Abstract
Background Since the beginning of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic, cancer patients affected by COVID-19 have been reported to experience poor prognosis; however, a detailed quantification of the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on outcome of unvaccinated cancer patients has not been performed.
Methods To carry out a systematic review of the studies on outcome of unvaccinated cancer patients infected by Sars-Cov-2, a search string was devised which was used to identify relevant publications in PubMed up to December 31, 2020. We selected three outcomes: mortality, access to ICU, and COVID-19 severity or hospitalization. We considered results for all cancers combined as well as for specific cancers. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses of the results, overall and after stratification by region. We also performed sensitivity analyses according to quality score and assessed publication bias.
Results For all cancer combined, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.94, I2 for heterogeneity 90.1%, 24 studies), that for ICU admission was 2.39 (95% CI 1.90-3.02, I2 0.0%, 5 studies), that for disease severity or hospitalization was 2.08 (95% CI 1.60-2.72, I2 92.1%, 15 studies). The pooled mortality OR for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI 1.87-2.44, I2 20.8%, 8 studies). Data were insufficient to perform a meta-analysis for other cancers. In the mortality meta-analysis for all cancers, the pooled OR was higher for studies conducted in Asia than studies conducted in Europe or North America. There was no evidence of publication bias.
Conclusions Our meta-analysis indicate a two-fold increased risk of adverse outcomes (mortality, ICU admission and severity of COVID-19) in unvaccinated cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to uninfected patients. These results should be compared with studies conducted in vaccinated patients; nonetheless, they argue for special effort to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer.
Funding No external funding was obtained.
Introduction
Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, many studies have been conducted on the outcomes of COVID-19, in order to identify factors associated with a higher death rate and a more severe infection course. Some groups of patients at increased risk of severe COVID-19, morbidity and mortality have been identified, including elderly patients, and those with comorbidities, as hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease or COPD [1]. Cancer patients are also a high-risk group due to their compromised immune systems and vulnerability to infection resulting from their disease and treatments [2].
It is generally assumed that cancer patients are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 and death attributed to COVID-19 [3]. However, cancer encompasses a very heterogeneous group of diseases with a diverse range of subtypes and stages. In addition, not all cancers are equal in terms of incidence, prognosis, and treatment. This must be taken into account when the type of cancer is not specified [4]. For this reason, although descriptions and analyses of risk factors, clinical courses, and mortality in cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been reported, a quantitative assessment of the effect of COVID-19 in patients with cancer would be important to guide clinical decision-making.
We aimed at conducting a systematic review of the epidemiological features of the studies of COVID-19 in cancer patients conducted before the implementation of vaccination campaigns, and to provide a quantitative estimate of the risk of cancer patients for severe infection course and COVID-19 mortality, compared to uninfected cancer patients. We decided to restrict our review to studies of unvaccinated patients because (i) they provide the clearest picture of the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on outcome of cancer patients, and (ii) the full effect of vaccination might not have been yet captured by available studies.
Materials and methods
This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement [5]. We submitted the protocol (available as Supplementary File 1) to the PROSPERO Registry. To carry out the systematic review of the scientific literature, the following string was used for the PubMed database:
(neoplas*[TIAB] OR tumor*[TIAB] OR cancer*[TIAB] OR malignancy[TIAB]) AND (2019 novel coronavirus[TIAB] OR COVID-19[TIAB] OR COVID19[TIAB] OR SARS-CoV-2[TIAB] OR 2019-nCoV[TIAB]).
In order restrict the review to studies populations on unvaccinated cancer patients, we included papers published in peer-reviewed journals up to December 31, 2020. We excluded abstracts and non-peer-reviewed reports, articles in languages other than English, and studies including children. We also excluded reviews, meta-analysis and case reports, and studies with less than 50 patients or less than 10 events. Finally, we excluded studies in which diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 infection was not made by PCR testing.
The articles were independently reviewed and abstracted by 2 pairs of reviewers [GDF and MA; GV and FT], on the basis of title, abstract and full text; the disagreement between the authors of the reviews (6.1% of all studies) and was resolved through discussion with a fifth reviewer [PB].
We selected the following outcomes: mortality, ICU admission, severity of COVID-19 symptoms, and hospitalization: we combined these latter two outcomes because the definition of severity was heterogeneous across studies and the number of available studies was low. We excluded from the review studies addressing the impact of SARS-Cov-2 infection on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer patients, as well as studies on the oncogenic effect of the virus, e.g., analyses of cancer-related alterations. In addition, we carried out a back-search by inspecting the lists of references of articles selected for the review.
Figure 1 shows the flowchart for selection of the studies. Details on the studies retained in each step of the process are available from the authors.
We abstracted the following parameters from the articles retained for the review: country, sample size, number of person affected by cancer and by SARS-Cov-2 infection, cancer type and comparison group (patients without cancer or patients with a different type of cancer), outcome, and risk estimate (relative risk or odds ratio [OR]) with 95% confidence interval (CI). If the risk estimate or the CI were not reported in the publication, we calculated them from the raw data, if possible. We also performed a quality assessment (QA) based on a modified version of CASP score [6], that included 10 criteria.
Statistical analysis
We conducted random-effects [7] meta-analyses of the risk estimates for the combinations of cancers and outcomes with more than five independent results. We also conducted stratified meta-analyses according to geographic region, to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, that we quantified using the I2 test [8].
To evaluated results stability, we performed sensitivity analyses by quality score and repeated the meta-analysis after excluding one study at a time. We also conducted secondary analyses excluding studies with results calculated on the basis of raw data. Furthermore, we considered the funnel plot and performed the Egger’s regression asymmetry test to assess publication bias [9].
Finally we conducted a cumulative meta-analysis, based on date of publication of subsequent studies.
Analyses were performed by STATA16 program [10], using specific commands metan, metabias, and metafunnel.
Results
We identified a total of 3488 publications from the literature search, and excluded three because they were duplicates. We screened the titles and abstracts of 3485 articles: we excluded 3145 of them because not relevant (Figure 1), and retained 340 articles as potentially eligible.
After reviewing the full-texts, we excluded 303 articles because these did not meet the inclusion criteria, and included the remaining 37 studies in the review: we finally included 35 of them in the quantitative synthesis.
Among the 35 studies, 30 reported results for all cancers combined, and 8 for hematologic neoplasms (three of these reported both sets of results). Results for other specific cancers were sparse, and we could not conduct meta-analyses for them. Out of the 35 studies, 13 were from Europe, 11 from North America (all from USA), and 11 from Asia (9 from China and two from Iran). Fifteen studies were considered good quality (CASP score >9.5), nineteen studies were of moderate quality (9.5 ≥ CASP score > 6), whereas one was considered inadequate (CASP score ≤ 6).
Tables 1 and 2 show the details of the studies included in the analysis.
Figures 2-3-4 reports the results of the meta-analyses of studies of patients with all cancers combined compared to patients without cancer, for mortality, admission to ICU and hospitalization or severity of COVID-19, respectively. The pooled OR for mortality was 2.32 (95% CI 1.82-2.94, I2 90.1%), that for ICU admission was 2.39 (95% CI 1.90-3.02, I2 0.0%), and that for hospitalization/severity of disease was 2.08 (95% CI 1.60-2.72, I2 92.1%).
In the analysis by geographic region (Figure 2), the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality in cancer patients was stronger, and less heterogeneous, in studies from Asia (OR 2.92; 95% CI 2.13-4.01, I2 37.8%) than in studies from either Europe (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.65-3.40; I2 67.9%) or North America (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.31-2.97; I2 95.9%). Too few studies were available on the other outcomes to justify a meta-analysis stratified by region of origin.
The cumulative meta-analysis, based on date of publication of subsequent studies of mortality (all type of cancer), showed a stronger association in the studies published before July 2020 than in studies published later.
As shown in Supplementary Figure 4, we found no evidence of publication bias in the meta-analysis concerning mortality (p-value of Egger’s test 0.67). The number of studies included in the other meta-analyses was too low to yield meaningful results on publication bias.
In the sensitivity analysis based on QA, the pooled OR of mortality results of studies with acceptable quality was not different from that of results of good-quality studies: OR 2.25 (95% CI 1.73-2.94) vs. OR 2.50 (95% CI 1.47-4.26). When we repeated the analysis after excluding one study at a time, we did not identify a major effect of any single study; in particular, the exclusion of the only study that suggested a negative association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality [18] yielded a pooled OR of 2.41 (95% CI 1.95-2,99, I2 85.5%). The association with mortality was less pronounced in studies whose results were reported by the authors (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.55-2.87) compared to studies whose results were calculated by us (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.97-3.60%), although the difference was not statistically significant. [Supplementary Figure 3]
Figure 5 presents the results of the meta-analysis of eight studies on mortality in patients with hematologic neoplasms. The pooled RR was 2.14 (95% CI 1.87-2.44, I2 20.8%). Results for other outcomes (admission to ICU, hospitalization, severity of symptoms) were too sparse to conduct a meta-analysis.
Discussion
Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, cancer patients affected by COVID-19 have been identified to be at increased risk of poor prognosis, together with other vulnerable categories of patients as those affected by cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney injury, obesity, or stroke [46]. However, how much SARS-CoV-2 infection actually resulted in more severe outcomes in cancer patients compared to other patients and what caused their worse clinical course has not been fully clarified. In a previous editorial, some of us addressed the issue of the different interactions that COVID-19 and cancer may have [47]. On one hand, it is interesting to study how COVID-19 evolves in patients with cancer, by assessing whether the infection in these patients has a more severe course than in a control group affected by the infection but without cancer. On the other hand, it is important to identify the effects that the pandemic itself has determined in patients with cancer, including reduced access to treatment, delay in diagnosis for postponed screening, increased time between follow-up visits, and change in treatment organization. Acquiring more severe infection could be due to both components.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis we focused on the effect that SARS-CoV-2 infection had in patients with cancer compared with those without cancer in terms of mortality, ICU access, and severity of COVID-19 (hospitalization or severity of symptoms). We found that patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection have a two-fold higher risk of experiencing these adverse outcomes compared to non-cancer patients. Our results are in agreement with those of the meta-analysis by Venkatesulu et al. [48], who included a smaller number of studies, mainly from China, and reported an OR of 2.54 (95% CI 1.47-4.42) for mortality in cancer patients with concurrent COVID-19, compared to non-cancer patients. Similar to our results, these authors also reported a stronger association in studies from China than in those from other regions. Our results are also similar to those by Zhang et al. [49], who reported a meta-analysis of five studies from China, yielding a meta-OR of 2.63, with limited heterogeneity; compared to these early reports, we included more studies in our meta-analysis, which should lead to a more robust and precise risk estimate.
The higher risk of mortality in studies from China compared to those from other countries could be explained by the fact that some of the studies from China were conducted during the very early phase of the infection, when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate. This interpretation is reinforced by the results of the cumulative meta-analysis, that showed a stronger effect detected in the early studies compared to later studies.
Our summary results on risk of ICU admission and severity of COVID-19 indicated a somehow weaker association than that reported by other authors. An early meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increase for ICU admission, an almost 4-fold increase for a SARS-CoV-2 infection classified as severe, and a 5-fold increase in being intubated [51]. The fact that our values are lower might be explained by the inclusion of studies conducted when management of cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection was more effective.
Immunosuppression and impaired T-cell response due to therapies may underlie the worse outcome in hematologic cancer diseases, even if some authors suggested that the attenuated inflammatory response in hematological patients can protect from severe COVID-19 morbidity [52]. The results of our meta-analysis confirm a higher mortality from COVID in patients with haematological neoplasms compared to non-neoplastic patients, with limited heterogeneity, with a pooled risk estimate similar to that for all cancers combined.
We were not able to derive pooled results for other specific cancers. Results for patients with hematologic and solid neoplasms were compared in some individual studies. In particular, Desai et al. [53] reported a higher mortality in the former group, but the comparison was not adjusted for age and type of therapy.
Although our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients, it suffers from some limitations. Many studies included in our analysis did not provide results adjusted for important determinants such as sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. As mentioned above, we were not able to analyse specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms, because results were too sparse.
In conclusion our meta-analysis confirms, by giving a more precise and accurate estimation, evidence to the hypothesis of an association between all type of cancer (and more specific hematologic neoplasm) and a worst outcome on Mortality, ICU admission and Severity of COVID-19.
Future studies will be able to better analyse this association for the different subtypes of cancer too. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced.
Data Availability
All the primary data are available from the first Author
Declarations
Conflict of interests
Authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Availability of data and material
all the primary data are available from the first Author.
Code availability
all the software code is available from the first Author.
Author’s contributions
- PB, GDF and GV designed the study
- GDF, GV, FT, MA identified studies and extracted the data
- GDF, GV and PB conducted statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript
- All Authors reviewed the manuscript