Jianping Bi1, Yongping Lin2, Ran Zhong2, Guowu Jiang3, Vivek Verma1, Hongwei Shi1, Jianfu Li2, Xianli Tong3, Yanping Li1, Desheng Hu1, Wenhua Liang4, Guang Han5, Jianxing He2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hubei Cancer Hospital,Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, The first affiliated hospital of Guangzhou medical university, China State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Laboratory, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 4. Department of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, The first affiliated hospital of Guangzhou medical university, China State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.. Electronic address: liangwh1987@163.com. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hubei Cancer Hospital,Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. Electronic address: hg7913@hotmail.com.
Dear Editor,We read with the interest the recent paper by Minotti and colleagues who described a systematic review of literature about immunosuppressive status affecting children and adults in SARS-CoV-2 infection, which reported patients with cancer may have milder forms of COVID19 infection. There have also some articles reported that cancerpatients may be at increased risk of COVID-19 along with poorer prognosis.
,
However, no comparison has been made to date between asymptomatic, RNA-negative cancerpatients with positive viral serum antibodies versus caregivers living in a similar environment. In this letter, we aimed to examine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of asymptomatic COVID-19 in cancerpatients versus caregivers with a similar COVID-19 exposure history from the experience of the only cancer hospital in Wuhan, China.A total of 3261 consecutive individuals who visited Hubei Cancer Hospital from March 9, 2020 to April 7, 2020 (comprising 2094 cancerpatients and 1167 caregivers) were required to undergo chest computed tomography (CT) and routine bloodwork as well as viral serum antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by the colloidal gold immunoassay. All patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies underwent SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing by RT-PCR. To illustrate the situation outside the epicenter, a serosurvey from the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (Guangzhou, China) was also reviewed. This investigation was approved by the institutional ethics board of Hubei Cancer Hospital.Confirmation of COVID-19infection was defined per positive nucleic acid testing or SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing, based on the criteria published by the COVID-19 Diagnosis and Treatment Plan (Provisional 7th Edition) from the National Health Commission of China. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections herein were defined as the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody (without positive nucleic acid testing) and showing no COVID-19 related symptoms upon clinical evaluation. Categorical variables were presented with counts (%); continuous variables were presented as mean (SD) if normally distributed, or median (IQR) if not. A Chi-square test and a Mann-Whitney U test/Student t-test were used to compare the difference between categorical and continuous variables respectively. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).67 (3.2%) of the cancerpatients with positive for serum IgM and/or IgG antibodies (17 IgG- IgM+, 45 IgG+ IgM-, and 5 IgG+ IgM+) were significantly more than the 15 (1.3%) of the caregivers (5 IgG- IgM+, 10 IgG+ IgM-) (P<0.001). The result was similar to the Guangzhou cohort, 1.3% (5/375) of cancerpatients and 0.8% (12/1469) of caregivers, respectively (Table 1
and Fig. 1
).
Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of All Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections.
Total (N = 82)
Cancer patients (n = 67) (%)
Caregivers (n = 15) (%)
P Value
Paired Cancer patients (n = 51) (%)
Paired Caregivers (n = 51) (%)
P Value
Age, median (IQR), y
58
58
56
0.490
58 (50–64)
53 (43–63)
0.063
Age, y
0.616
0.537
≤60
51
40 (59.7)
11 (73.3)
31 (60.8)
34 (66.7)
>60
31
27 (40.3)
4 (26.7)
20 (39.2)
17 (33.3)
Sex
0.917
0.303
Female
54
45 (67.2)
9 (60.0)
35 (68.6)
30 (58.8)
Male
28
22 (32.8)
6 (40.0)
16 (31.4)
21 (41.2)
Clinical manifestations (in last 3 months)
Fever
3
2 (3.0)
1 (6.7)
0.492
2 (3.9)
0 (0.0)
0.153
Cough
1
1 (1.5)
0 (0.0)
0.634
1 (2.0)
0 (0.0)
0.315
Chest pain
1
1 (1.5)
0 (0.0)
0.634
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1.000
Chronic diseases
Hypertension
13
12 (17.9)
1 (6.7)
0.281
12 (23.5)
3 (5.9)
0.012
Diabetes
4
3 (4.5)
1 (6.7)
0.722
4 (7.8)
1 (2.0)
0.169
Cardiovascular disease
1
1 (1.5)
0 (0.0)
0.634
1 (2.0)
0 (0.0)
1.000
COPD
2
2 (3.0)
0 (0.0)
0.488
2 (3.9)
0 (0.0)
0.153
Chronic kidney disease
2
2 (3.0)
0 (0.0)
0.488
1 (2.0)
0 (0.0)
0.315
Chronic liver disease
3
2 (3.0)
1 (6.7)
0.492
2 (3.9)
1 (2.0)
0.558
Leucocytes (× 10⁹ per L; normal range 4.0–10.0)
0.625
0.125
Increased
2
1 (1.5)
1 (6.7)
2 (3.9)
0 (0.0)
Decreased
3
3 (4.5)
0 (0.0)
2 (3.9)
0 (0.0)
Lymphocytes (× 10⁹ per L; normal range 1•1–3•2)
0.706
0.213
Increased
1
1 (1.5)
0 (0.0)
1 (2.0)
0 (0.0)
Decreased
2
2 (3.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (3.9)
0 (0.0)
Chest CT findings
0.371
0.012
Suspicious
8
8 (11.9)
0 (0.0)
6 (11.8)
0 (0.0)
Unsuspicious
74
59 (88.1)
15 (100.0)
45 (88.2)
51 (100.0)
Note: IQR: interquartile range; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; P<0.05 indicates that the difference was statistically significant.
Fig. 1
Positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG and proportion of IgM+, IgG+ and IgM+ IgG+ in different groups in Wuhan and Guangzhou.
Baseline Characteristics of All Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections.Note: IQR: interquartile range; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; P<0.05 indicates that the difference was statistically significant.Positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG and proportion of IgM+, IgG+ and IgM+ IgG+ in different groups in Wuhan and Guangzhou.In the 82 infectedpersons, the median age was 58 years (range: 25–75) and 54 (65.9%) patients were female as well as 77 (93.9%) had no obvious clinical manifestations and 5 cases had self-limiting symptoms in the last three months (three with fever, one with dry cough, and one with chest pain). Leukocytes were below the normal range in three (3.7%) patients and above the normal range in 2 (2.4%) patients. Only two (2.4%) patients had lymphopenia. According to chest CT results, 8 (9.8%) patients were suspected of having manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Table 1). Of the 67 infectedcancerpatients, breast cancer was the most frequent type (17 [25.4%]), followed by lung cancer (16 [23.4%]). 27 [40.3%] of 67 infectedcancerpatients had a history of anticancer therapy (e.g. surgery and/or chemotherapy) within the last six months.Of 67 infectedcancerpatients, 51 presented with “paired” caregivers living in the same environment. None of the paired caregivers had positive antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The 51 infectedcancerpatients showed a larger proportion of hypertension (23.5% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.012) and abnormal CT manifestations (11.8% vs. 0%, P = 0.012) (Table 1). Additionally, the paired cancerpatients of all 15 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected caregivers also remained uninfected.Nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 was the standard for COVID-19 diagnosis at the beginning of the epidemic. However, this has many limitations: (1) RT-PCR testing generally takes several hours for results. (2) RT-PCR requires certified laboratories, expensive equipment, and trained technicians to operate. (3) RT-PCR can cause false negatives for COVID-19. Therefore, given the urgent need for a rapid, simple, sensitive, and accurate test to quickly identify infectedpatients, antibody testing has been largely implemented for these purposes.In our study, 82(2.5%) asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected in 3261 individuals who visited Hubei Cancer Hospital, which is higher than the 1.2% asymptomatic COVID-19 cases from the report by the China CDC. This is likely related to the high (64.2%) of cancerpatients herein, which is consistent with literature showing that the infection rate tends to be higher in cancerpatients as compared to non-cancerpatients. We extend the results of prior studies by showing that the rate of asymptomatic disease in cancerpatients is higher than that of persons with similar history of exposure (e.g. caregivers).Though asymptomatic COVID-19 cases with potential to spread the virus have been reported,
,
we found that paired caregivers of 51 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected cancerpatients were not infected as well as paired cancerpatients of 15 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected caregivers. Thus, asymptomatic infectedpatients should ideally be treated similar to those with subclinical infection given the very weak transmission ability.This study has several limitations. First, we did not collect a clear exposure history to COVID-19, so it was difficult to clarify how they got infected. Second, according to the updated COVID-19 Diagnostic Criteria (7th Edition), the viral serum antibody is indeed valid for diagnosis; however, false positives and false negatives can still occur. Third, we cannot address the effect of oncologic therapy on re-activation of the virus (or lack thereof).In conclusion, this experience from the only cancer hospital in Wuhan, China, shows that asymptomatic manifestations of COVID-19 are more likely to occur in cancerpatients as compared to non-cancer-afflicted caregivers located in a similar exposure environment. However, transmission of asymptomatic COVID-19 is relatively weak, which is novel information of utility for other nations in preparation for the “second wave” of the pandemic thought to occur later this year.
Authors: Qun Li; Xuhua Guan; Peng Wu; Xiaoye Wang; Lei Zhou; Yeqing Tong; Ruiqi Ren; Kathy S M Leung; Eric H Y Lau; Jessica Y Wong; Xuesen Xing; Nijuan Xiang; Yang Wu; Chao Li; Qi Chen; Dan Li; Tian Liu; Jing Zhao; Man Liu; Wenxiao Tu; Chuding Chen; Lianmei Jin; Rui Yang; Qi Wang; Suhua Zhou; Rui Wang; Hui Liu; Yinbo Luo; Yuan Liu; Ge Shao; Huan Li; Zhongfa Tao; Yang Yang; Zhiqiang Deng; Boxi Liu; Zhitao Ma; Yanping Zhang; Guoqing Shi; Tommy T Y Lam; Joseph T Wu; George F Gao; Benjamin J Cowling; Bo Yang; Gabriel M Leung; Zijian Feng Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: L Zhang; F Zhu; L Xie; C Wang; J Wang; R Chen; P Jia; H Q Guan; L Peng; Y Chen; P Peng; P Zhang; Q Chu; Q Shen; Y Wang; S Y Xu; J P Zhao; M Zhou Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Valerie E Crolley; Daire Hanna; Nalinie Joharatnam-Hogan; Neha Chopra; Ekin Bamac; Meera Desai; Yuk-Chun Lam; Sabiq Dipro; Ruhi Kanani; Jack Benson; William Wilson; Thomas A Fox; Kai-Keen Shiu; Martin Forster; John Bridgewater; Daniel Hochhauser; Khurum Khan Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 8.168
Authors: Lova Sun; Sanjna Surya; Noah G Goodman; Anh N Le; Gregory Kelly; Olutosin Owoyemi; Heena Desai; Cathy Zheng; Shannon DeLuca; Madeline L Good; Jasmin Hussain; Seth D Jeffries; Yolanda R Kry; Emily M Kugler; Maikel Mansour; John Ndicu; AnnaClaire Osei-Akoto; Timothy Prior; Stacy L Pundock; Lisa A Varughese; JoEllen Weaver; Abigail Doucette; Scott Dudek; Shefali Setia Verma; Sigrid Gouma; Madison E Weirick; Christopher M McAllister; Erin Bange; Peter Gabriel; Marylyn Ritchie; Daniel J Rader; Robert H Vonderheide; Lynn M Schuchter; Anurag Verma; Ivan Maillard; Ronac Mamtani; Scott E Hensley; Robert Gross; E Paul Wileyto; Alexander C Huang; Kara N Maxwell; Angela DeMichele Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-06-16