4.6 Review

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in cancer outpatients in Madrid (Spain): A single center, prospective, cohort study and a review of available data

期刊

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2020.102102

关键词

COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Cancer patients; Seroprevalence; Antibodies; IgG and IgM

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged as a global pandemic. Published data suggests that patients with a history of or active malignancy are at increased risk of infection and developing COVID-19 related complications. To date, the published data has analyzed the seroprevalence of COVID-19 infection in the general population, but not in cancer patients. Here we present the results of prevalence of IgG and IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in cancer patients from the University Hospital of Torrejon (Torrejon de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain). Methods: SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies was assessed using a commercially available rapid test (Testsealabs (R) IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette) and collect the result from cancer outpatients who attended the medical oncology consult at University Hospital of Torrejon between June 1st and June 19th, 2020. Findings: We analyzed the serological test results of 229 cancer patients. We estimated an overall seroprevalence (IgG or IgM positive) of 31.4%. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was similar between men and women, type of treatment and cancer stage. The probability of seropositivity was significantly higher in cancer patients with pneumonia compared with cancer patients without pneumonia (Odds Ratio (OR) 7.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1,85-31,58]). Interpretation: Our results show a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in cancer patients than in the general population. The role of those antibodies in the immune response against the virus infection is unclear.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据