Is Cancer significant Comorbid Condition in COVID 19 Infected Patients? -A Retrospective Analysis Experienced in a Tertiary Care Center in Eastern India

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Objectives

Patients with a history of active malignancy were initially thought to be at a higher risk of having COVID-19, although available data are conflicting due to economic stress, malnutrition, fear of hospitalization or treatment discontinuation. A cohort-based study was undertaken in Indian regional cancer centre to understand cancer-covid link in patients.

Study Design

A total of 1565 asymptomatic patients were admitted based on thermal screening and evaluation from the screening form. The COVID 19 has been checked by RT-PCR method and the COVID 19 positive patients were transferred to government allocated COVID 19 hospital. The COVID 19 negative patients were transferred to general ward for further cancer treatment.

Method

Post COVID 19 testing, positive patients were transferred to COVID hospital and their outcomes were analyzed and correlated with patient’s age gender and cancer stages.

Result

Out of 1565 patients, 54 patients (3.4%) tested positive. Most of the patients are in 45-59 years age group. As female patients admitted were more in number than males, so predominance of disease is higher in female. 3 patients were symptomatic after admission and 2 were severe and were admitted to the ICU with ventilations. 8 patients died in Cancer and one patient died in COVID 19.

Conclusions

As only 3.4% patients tested positive and only one patient out of 54 had died, so cancer is found not to be a comorbid condition towards COVID 19 patients in the Indian population studied.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.14.22275079: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Validation was performed biannually according to the ICMR guidelines by Intra-laboratory testing and by External Quality Assurance Program (EQAS) as provided to us by ICMR.
    Quality Assurance Program
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.