Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment. </p

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment. </p

Retrospective radiological review and classification of interval breast cancers within population-based breast screening programmes for the purposes of open disclosure: a systematic review

Introduction: Interval breast cancers occur following a negative breast screening mammogram and before the next scheduled appointment within screening programmes. Radiological review classifies them as cancers that develop between screens, cancers with no obvious malignant abnormalities on prior screens or cancers not detected at screening. This study aimed to systematically review published literature on the occurrence of open disclosure following interval cancer radiological reviews by breast screening programmes internationally in a retrospective setting and examine methodologies used for radiological reviews for the purposes of disclosure. Methods: A search for relevant articles published (January 2000 - May 2019) was conducted according to PICO and PRISMA guidelines. The databases Pubmed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, Science Direct and Global Health were searched. Relevant studies were reviewed if they had completed a retrospective review and classification of interval breast cancers. Results: Of 46 relevant articles included, no study was identified that conducted a retrospective review purposely for open disclosure. Retrospective reviews were conducted for audit/quality assurance, and research including for radiologist education and learning. Variation in methodology was found across review type (non-blinded/semi-informed approach), number of reviewers and classification categories. The proportion of false negative cancers classified among the studies ranged from 4 to 40 %. Discussion:  Variation among radiological review practices were observed, which likely impacts classification results. To ensure standardised classification of interval breast cancers are employed for the purposes of open disclosure in screening settings, reproducible and consistent methodology is required. </div

Retrospective radiological review and classification of interval breast cancers within population-based breast screening programmes for the purposes of open disclosure: a systematic review

Introduction: Interval breast cancers occur following a negative breast screening mammogram and before the next scheduled appointment within screening programmes. Radiological review classifies them as cancers that develop between screens, cancers with no obvious malignant abnormalities on prior screens or cancers not detected at screening. This study aimed to systematically review published literature on the occurrence of open disclosure following interval cancer radiological reviews by breast screening programmes internationally in a retrospective setting and examine methodologies used for radiological reviews for the purposes of disclosure. Methods: A search for relevant articles published (January 2000 - May 2019) was conducted according to PICO and PRISMA guidelines. The databases Pubmed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, Science Direct and Global Health were searched. Relevant studies were reviewed if they had completed a retrospective review and classification of interval breast cancers. Results: Of 46 relevant articles included, no study was identified that conducted a retrospective review purposely for open disclosure. Retrospective reviews were conducted for audit/quality assurance, and research including for radiologist education and learning. Variation in methodology was found across review type (non-blinded/semi-informed approach), number of reviewers and classification categories. The proportion of false negative cancers classified among the studies ranged from 4 to 40 %. Discussion:  Variation among radiological review practices were observed, which likely impacts classification results. To ensure standardised classification of interval breast cancers are employed for the purposes of open disclosure in screening settings, reproducible and consistent methodology is required. </div

Evaluating awareness, knowledge and practice of healthcare professionals following implementation of a revised pregnancy prevention programme for isotretinoin in Ireland: a multi-stakeholder cross-sectional study

Purpose: In 2018, following an EU-wide safety review, a revised pregnancy prevention programme (PPP) was introduced for isotretinoin (Roaccutane®). This study aimed to examine awareness, knowledge, and experience implementing the revised isotretinoin PPP in clinical practice across three healthcare professional (HCP) groups in Ireland. Methods: A cross-sectional study using anonymous online surveys among general practitioners (GPs), community pharmacists, and specialist consultants was undertaken. Descriptive analyses are presented. Results: Across all HCP groups there was high (≥87%) awareness that oral isotretinoin is contraindicated in women of childbearing potential (WCBP) unless the conditions of the PPP are fulfilled, but varying awareness among GPs (54.9%) and community pharmacists (45.9%) that exposure during pregnancy can cause both severe fetal malformations and spontaneous abortions. Implementation of the PPP in clinical practice varied across HCP groups. When initiating isotretinoin in WCBP, 66.7% of specialists and 40.8% of GPs indicated they had considered alternative treatment options, and 71.4% of specialists and 31.6% of GPs reported they first requested a pregnancy test. There was limited provision of the patient reminder card to WCBP, where 26.1% of community pharmacists provide this at each dispensing, while 47.6% of specialists and 11.8% of GPs ensured WCBP had a copy of the card when initiating treatment. Across all HCP groups, there was high (≥81.6%) awareness of the need for urgent consultation and immediate cessation of isotretinoin in the event of an unplanned or suspected pregnancy. Conclusions: Reinforcement of the provision and utilisation of the isotretinoin patient reminder card may be required, and further targeted education on specific elements of the PPP should be considered for GPs and community pharmacists.</p

Valproate utilisation trends among women of childbearing potential in Ireland between 2014 and 2019: a drug utilisation study using interrupted time series

Purpose: This study aimed to examine trends in valproate use among women of childbearing potential (WCBP) aged 16-44 years in Ireland following two European-directed regulatory interventions in December 2014 and April 2018. Methods: This was a repeated cross-sectional study using monthly national pharmacy claims data, to examine trend changes in the prevalence of valproate use among WCBP pre and post two separate regulatory events in December 2014 and April 2018. Annual population estimates from the Central Statistics Office were used to calculate the prevalence rate per 1000 eligible women. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series with negative binomial regression was used to examine rates for WCBP aged 16-44 years, and by 10-year age groups. Prevalence ratios (PR) are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Among WCBP aged 16-44 years, there was no statistically significant change in the month-to-month prevalence ratio in the post- compared to pre-December 2014 intervention period. A significant decline was, however, observed in the post-, compared to pre-April 2018 intervention period (PR = 0.998, [95% CIs: 0.996, 1.000]; p = 0.029). Among those aged 16-24 years, a significant decreasing trend in the month-to-month prevalence ratio was found in the post- compared to pre-December 2014 intervention period (PR = 0.991, [95% CIs: 0.984, 0.998];p Conclusion: Although no evidence of change was observed following the December 2014 intervention period, a significant decline in the prevalence ratio of valproate use was observed after the 2018 intervention, which may reflect the introduction of the most recent contraindication measures.</p

Underlying conditions and risk of hospitalisation, ICU admission and mortality among those with COVID-19 in Ireland: a national surveillance study

Background: To date, over 2 million people worldwide have died with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. To describe the experience in Ireland, this study examined associations between underlying conditions and the following outcomes: mortality, admission to hospital or admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) among those infected with COVID-19.Methods: This study used data from the Health Protection Surveillance Centre in Ireland and included confirmed cases of COVID-19 from the first wave of the pandemic between March and July 2020. Two cohorts were included: all cases (community and hospital) and hospital admissions only. For all cases, health outcome data included mortality and hospitalisation. For hospitalised cases, outcome data included mortality and ICU admission. Logistic regression was used to examine associations between underlying conditions and outcomes across both cohorts. Results are presented as adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Findings: There were 19,789 cases included in analysis, which encompassed 1,476 (7.5%) deaths, 2,811 (14.2%) hospitalisations, and 438 (2.2%) ICU admissions of whom 90 (20.5%) died. Significantly higher risk of mortality, hospitalisation and ICU admission was associated with having chronic heart disease, a BMI ≥40kg/m2 and male sex. Additionally, diagnosis of a chronic neurological condition (OR 1.41; 95%CI:1.17, 1.69), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.74; 95%CI:1.35, 2.24) and cancer (OR 2.77; 95%CI:2.21, 3.47) were significantly associated with higher risk of mortality among all cases, with similar patterns of association observed for mortality among hospitalised cases. Interpretation: The identification of underlying conditions among COVID-19 cases may help identify those at highest risk of the worst health outcomes and inform preventive strategies to improve outcomes. Funding: This study was supported by the Health Service Executive, Health Protection Surveillance Centre. KEB and MM are funded by the Health Research Board (RL-15-1579 and EIA-2019-012 respectively).</div

A scoping review of programme specific mammographic breast density related guidelines and practices within breast screening programme

Introduction: High mammographic breast density (MBD) is an independent breast cancer risk factor. In organised breast screening settings, discussions are ongoing regarding the optimal clinical role of MBD to help guide screening decisions. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of current practices incorporating MBD within population-based breast screening programmes and from professional organisations internationally. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The electronic databases, MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Grey literature sources, websites of international breast screening programmes, and relevant government organisations were searched to identify further relevant literature. Data from identified materials were extracted and presented as a narrative summary. Results: The search identified 78 relevant documents. Documents were identified for breast screening programmes in 18 countries relating to screening intervals for women with dense breasts, MBD measurement, reporting, notification, and guiding supplemental screening. Documents were identified from 18 international professional organisations with the majority of material relating to supplemental screening guidance for women with dense breasts. Key factors collated during the data extraction process as relevant considerations for MBD practices included the evidence base needed to inform decision-making processes and resources (healthcare system costs, radiology equipment, and workforce planning). Conclusions: This scoping review summarises current practices and guidelines incorporating MBD in international population-based breast screening settings and highlights the absence of consensus between organised breast screening programmes incorporating MBD in current breast screening protocols.</p

A scoping review of programme specific mammographic breast density related guidelines and practices within breast screening programme

Introduction: High mammographic breast density (MBD) is an independent breast cancer risk factor. In organised breast screening settings, discussions are ongoing regarding the optimal clinical role of MBD to help guide screening decisions. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of current practices incorporating MBD within population-based breast screening programmes and from professional organisations internationally. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The electronic databases, MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Grey literature sources, websites of international breast screening programmes, and relevant government organisations were searched to identify further relevant literature. Data from identified materials were extracted and presented as a narrative summary. Results: The search identified 78 relevant documents. Documents were identified for breast screening programmes in 18 countries relating to screening intervals for women with dense breasts, MBD measurement, reporting, notification, and guiding supplemental screening. Documents were identified from 18 international professional organisations with the majority of material relating to supplemental screening guidance for women with dense breasts. Key factors collated during the data extraction process as relevant considerations for MBD practices included the evidence base needed to inform decision-making processes and resources (healthcare system costs, radiology equipment, and workforce planning). Conclusions: This scoping review summarises current practices and guidelines incorporating MBD in international population-based breast screening settings and highlights the absence of consensus between organised breast screening programmes incorporating MBD in current breast screening protocols.</p

Examining the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on population-based breast cancer screening in Ireland

Objective: Many population-based breast screening programmes temporarily suspended routine screening following the COVID-19 pandemic onset. This study aimed to describe screening mammography utilisation and the pattern of screen-detected breast cancer diagnoses following COVID-19-related screening disruptions in Ireland. Methods: Using anonymous aggregate data from women invited for routine screening, three time periods were examined: (1) January-December 2019, (2) January-December 2020, and (3) January-December 2021. Descriptive statistics were conducted and comparisons between groups were performed using chi-square tests. Results: In 2020, screening mammography capacity fell by 67.1% compared to 2019; recovering to 75% of mammograms performed in 2019, during 2021. Compared to 2019, for screen-detected invasive breast cancers, a reduction in Grade 1 (14.2% vs. 17.2%) and Grade 2 tumours (53.4% vs. 58.0%) and an increase in Grade 3 tumours (32.4% vs. 24.8%) was observed in 2020 (p = 0.03); whereas an increase in Grade 2 tumours (63.3% vs. 58.0%) and a reduction in Grade 3 tumours (19.6% vs. 24.8%) was found in 2021 (p = 0.02). No changes in oestrogen receptor-positive or nodal-positive diagnoses were observed; however the proportion of oestrogen/progesterone receptor-positive breast cancers significantly increased in 2020 (76.2%; p p Conclusion: These findings demonstrate signs of a grade change for screen-detected invasive breast cancers early in the pandemic, with recovery evident in 2021, and without an increase in nodal positivity. Future studies are needed to determine the COVID-19 impact on long-term breast cancer outcomes including mortality.</p