SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Seroprevalence in Patients With Cancer on Systemic Antineoplastic Treatment in the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Portugal

  1. Gonçalo Fernandes
  2. Paulo Paixão
  3. Laura Brum
  4. Teresa Padrão
  5. Jorge Correia
  6. Joana Albuquerque
  7. Catarina Pulido
  8. Mónica Nave
  9. Teresa Timóteo
  10. Tânia Rodrigues
  11. Filipe Costa
  12. José L Passos-Coelho

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7759/cureus.22428
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.31.22270178: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: A two-visit design was used to minimize the risk of false-negative results associated with testing during early disease and the subsequent possibility of and undetectable level of specific antibodies (window period).[7] On day one (first study visit), eligible patients were recruited to the study and written informed consent was obtained.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Recombinant antigens rN and rS were conjugated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) and immobilized on the anti-FITC antibody conjugated magnetic particles.
    anti-FITC
    suggested: None
    Alkaline phosphatase conjugated human IgG/IgM antibody was used as the detection antibody.
    human IgG/IgM
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    In addition, IgG positive results were subject to confirmation, in the same serum sample, by chemiluminescence assays IgG Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 (Abbott Diagnostics, Chicago, USA; specificity >99%) and DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1 / S2 (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy; specificity 98,5%), respectively detecting antibodies specific for SARS-CoV-2 N and S proteins.
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    Results of these tests are presented as arbitrary units.[8] Manufacturer defined cutoffs for positivity were greater than or equal to 1.00 arbitrary units per mL (AU/mL) for the MAGLUMI 2019-nCoV IgG and IgM, 1.40 signal/cut off index (Index (S/C)) for the IgG Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 and greater than or equal to 15.0 AU/mL for the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1 / S2.
    Abbott Architect
    suggested: (Abbott ARCHITECT i1000sr System, RRID:SCR_019328)

    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:
    Limitations of this study include its small sample size and the absent second study visit for 28 of the 100 patients. Since RT-PCR was not part of study procedures, rather performed at the discretion of attending physicians, in accordance with standard clinical practice, these tests were performed at a median of four days (IQR 2-6) before serological testing; thus, in theory, acute COVID-19 asymptomatic infections could have been missed on the day of blood collection. At that point in time, low antibody concentrations in the early course of the disease could be below the manufacturer positive cut-off value of the serologic assay.[20] To mitigate this risk, we measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at two different time points and, did an extensive review of the patients’ EMR and did follow-up telephone contacts that documented no cases of COVID- 19 infection (symptomatic or asymptomatic) within the study timeframe. The self-reported symptom questionnaire included symptoms that could be associated with COVID-19 diagnosis but could also be associated with the oncologic disease or its treatment. A Canadian study polled 4240 adults about self-reported COVID-19 experience in March 2020 (early in the pandemic) and found that between 5 and 8% of respondents reported that either themselves or at least one of the household members had possible COVID-19 symptoms.[21] In our study, as expected, cancer patients reported a higher incidence of symptoms that could be COVID-19 related than the ...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.31.22270178v1 on medRxiv