The prevalence of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the United States is ≤1%. Universal HCV screening is recommended nationwide. Here we describe our experience implementing universal HCV screening at a cancer center.

In October 2016, universal HCV screening with HCV antibody (anti-HCV) was initiated for all new outpatients. Universal screening was promoted through widespread provider education, orders in the Epic electronic health records (EHRs), SmartSets, and automated EHR reminders. The effort focused on patients with solid tumors, because universal screening in patients with hematologic malignancies was already standard practice. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients screened and the proportion of patients with reactive anti-HCV test results linked to HCV care. The secondary outcome was the incidence of HCV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma as a second primary malignancy (HCC-SPM) in patients with a history of other cancers before HCC diagnosis. Epic's Reporting Workbench Business Intelligence tools were used. Statistical significance was defined as P<.05 on chi-square analysis.

From April 2016 through April 2023, 56,075 patients with solid tumors were screened for HCV, of whom 1,300 (2.3%) had reactive anti-HCV test results. The proportion of patients screened was 10.1% in the 6 months before study implementation and 34.4% in the last 6 months of the study (P<.001). HCV screening was ordered using SmartSets in 39,332 (45.8%) patients and in response to automated EHR reminders in 10,972 (12.8%) patients. Most patients with reactive anti-HCV test results were linked to care (765/1,300; 59%), most with proven HCV infection were treated (425/562; 76%), and most treated patients achieved sustained virologic response (414/425; 97%). The incidence of HCC-SPMs was 15% in historical controls treated from 2011 to 2017 and 5.7% following implementation of universal screening (P=.0002).

Universal HCV screening can be successfully implemented in cancer hospitals using an EHR-based multipronged approach to eliminate HCV and prevent HCV-associated HCC-SPMs.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is not uncommon in cancer patients. Over the past 5 years, treatment of chronic HCV infection in patients with hematologic malignancies has evolved rapidly as safe and effective direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have become the standard-of-care treatment. Today, chronic HCV infection should not prevent a patient from receiving cancer therapy or participating in clinical trials of chemotherapy because most infected patients can achieve virologic cure. Elimination of HCV from infected cancer patients confers virologic, hepatic, and oncologic advantages. Similar to the optimal therapy for HCV-infected patients without cancer, the optimal therapy for HCV-infected patients with cancer is evolving rapidly. The choice of regimens with DAAs should be individualized after thorough assessment for potential hematologic toxic effects and drug-drug interactions. This study presents clinical scenarios of HCV-infected patients with hematologic malignancies, focusing on diagnosis, clinical and laboratory presentations, complications, and DAA therapy. An up-to-date treatment algorithm is presented.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is associated with hepatocellular carcinoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In 2009, MD Anderson established the first US clinic for treating HCV-infected cancer patients, where we observed an unexpectedly large number of patients with head and neck cancers (HNCs). We sought to determine whether HCV is associated with HNCs.

In this case-control study, medical records of cancer patients tested for HCV antibodies at our center from 2004 through 2014 were identified. Case subjects had new-onset primary oropharyngeal or nonoropharyngeal (oral cavity, nasopharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx) HNCs. Control subjects had smoking-associated (lung, esophagus, or urinary bladder) cancers. Biopsy reports of oropharyngeal cancers tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) were reviewed. Patients with lymphoma were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Of 34 545 cancer patients tested for HCV antibodies, 409 case subjects (164 oropharyngeal and 245 nonoropharyngeal) and 694 control subjects (378 lung, 168 esophagus, and 148 urinary bladder) were studied. The prevalence of HCV seropositivity was higher in oropharyngeal cancer patients (14.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.7% to 19.4%, vs 6.5%, 95% CI = 4.6% to 8.3%), particularly HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer patients (16.9%, 95% CI = 8.7% to 24.9%, vs 6.5%, 95% CI = 4.6% to 8.3%), and nonoropharyngeal HNC patients (20.0%, 95% CI = 14.9% to 25.0%, vs 6.5%, 95% CI = 4.6% to 8.3%) than in control subjects. Adjusted models showed a statistically significant association of HCV seropositivity with nonoropharyngeal (except nasopharyngeal) HNCs (odds ratio [OR] = 2.85, 95% CI = 1.38 to 5.88) and HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancers (OR = 2.97, 95% CI = 1.31 to 6.76).

HCV is associated with nonoropharyngeal (except nasopharyngeal) and HPV-positive oropharyngeal HNCs. Further studies are required to explore the possible interaction between HCV and HPV, and the association between HCV and other HPV-related malignancies.

To examine the effect of provider type on outcomes and safety in a large hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected cohort treated in routine medical practice.

Nonphysician providers (NPP) are uniquely positioned to expand health care infrastructure to meet HCV treatment demands.

Retrospective, observational cohort analysis of 820 HCV genotype 1-infected veterans initiated on peginterferon/ribavirin and boceprevir or telaprevir in routine medical practice at 94 VA facilities before January 1, 2012 and followed through July 30, 2013. Provider type was determined from prescription records and included physicians (MD) or NPPs (ie, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists). Inverse probability-of-treatment weighting and unweighted logistic regression analysis was used for comparison of sustained virologic response (SVR), treatment discontinuation rates, and adverse hematologic events.

There was no significant difference in SVR by provider type overall (NPPs 52% vs. MDs 49%, P=0.33) and within patient subgroups, or in treatment discontinuation rates. In multivariate analyses, provider type was not associated with any significant difference in the odds of achieving SVR (NPP vs. MD; odds ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.63; P=0.37 inverse probability of treatment weighting; odds ration 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.59, P=0.38 unweighted). Hematologic adverse event rates were similar: anemia: 57% NPP, 62% MD; thrombocytopenia: 43% NPP, 40% MD; neutropenia: 40% NPP, 39% MD.

Treatment prescribed by NPPs was as likely to result in SVR as treatment prescribed by MDs, even after accounting for patient differences. Engaging more NPPs as HCV treatment providers may allow wider access to HCV treatment.

Traditional utilization of infectious diseases consultants by oncologists ranges from inpatient management of a variety of acute infectious syndromes to management of ambulatory patients with acute or chronic infections; however, there is a paucity of data to evaluate in which circumstances the impact of infectious diseases input may be most valuable.

Data derived from the general population of patients emphasize the value of infectious diseases consultation in specific infections, such as Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, candidemia, and hepatitis C virus infection. In addition, infectious diseases involvement has been associated with greater adherence to guidelines (up to 34% increase), more appropriate antibiotic utilization (up to 52% increase in appropriate duration), decreased cost and complications of care, and lower mortality (up to 17% decrease). Recent studies suggest that bedside, formal infectious diseases consultation is more optimal than informal interactions (e.g., e-mail, telephone, other). Furthermore, infectious diseases consultants play central roles in antibiotic stewardship, infection control, and quality improvement, particularly in oncology centers.

Infectious diseases consultants contribute value in various inpatient and outpatient infections, decreasing mortality, cost, and complications.

Infections with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer, especially in patients with hematologic malignancies and those who undergo hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Reported rates of HBV reactivation in HBV carriers who undergo chemotherapy range from 14-72%. In these patients, mortality rates range from 5-52%. HCV reactivation seems to be less common than HBV reactivation and is usually associated with a good outcome and low mortality. However, once severe hepatitis develops, as a result of viral reactivation, mortality rates seem to be similar among patients infected with HBV or HCV. Liver damage owing to viral reactivation frequently leads to modifications or interruptions of chemotherapy, which can negatively affect patients' clinical outcome. Risk factors for the development of severe HBV or HCV reactivation need to be better defined to permit identification of patients who may benefit from preventive measures, early diagnosis, and therapy. In this article, we review the epidemiology, pathogenesis, risk factors, and clinical and laboratory manifestations associated with reactivation of HBV and HCV during immunosuppressive therapy. We also discuss strategies for the prevention and treatment of viral reactivation, including the management of reactivation with new antiviral agents.