 center dot 6], p= 0 center dot 030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2 center dot 2%; 0 center dot 1-6 center dot 4], ten [5 center dot 4%; 2 center dot 6-10 center dot 0] vs 115 [7 center dot 7%; 6 center dot 3-9 center dot 3], p=0 center dot 037)

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Evolutionary genomics of a cold-adapted diatom: Fragilariopsis cylindrus

The Southern Ocean houses a diverse and productive community of organisms1, 2. Unicellular eukaryotic diatoms are the main primary producers in this environment, where photosynthesis is limited by low concentrations of dissolved iron and large seasonal fluctuations in light, temperature and the extent of sea ice3, 4, 5, 6, 7. How diatoms have adapted to this extreme environment is largely unknown. Here we present insights into the genome evolution of a cold-adapted diatom from the Southern Ocean, Fragilariopsis cylindrus8, 9, based on a comparison with temperate diatoms. We find that approximately 24.7 per cent of the diploid F. cylindrus genome consists of genetic loci with alleles that are highly divergent (15.1 megabases of the total genome size of 61.1 megabases). These divergent alleles were differentially expressed across environmental conditions, including darkness, low iron, freezing, elevated temperature and increased CO2. Alleles with the largest ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous nucleotide substitutions also show the most pronounced condition-dependent expression, suggesting a correlation between diversifying selection and allelic differentiation. Divergent alleles may be involved in adaptation to environmental fluctuations in the Southern Ocean

Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for the diagnosis of melanoma in adults

Background: Melanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Although history-taking and visual inspection of a suspicious lesion by a clinician are usually the first in a series of ‘tests’ to diagnose skin cancer, dermoscopy has become an important tool to assist diagnosis by specialist clinicians and is increasingly used in primary care settings. Dermoscopy is a magnification technique using visible light that allows more detailed examination of the skin compared to examination by the naked eye alone. Establishing the additive value of dermoscopy over and above visual inspection alone across a range of observers and settings is critical to understanding its contribution for the diagnosis of melanoma and to future understanding of the potential role of the growing number of other highresolution image analysis techniques. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults, and to compare its accuracy with that of visual inspection alone. Studies were separated according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in-person) or based on remote (image-based) assessment. Search methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. Selection criteria: Studies of any design that evaluated dermoscopy in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. Data on the accuracy of visual inspection, to allow comparisons of tests, was included only if reported in the included studies of dermoscopy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated accuracy using hierarchical summary ROC methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of sensitivity at the point on the SROC curve with 80% fixed specificity and values of specificity with 80% fixed sensitivity. We investigated the impact of in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; observer expertise; and dermoscopy training. Main results: A total of 104 study publications reporting on 103 study cohorts with 42,788 lesions (including 5700 cases) were included, providing 354 datasets for dermoscopy. The risk of bias was mainly low for the index test and reference standard domains and mainly high or unclear for participant selection and participant flow. Concerns regarding the applicability of study findings were largely scored as ‘High’ concern in three of four domains assessed. Selective participant recruitment, lack of reproducibility of diagnostic thresholds and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic. The accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants was reported in 86 datasets; 26 for evaluations conducted in-person (dermoscopy added to visual inspection) and 60 for image-based evaluations (diagnosis based on interpretation of dermoscopic images). Analyses of studies by prior testing revealed no obvious effect on accuracy; analyses were hampered by the lack of studies in primary care, lack of relevant information and the restricted inclusion of lesions selected for biopsy or excision. Accuracy was higher for in-person diagnosis compared to image-based evaluations (relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) of 4.6; 95% CI 2.4, 9.0, P<0.001). Accuracy was compared for (a) in-person evaluations of dermoscopy (26 evaluations; 23,169 lesions and 1664 melanomas) versus visual inspection alone (13 evaluations; 6740 lesions and 459 melanomas) and for (b) image-based evaluations of dermoscopy (60 evaluations; 13,475 lesions and 2851 melanomas) versus image-based visual inspection (11 evaluations; 1740 lesions and 305 melanomas). For both comparisons, meta-analysis found dermoscopy to be more accurate than visual inspection alone, with RDORs of (a) 4.7 (95% CI: 3.0 to 7.5; P < 0.001) and (b) 5.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 8.5; P < 0.001). These effects correspond to predicted differences in sensitivity of (a) 16% (95% CI: 8%, 23%) (92% for dermoscopy+visual inspection vs 76% for visual inspection) and (b) 35% (95% CI 24% to 46%) (81% for dermoscopy vs 47% for visual inspection) at a fixed specificity of 80%; and topredicted differences in specificity of (a) 20% (95% CI 7%, 33) (95% for dermoscopy plus visual inspection vs 75% for visual inspection) and (b) 40% (95% CI 27, 57) (82% for dermoscopy vs 42% for visual inspection) at a fixed sensitivity of 80%. Using the median prevalence of disease in each set of studies ((a) 12% for in-person and (b) 24% for image-based) for a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions, an increase in sensitivity of (a) 16% (in-person) and (b) 35% (image-based) from using dermoscopy at a fixed specificity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of melanomas missed of (a) 19 and (b) 81 with (a) 176 and (b) 152 false positive results. An increase in specificity of (a) 20% (in-person) and (b) 40% (image-based) at a fixed sensitivity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of unnecessary excisions from using dermoscopy of (a) 176 and (b) 304 with (a) 24 and (b) 48 melanomas missed. The use of a named or published algorithm to assist dermoscopy interpretation (as opposed to no reported algorithm or reported use of pattern analysis) had no significant impact on accuracy either for in-person (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.34, 5.6; P=0.17) or image-based (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60, 3.3; P=0.22) evaluations. This result was supported by subgroup analysis according to algorithm used. Higher accuracy for observers reported as having high experience and for those classed as ‘expert consultants’ in comparison to those considered to have less experience in dermoscopy was observed, particularly for image-based evaluations. Evidence for the effect of dermoscopy training on test accuracy was very limited but suggested associated improvements in sensitivity. Authors' conclusions: Despite the observed limitations in the evidence base, dermoscopy is a valuable tool to support the visual inspection of a suspicious skin lesion for the detection of melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, particularly in referred populations and in the hands of experienced users. Data to support its use in primary care is limited however it may assist in triaging suspicious lesions for urgent referral when employed by suitably trained clinicians. Formal algorithms may be of most use for dermoscopy training purposes and for less expert observers, however reliable data comparing approaches using dermoscopy in-person are lacking