SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity and Seroconversion in Patients Undergoing Active Cancer-Directed Therapy

  1. Lova Sun
  2. Sanjna Surya
  3. Noah G. Goodman
  4. Anh N. Le
  5. Gregory Kelly
  6. Olutosin Owoyemi
  7. Heena Desai
  8. Cathy Zheng
  9. Shannon DeLuca
  10. Madeline L. Good
  11. Jasmin Hussain
  12. Seth D. Jeffries
  13. Yolanda R. Kry
  14. Emily M. Kugler
  15. Maikel Mansour
  16. John Ndicu
  17. AnnaClaire Osei-Akoto
  18. Timothy Prior
  19. Stacy L. Pundock
  20. Lisa A. Varughese
  21. JoEllen Weaver
  22. Abigail Doucette
  23. Scott Dudek
  24. Shefali Setia Verma
  25. Sigrid Gouma
  26. Madison E. Weirick
  27. Christopher M. McAllister
  28. Erin Bange
  29. Peter Gabriel
  30. Marylyn Ritchie
  31. Daniel J. Rader
  32. Robert H. Vonderheide
  33. Lynn M. Schuchter
  34. Anurag Verma
  35. Ivan Maillard
  36. Ronac Mamtani
  37. Scott E. Hensley
  38. Robert Gross
  39. E. Paul Wileyto
  40. Alexander C. Huang
  41. Kara N. Maxwell
  42. Angela DeMichele

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Multiple studies have demonstrated the negative impact of cancer care delays during the COVID-19 pandemic, and transmission mitigation techniques are imperative for continued cancer care delivery. We aimed to gauge the effectiveness of these measures at the University of Pennsylvania.

METHODS:

We conducted a longitudinal study of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity and seroconversion in patients presenting to infusion centers for cancer-directed therapy between May 21, 2020, and October 8, 2020. Participants completed questionnaires and had up to five serial blood collections.

RESULTS:

Of 124 enrolled patients, only two (1.6%) had detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on initial blood draw, and no initially seronegative patients developed newly detectable antibodies on subsequent blood draw(s), corresponding to a seroconversion rate of 0% (95% CI, 0.0 TO 4.1%) over 14.8 person-years of follow up, with a median of 13 health care visits per patient.

CONCLUSION:

These results suggest that patients with cancer receiving in-person care at a facility with aggressive mitigation efforts have an extremely low likelihood of COVID-19 infection.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1200/op.21.00113
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.15.21249810: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Patients were approached via phone and provided electronic consent for blood collection, electronic surveys, and access to electronic health records (EHR).
    IRB: This study was approved by the institutional review board at Penn.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Samples were assayed for SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies to the spike receptor binding domain antigen using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) approach, with high sensitivity and specificity[14].
    SARS-CoV-2 IgG
    suggested: None
    IgM
    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Continued reinforcement of practices including physical distancing, masking, and visitor limitation will remain critical as pandemic fatigue rises along with COVID-19 cases.

    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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.15.21249810v1 on medRxiv