Delivery of Cancer Care in Ontario, Canada, During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Causes and impact of delays during the COVID-19 pandemic on head and neck cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND

The causes for delays during the COVID19 pandemic and their impact on head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis and staging are not well described.

METHODS

Two cohorts were defined a priori for review and analysis-a Pre-Pandemic cohort (June 1 to December 31, 2019) and a Pandemic cohort (June 1 to December 31, 2020). Delays were categorized as COVID-19 related or not, and as clinician, patient, or policy related.

RESULTS

A total of 638 HNC patients were identified including 327 in the Pre-Pandemic Cohort and 311 in the Pandemic Cohort. Patients in the Pandemic cohort had more N2-N3 category (41% vs. 33%, p = 0.03), T3-T4 category (63% vs. 50%, p = 0.002), and stage III-IV (71% vs. 58%, p < 0.001) disease. Several intervals in the diagnosis to treatment pathway were significantly longer in the pandemic cohort as compared to the Pre-Pandemic cohort. Among the pandemic cohort, 146 (47%) experienced a delay, with 112 related to the COVID-19 pandemic; 80 (71%) were clinician related, 15 (13%) were patient related, and 17 (15%) were policy related.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the Pandemic cohort had higher stage disease at diagnosis and longer intervals along the diagnostic pathway, with COVID-19 related clinician factors being the most common cause of delay.

Changes in reasons for visits to primary care after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic: An international comparative study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID)

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped healthcare delivery worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

To explore potential changes in the reasons for visits and modality of care in primary care settings through the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective study from 2018-2021. We examined visit volume, modality, and reasons for visits to primary care in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Peru, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, and the USA. The analysis involved a comparison between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.

RESULTS

There were more than 215 million visits from over 38 million patients during the study period in INTRePID primary care settings. Most INTRePID countries experienced a decline in monthly visit rates during the first year of the pandemic, with rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) ranging from RR:0.57 (95%CI:0.49-0.66) to RR:0.90 (95%CI:0.83-0.98), except for in Canada (RR:0.99, 95%CI:0.94-1.05) and Norway (RR:1.00, 95%CI:0.92-1.10), where rates remained stable and in Australia where rates increased (RR:1.19, 95%CI:1.11-1.28). Argentina, China, and Singapore had limited or no adoption of virtual care, whereas the remaining INTRePID countries varied in the extent of virtual care utilization. In Peru, virtual visits accounted for 7.34% (95%CI:7.33%-7.35%) of all interactions in the initial year of the pandemic, dipping to 5.22% (95%CI:5.21%-5.23%) in the subsequent year. However, in Canada 75.30% (95%CI:75.20%-75.40%) of the visits in the first year were virtual, decreasing to 62.77% (95%CI:62.66%-62.88%) in the second year. Diabetes, hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia and general health exams were in the top 10 reasons for visits in 2019 for all countries. Anxiety, depression and/or other mental health related reasons were among the top 10 reasons for virtual visits in all countries that had virtual care.

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic resulted in changes in reasons for visits to primary care, with virtual care mitigating visit volume disruptions in many countries.

Important and Feasible Actions to Address Cervical Screening Participation amongst South Asian Women in Ontario: A Concept Mapping Study with Service Users and Service Providers

Regular cervical screening can largely prevent the development of cervical cancer and innovative methods are needed to better engage people in screening. In Ontario, Canada, South Asian women have some of the lowest rates of screening in the province. In this study, we used concept mapping to engage two stakeholder groups-South Asian service users and service providers-to identify and prioritize points of intervention to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. After participants brainstormed a master list of statements, 45 participants rated the statements based off 'importance' and 'ease to address' in relation to encouraging cervical screening. A bivariate plot (X-Y graph) that shows the average rating values for each statement across the two rating variables (a 'go-zone' display) was produced to display priorities for implementation. Statements that were considered high priority to address reflected issues around education and awareness including understanding and communication related to cervical screening and preventative care, as well as the need for trusted sources of information. Statements that were considered high priority but challenging to implement were centered around fear, stigma, discomfort, family and personal priorities. This study highlighted that stigma, norms and social relations that impact the uptake of screening must be addressed in order for education and awareness raising to be effective and to move people from conviction around screening to action.

Patient perspectives on cancer care during COVID-19: A qualitative study

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges to cancer-related care as health systems balanced competing risks of timely delivery of care and minimizing exposure to infection in a high-risk, immunocompromised patient population. This study aimed to better understand how pandemic-related factors affected the patient experience of cancer care during this time.

METHODS

We conducted fifteen semi-structured interviews with adults from rural counties in Maryland who were diagnosed with and/or actively treated for cancer at the TidalHealth healthcare network between January 2020 and October 2022.

RESULTS

Interviews from fifteen participants were analyzed. Two major themes emerged including COVID Impact on Care, and COVID Impact on Mental Health. Subthemes under COVID Impact on Care include Staffing Shortages, Hospital Regulations, Visitation, Importance of Advocacy, and Telehealth Utilization, and subthemes under COVID Impact on Mental Health include Loneliness, Support Networks, and Perceptions of COVID and Personal Protection. Overall, participants described positive care experiences despite notable delays, disruptions to continuity of care, difficult transitions to telemedicine, visitation policies that limited patient support, increased mental health struggles related to social distancing measures, and greater desire for patient advocacy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings reveal significant impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on experiences of cancer treatment and survivorship in a more vulnerable, rural patient population with lower healthcare access and income level. Our findings suggest areas for targeted interventions to limit disruptions to quality care in future public health emergencies.

The impact of hospital saturation on non-COVID-19 hospital mortality during the pandemic in France: a national population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

A previous study reported significant excess mortality among non-COVID-19 patients due to disrupted surgical care caused by resource prioritization for COVID-19 cases in France. The primary objective was to investigate if a similar impact occurred for medical conditions and determine the effect of hospital saturation on non-COVID-19 hospital mortality during the first year of the pandemic in France.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study including all adult patients hospitalized for non-COVID-19 acute medical conditions in France between March 1, 2020 and 31 May, 2020 (1st wave) and September 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 (2nd wave). Hospital saturation was categorized into four levels based on weekly bed occupancy for COVID-19: no saturation (< 5%), low saturation (> 5% and ≤ 15%), moderate saturation (> 15% and ≤ 30%), and high saturation (> 30%). Multivariate generalized linear model analyzed the association between hospital saturation and mortality with adjustment for age, sex, COVID-19 wave, Charlson Comorbidity Index, case-mix, source of hospital admission, ICU admission, category of hospital and region of residence.

RESULTS

A total of 2,264,871 adult patients were hospitalized for acute medical conditions. In the multivariate analysis, the hospital mortality was significantly higher in low saturated hospitals (adjusted Odds Ratio/aOR = 1.05, 95% CI [1.34-1.07], P < .001), moderate saturated hospitals (aOR = 1.12, 95% CI [1.09-1.14], P < .001), and highly saturated hospitals (aOR = 1.25, 95% CI [1.21-1.30], P < .001) compared to non-saturated hospitals. The proportion of deaths outside ICU was higher in highly saturated hospitals (87%) compared to non-, low- or moderate saturated hospitals (81-84%). The negative impact of hospital saturation on mortality was more pronounced in patients older than 65 years, those with fewer comorbidities (Charlson 1-2 and 3 vs. 0), patients with cancer, nervous and mental diseases, those admitted from home or through the emergency room (compared to transfers from other hospital wards), and those not admitted to the intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reveals a noteworthy "dose-effect" relationship: as hospital saturation intensifies, the non-COVID-19 hospital mortality risk also increases. These results raise concerns regarding hospitals' resilience and patient safety, underscoring the importance of identifying targeted strategies to enhance resilience for the future, particularly for high-risk patients.

Addressing the health human resources crisis: Strategies for retaining women health care professionals in organizations

Globally, healthcare systems are contending with a pronounced health human resource crisis marked by elevated rates of burnout, heightened job transitions, and an escalating demand for the limited supply of the existing health workforce. This crisis detrimentally affects the quality of patient care, contributing to long wait times, decreased patient satisfaction, and a heightened frequency of patient safety incidents and medical errors. In response to the heightened demand, healthcare organizations are proactively exploring solutions to retain their workforce. With women comprising over 70% of health human resources, this study seeks to gain insight into the unique experiences of women health professionals on the frontlines of healthcare and develop a conceptual framework aimed at facilitating organizations in effectively supporting the retention and advancement of women in healthcare frontline roles. We used grounded theory in this qualitative study. From January 2023 to May 2023, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 27 frontline HCWs working in Canada and representing diverse backgrounds. The data underwent thematic analysis, which involved identifying and comprehending recurring patterns across the information to elucidate emerging themes. Our analysis found that organizational, professional, and personal factors shape women's intentions to leave the frontline workforce. Reevaluating organizational strategies related to workforce, fostering a positive work culture, and building the capacity of management to create supportive work environment can collectively transform the work environment. By creating conditions that enable women to perform effectively and find satisfaction in their professional roles, organizations can enhance their ability to retain valuable talent.

Health-care organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation

Context can influence cancer-related outcomes. For example, health-care organization characteristics, including ownership, leadership, and culture, can affect care access, communication, and patient outcomes. Health-care organization characteristics and other contextual factors can also influence whether and how clinical discoveries reduce cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Importantly, policy, market, and technology changes are transforming health-care organization design, culture, and operations across the cancer continuum. Consequently, research is essential to examine when, for whom, and how organizational characteristics influence person-level, organization-level, and population-level cancer outcomes. Understanding organizational characteristics-the structures, processes, and other features of entities involved in health care delivery-and their dynamics is an important yet understudied area of care delivery research across the cancer continuum. Research incorporating organizational characteristics is critical to address health inequities, test care delivery models, adapt interventions, and strengthen implementation. The field lacks conceptual grounding, however, to help researchers identify germane organizational characteristics. We propose a framework identifying organizational characteristics relevant for cancer care delivery research based on conceptual work in health services, organizational behavior, and management science and refined using a systematic review and key informant input. The proposed framework is a tool for organizing existing research and enhancing future cancer care delivery research. Following a 2012 Journal of the National Cancer Institute monograph, this work complements National Cancer Institute efforts to stimulate research addressing the relationship between cancer outcomes and contextual factors at the patient, provider, team, delivery organization, community, and health policy levels.

Recommendations for Recovery of the COVID-19 Pandemic-related Diagnostic, Screening, and Procedure Backlog in Ontario: A Survey of Healthcare Leaders

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant diagnostic, screening, and procedure backlog in Ontario. Engagement of key stakeholders in healthcare leadership positions is urgently needed to inform a comprehensive provincial recovery strategy.

METHODS

A list of 20 policy recommendations addressing the diagnostic, screening and procedure backlog in Ontario were transformed into a national online survey. Policy recommendations were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) and organized into those retained (≥75% strongly agree to somewhat agree), discarded (≥80% somewhat disagree to strongly disagree), and no consensus reached. Survey participants included a diverse sample of healthcare leaders with the potential to impact policy reform.

RESULTS

Of 56 healthcare leaders invited to participate, there were 34 unique responses (61% response rate). Participants were from diverse clinical backgrounds, including surgical subspecialties, medicine, nursing, and healthcare administration and held institutional or provincial leadership positions. A total of 11 of 20 policy recommendations reached the threshold for consensus agreement with the remaining 9 having no consensus reached.

CONCLUSION

Consensus agreement was reached among Canadian healthcare leaders on 11 policy recommendations to address the diagnostic, screening, and procedure backlog in Ontario. Recommendations included strategies to address patient information needs on expected wait times, expand health and human resource capacity, and streamline efficiencies to increase operating room output. No consensus was reached on the optimal funding strategy within the public system in Ontario or the appropriateness of implementing private funding models.

Assessment of the dynamics of inpatient health care delivery in Poland before and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic

A situation of emergency involving the whole population introduces changes in the dynamics of the health services that are provided. The magnitude of these shifts should be also linked to the medical speciality within which the health benefits are delivered. The aim of the paper was to identify changes in tendencies in inpatient medical service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic by medical specialties. On the basis of a database extracted for in-patient treatment received from the public payer, a retrospective analysis was carried out. Comparing the values of the dynamics of the services provided in each medical speciality, the period before the COVID-19 pandemic was collated to the years of the pandemic (2020-2021). In the period before COVID-19, positive patient dynamics were observed in more than half of the specialities. Between 2020 and 2021, virtually all specialties reversed the trend and negative dynamics were recorded. The dynamics in 2021 indicate a process of return to the values from 2015 to 2019. Emergency situation has affected the dynamics of healthcare provision in different specialities to various extent. The most resistant to the negative impulses of the state of emergency were the areas that are strictly organisationally and financially defined (e.g. the group of "therapeutic and drug programmes").

Adult cancer patients' barriers to and satisfaction with care at a National Cancer Hospital in Vietnam

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the overall satisfaction with oncological care, including barriers to care, and identified its associated predictors among adult cancer patients in Vietnam.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we enrolled 300 adult cancer patients receiving inpatient care at a large urban oncological hospital between June and July 2022. Multivariable linear regression analyses examined associations between patient experiences and overall satisfaction ratings with cancer care.

RESULTS

The mean overall satisfaction with oncological care was 8.82 out of 10, with 98.0% recommending this facility to their friends and family. In an adjusted model, being female (β = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.04, 0.53), endorsing satisfaction with patient-nurse communication (β = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.13, 0.53), patient-doctor communication (β = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.11, 0.70), and psychoeducation about oncological medication management (β = 0.30, 95%CI: 0.14, 0.45) were positively associated with overall ratings. In contrast, individuals with delays in treatment scheduling reported lower overall satisfaction with oncological care (β = -0.38, 95%CI: -0.64, -0.13). Patients perceived health system, social/environmental, and individual barriers to care: worries about income loss due to attending treatment (43.3%); fear, depression, anxiety, and distress (36.8%); concerns about affordability of treatment (36.7%) and transportation problems (36.7%); and excessive waiting times for appointments (28.8%).

CONCLUSION

This study showed high overall patient satisfaction with cancer care quality. Patient-centered communication strategies and psychoeducation about oncological medication management may be targeted to further enhance the cancer inpatient experience. Raising awareness about treatment options and services, and integrating mental health awareness into oncological care may ameliorate patient distress and facilitate greater satisfaction with oncological treatment processes.

Noteworthy impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening: A systematic review

The sudden onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January 2020 has affected essential global health services. Cancer-screening services that can reduce cancer mortality are strongly affected. However, the specific role of COVID-19 in cancer screening is not fully understood. This study aimed to assess the efficiency of global cancer screening programs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and to promote potential cancer-screening strategies for the next pandemic. Electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, and manual searches were performed between January 1, 2020 and March 1, 2023. Cohort studies that reported the number of participants who underwent cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Differences in cancer-screening rates were estimated using the incidence rate ratio (IRR). Fifty-five cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The screening rates of colorectal cancer using invasive screening methods (Pooled IRR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65, p < 0.01), cervical cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.67, p < 0.01), breast cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.66, p < 0.01) and prostate cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.90, p < 0.01) during the COVID-19 pandemic were significantly lower than those before the COVID-19 pandemic. The screening rates of lung cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.03, p = 0.08) and colorectal cancer using noninvasive screening methods (Pooled IRR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.09, p = 0.13) were reduced with no statistical differences. The subgroup analyses revealed that the reduction in cancer-screening rates varied across economies. Our results suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a noteworthy impact on colorectal, cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screening. Developing innovative cancer-screening technologies is important to promote the efficiency of cancer-screening services in the post-COVID-19 era and prepare for the next pandemic.

The Impact of the Pandemic on the Quality of Colorectal and Anal Cancer Care, and 2-Year Clinical Outcomes

We undertook a retrospective study to compare the quality of care delivered to a cohort of newly diagnosed adults with colon, rectal or anal cancer during the early phase of COVID-19 (02/20-12/20) relative to the same period in the year prior (the comparator cohort), and examine the impact of the pandemic on 2-year disease progression and all-cause mortality. We observed poorer performance on a number of quality measures, such as approximately three times as many patients in the COVID-19 cohort experienced 30-day post-surgical readmission (10.5% vs. 3.6%; SD:0.27). Despite these differences, we observed no statistically significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and time to either all-cause mortality (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61-1.27, p = 0.50) or disease progression (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.82-1.64, p = 0.41). However, there was a substantial reduction in new patient consults during the early phase of COVID-19 (12.2% decrease), which appeared to disproportionally impact patients who traditionally experience sociodemographic disparities in access to care, given that the COVID-19 cohort skewed younger and there were fewer patients from neighborhoods with the highest Housing and Dwelling, ands Age and Labour Force marginalization quintiles. Future work is needed to understand the more downstream effects of COVID-19 related changes on cancer care to inform planning for future disruptions in care.

Interruptions in bladder cancer care during the COVID-19 public health emergency

BACKGROUND

Academic and community urology centers participating in a pragmatic clinical trial in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer completed monthly surveys assessing restrictions in aspects of bladder cancer care due to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Our objective was to describe pandemic-related restrictions on bladder cancer care.

METHODS

We invited 32 sites participating in a multicenter pragmatic bladder cancer trial to complete monthly surveys distributed through REDCap beginning in May 2020. These surveys queried sites on whether they were experiencing restrictions in the use of elective surgery, transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT), radical cystectomy, office cystoscopy, and intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) availability. Responses were collated with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 32 eligible sites, 21 sites had at least a 50% monthly response rate over the study period and were included in the analysis. Elective surgery was paused at 76% of sites in May 2020, 48% of sites in January 2021, and 52% of sites in January 2022. Over those same periods, coinciding with COVID-19 incidence waves, TURBT was restricted at 10%, 14%, and 14% of sites, respectively, radical cystectomy was restricted at 10%, 14%, and 19% of sites, respectively, and cystoscopy was restricted at 33%, 0%, and 10% of sites, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Bladder cancer care was minimally restricted compared with more pronounced restrictions seen in general elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Socioeconomic Status, Palliative Care, and Death at Home Among Patients With Cancer Before and During COVID-19

Importance

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the delivery of cancer care, but less is known about its association with place of death and delivery of specialized palliative care (SPC) and potential disparities in these outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life and to examine whether disparities in socioeconomic status exist for these outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, an interrupted time series analysis was conducted using Ontario Cancer Registry data comprising adult patients aged 18 years or older who died with cancer between the pre-COVID-19 (March 16, 2015, to March 15, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 16, 2020, to March 15, 2021) periods. The data analysis was performed between March and November 2023.

Exposure

COVID-19-related hospital restrictions starting March 16, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes were death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life (last 30 days before death). Socioeconomic status was measured using Ontario Marginalization Index area-based material deprivation quintiles, with quintile 1 (Q1) indicating the least deprivation; Q3, intermediate deprivation; and Q5, the most deprivation. Segmented linear regression was used to estimate monthly trends in outcomes before, at the start of, and in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Of 173 915 patients in the study cohort (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [12.5] years; males, 54.1% [95% CI, 53.8%-54.3%]), 83.7% (95% CI, 83.6%-83.9%) died in the pre-COVID-19 period and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.1%-16.4%) died in the COVID-19 period, 54.5% (95% CI, 54.2%-54.7%) died at home during the entire study period, and 57.8% (95% CI, 57.5%-58.0%) received SPC at the end of life. In March 2020, home deaths increased by 8.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.1%); however, this increase was less marked in Q5 (6.1%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.8%) than in Q1 (11.4%; 95% CI, 9.6%-13.2%) and Q3 (10.0%; 95% CI, 9.0%-11.1%). There was a simultaneous decrease of 5.3% (95% CI, -6.3% to -4.4%) in the rate of SPC at the end of life, with no significant difference among quintiles. Patients who received SPC at the end of life (vs no SPC) were more likely to die at home before and during the pandemic. However, there was a larger immediate increase in home deaths among those who received no SPC at the end of life vs those who received SPC (Q1, 17.5% [95% CI, 15.2%-19.8%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.4%-9.7%]; Q3, 12.7% [95% CI, 10.8%-14.5%] vs 9.0% [95% CI, 7.2%-10.7%]). For Q5, the increase in home deaths was significant only for patients who did not receive SPC (13.9% [95% CI, 11.9%-15.8%] vs 1.2% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.5%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with amplified socioeconomic disparities in death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of these disparities and on developing interventions to ensure equitable and consistent SPC access.

Effects on Cancer Prevention from the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruption of health services around the world, including cancer services. We carried out a narrative review of the effect of the pandemic on cancer prevention services, including screening. Services were severely affected in the early months of the pandemic, and in some areas are still recovering. Large numbers of additional cancers or additional late-stage cancers have been predicted to arise over the coming years as a result of this disruption. To minimize the effects on cancer outcomes, it is necessary to return as quickly as possible to prepandemic levels of screening and prevention activity or indeed to exceed these levels. The recovery of services should address health inequalities.

Access to Surgery for Endometrial Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on endometrial cancer stage and surgical treatment in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

This descriptive study identified cases from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 from endometrial cancer hysterectomy specimens in the Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, ePath system. Endometrial biopsy records from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2021 were matched to surgical specimens by provincial health card number. Time to surgery and surgical stage were compared before (2017-2019) and during (2020-2021) the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

There were 10 446 women treated with hysterectomy for endometrial cancer in Ontario from 2017-2021. In April and May 2020, corresponding with the provincial state of emergency, there was a 56% relative reduction in endometrial biopsies. Despite this 2-month reduction in endometrial biopsy volume, there was no change in surgical volume for endometrial cancer treatment. The median time from endometrial biopsy to surgery was 56 days (IQR 40, 80) during the pandemic (2020-2021) compared to 58 days (IQR 43, 82) prior to the pandemic (2017-2019) (P < 0.001). There was no upstaging of endometrial cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ontario healthcare system continued to prioritize service delivery to endometrial cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the increase in virtual care and decrease in operating room time. There were no significant surgical delays or upstaging of endometrial cancer.

COVID-19 pandemic impact on the potential exacerbation of screening mammography disparities: A population-based study in Ontario, Canada

Strategies to ramp up breast cancer screening after COVID-19 require data on the influence of the pandemic on groups of women with historically low screening uptake. Using data from Ontario, Canada, our objectives were to 1) quantify the overall pandemic impact on weekly bilateral screening mammography rates (per 100,000) of average-risk women aged 50-74 and 2) examine if COVID-19 has shifted any mammography inequalities according to age, immigration status, rurality, and access to material resources. Using a segmented negative binomial regression model, we estimated the mean change in rate at the start of the pandemic (the week of March 15, 2020) and changes in weekly trend of rates during the pandemic period (March 15-December 26, 2020) compared to the pre-pandemic period (January 3, 2016-March 14, 2020) for all women and for each subgroup. A 3-way interaction term (COVID-19*week*subgroup variable) was added to the model to detect any pandemic impact on screening disparities. Of the 3,481,283 mammograms, 8.6 % (n = 300,064) occurred during the pandemic period. Overall, the mean weekly rate dropped by 93.4 % (95 % CI 91.7 % - 94.8 %) at the beginning of COVID-19, followed by a weekly increase of 8.4 % (95 % CI 7.4 % - 9.4 %) until December 26, 2020. The pandemic did not shift any disparities (all interactions p > 0.05) and that women who were under 60 or over 70, immigrants, or with a limited access to material resources had persistently low screening rate in both periods. Interventions should proactively target these underserved populations with the goals of reducing advanced-stage breast cancer presentations and mortality.

Patient Perceptions of the Impact of the COVID Pandemic on the Quality of Their Gastrointestinal Cancer Care

We surveyed patients who had a received care for a gastrointestinal cancer between 03/2020 and 05/2021 to understand their perceptions of the impact of the Covid pandemic on cancer care delivery and quality of care. Three-hundred fifty-eight respondents provided evaluable responses (response rate: 17.3%). Approximately half of respondents (46.4%) perceived that they had experienced a pandemic-related cancer care modification; most changes were initiated by a clinician or the cancer center (44.6%). Relative to White patients those from Racialized Groups (OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.03-3.54) were more likely to report a cancer treatment change. Additionally, relative to patients in follow-up, those who were newly diagnosed (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.21-4.71) were more likely to report a change. Compared to White patients, patients from Racialized Groups were approximately twice as likely to report perceiving that virtual visits during Covid negatively impacted the quality of their care (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 0.96-5.08). These findings potentially reflect pre-existing systemic disparities in quality of and access to care, as well as differences in how care is experienced by patients from Racialized Groups.

Recommandations pour des soins préventifs pour promouvoir l’équité en matière de santé

Contexte:

Malgré des investissements importants dans un système de soins de santé public qui comprend des services préventifs, on continue d’observer des disparités évitables en matière de santé au Canada. L’équipe avait pour objectif de formuler des recommandations pour des soins de santé préventifs qui puissent améliorer l’équité en matière de santé par la priorisation des interventions efficaces à l’intention des groupes défavorisés.

Méthodes:

La ligne directrice a été élaborée par un comité composé de spécialistes en soins primaires et de membres de la patientèle, avec la contribution d’un groupe de patientes-et patientspartenaires ayant vécu diverses expériences. Après avoir sélectionné les sujets à prioriser, nous avons recensé les revues systématiques, les essais randomisés et contrôlés récents sur les méthodes de dépistage et d’autres études pertinentes sur l’efficacité du dépistage et de la prise en charge. Nous avons utilisé l’approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) pour formuler les recommandations et avons suivi le guide AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) pour rédiger le rapport. Il en a été de même avec les principes du Guidelines International Network pour la gestion des intérêts concurrents. Les recommandations ont été passées en revue par un comité externe d’experts en contenu avant d’être distribuées à des intervenants à l’échelle nationale pour approbation.

Recommandations:

Nous avons formulé 15 recommandations concernant le dépistage et d’autres soins préventifs et 1 recommandation de nature politique visant à améliorer l’accès aux soins primaires. Ainsi, nous recommandons de prioriser une stratégie de communication pour le dépistage du cancer colorectal à partir de l’âge de 45 ans et pour l’évaluation du risque de maladie cardiovasculaire pour lutter contre les iniquités en matière de santé et promouvoir la santé. Les interventions particulières qui devraient être déployées pour lutter contre les iniquités comprennent l’autodépistage du virus du papillome humain (VPH) et du VIH, et le test de libération de l’interféron γ pour l’infection tuberculeuse. Le dépistage de la dépression, de la toxicomanie, de la violence conjugale et de la pauvreté devrait également permettre aux personnes touchées d’accéder plus facilement à des interventions éprouvées. Nous recommandons une prise de contact systématique avec des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires pour les personnes défavorisées.

Interprétation:

Les interventions préventives éprouvées peuvent aider à combattre les iniquités en matière de santé si la priorité est accordée aux personnes défavorisées. Les médecins, les organisations de santé et les gouvernements devraient adopter des mesures fondées sur des données probantes et en faire le suivi s’ils veulent promouvoir l’équité en matière de santé partout au Canada.

Cancer Screening Disparities Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance

Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-screening disparities existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is unclear whether those have changed since the pandemic.

Objective

To assess whether changes in screening from before the pandemic to after the pandemic varied for immigrants and for people with limited income.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based, cross-sectional study, using data from March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022, included adults in Ontario, Canada, the country's most populous province, with more than 14 million people, almost 30% of whom are immigrants. At both dates, the screening-eligible population for each cancer type was assessed.

Exposures

Neighborhood income quintile, immigrant status, and primary care model type.

Main Outcomes and Measures

For each cancer screening type, the main outcome was whether the screening-eligible population was up to date on screening (a binary outcome) on March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022. Up to date on screening was defined as having had a mammogram in the previous 2 years, a Papanicolaou test in the previous 3 years, and a fecal test in the previous 2 years or a flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the previous 10 years.

Results

The overall cohort on March 31, 2019, included 1 666 943 women (100%) eligible for breast screening (mean [SD] age, 59.9 [5.1] years), 3 918 225 women (100%) eligible for cervical screening (mean [SD] age, 45.5 [13.2] years), and 3 886 345 people eligible for colorectal screening (51.4% female; mean [SD] age, 61.8 [6.4] years). The proportion of people up to date on screening in Ontario decreased for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, with the largest decrease for breast screening (from 61.1% before the pandemic to 51.7% [difference, -9.4 percentage points]) and the smallest decrease for colorectal screening (from 65.9% to 62.0% [difference, -3.9 percentage points]). Preexisting disparities in screening for people living in low-income neighborhoods and for immigrants widened for breast screening and colorectal screening. For breast screening, compared with income quintile 5 (highest), the β estimate for income quintile 1 (lowest) was -1.16 (95% CI, -1.56 to -0.77); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the β estimate was -1.51 (95% CI, -1.84 to -1.18). For colorectal screening, compared with income quintile 5, the β estimate for quntile 1 was -1.29 (95% CI, 16 -1.53 to -1.06); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the β estimate was -1.41 (95% CI, -1.61 to -1.21). The lowest screening rates both before and after the COVID-19 pandemic were for people who had no identifiable family physician (eg, moving from 11.3% in 2019 to 9.6% in 2022 up to date for breast cancer). In addition, patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models had significantly smaller reductions in β estimates for breast (2.14 [95% CI, 1.79 to 2.49]), cervical (1.72 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.98]), and colorectal (2.15 [95% CI, 1.95 to 2.36]) postpandemic screening and higher uptake of screening in general compared with patients of other primary care models.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study in Ontario that included 2 time points, widening disparities before compared with after the COVID-19 pandemic were found for breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening based on income and immigrant status, but smaller declines in disparities were found among patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models than among their counterparts. Policy makers should investigate the value of prioritizing and investing in improving access to team-based primary care for people who are immigrants and/or with limited income.

Alterations in Cancer Treatment During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US

Importance

The COVID-19 pandemic created challenges to the evaluation and treatment of cancer, and abrupt resource diversion toward patients with COVID-19 put cancer treatment on hold for many patients. Previous reports have shown substantial declines in cancer screening and diagnoses in 2020; however, the extent to which the delivery of cancer care was altered remains unclear.

Objective

To assess alterations in cancer treatment in the US during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) on patients older than 18 years with newly diagnosed cancer from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were accessibility (time to treatment, travel distance, and multi-institutional care), availability (proportional changes in cancer treatment between years), and utilization (reductions by treatment modality, hospital type) of cancer treatment in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019. Autoregressive models forecasted expected findings for 2020 based on observations from prior years.

Results

Of 1 229 654 patients identified in the NCDB in 2020, 1 074 225 were treated for cancer, representing a 16.8% reduction from what was expected. Patients were predominately female (53.8%), with a median age of 66 years (IQR, 57-74 years), similar to demographics in 2018 and 2019. Median time between diagnosis and treatment was 26 days (IQR, 0-36 days) in 2020, and median travel distance for care was 11.1 miles (IQR, 5.0-25.3 miles), similar to 2018 and 2019. In 2020, fewer patients traveled longer distances (20.2% reduction of patients traveling >35 miles). The proportions of patients treated with chemotherapy (32.0%), radiation (29.5%), and surgery (57.1%) were similar to those in 2018 and 2019. Overall, 146 805 fewer patients than expected underwent surgery, 80 480 fewer received radiation, and 68 014 fewer received chemotherapy. Academic hospitals experienced the greatest reduction in cancer surgery and treatment, with a decrease of approximately 484 patients (-19.0%) per hospital compared with 99 patients (-12.6%) at community hospitals and 110 patients (-12.8%) at integrated networks.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that among patients diagnosed with cancer in 2020, access and availability of treatment remained intact; however, reductions in treated patients varied across treatment modalities and were greater at academic hospitals than at community hospitals and integrated networks compared with expected values. These results suggest the resilience of cancer service lines and frame the economic losses from reductions in cancer treatment during the pandemic.

Sponsor Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Cancer Clinical Trial Protocols and Data Quality

PURPOSE

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic created major disruptions in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, regulators and sponsors allowed modifications to traditional trial processes to enable clinical research and care to continue. We systematically evaluated how these mitigation strategies affected data quality and overall trial conduct.

METHODS

This study used surveys and live interviews. Forty-one major industry and National Cancer Institute Network groups (sponsors) overseeing anticancer treatment trials open in the United States from January 2015 to May 2022 were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics were used for survey data summaries. Key themes from interviews were identified.

RESULTS

Twenty sponsors (48.8%; 15 industry and five Network groups) completed the survey; 11/20 (55.0%) participated in interviews. Sponsors predominantly (n = 12; 60.0%) reported large (≥11 trials) portfolios of phase II and/or phase III trials. The proportion of sponsors reporting a moderate (9) or substantial (8) increase in protocol deviations in the initial pandemic wave versus the pre-pandemic period was 89.5% (17/19); the proportion reporting a substantial increased dropped from 42.1% (n = 8/19) in the initial wave to 15.8% (n = 3/19) thereafter. The most commonly adopted mitigation strategies were remote distribution of oral anticancer therapies (70.0%), remote adverse event monitoring (65.0%), and remote consenting (65.0%). Most respondents (15/18; 83.3%) reported that the pandemic had minimal (n = 14) or no impact (n = 1) on overall data integrity.

CONCLUSION

Despite nearly all sponsors observing a temporary increase in protocol deviations, most reported the pandemic had minimal/no impact on overall data integrity. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated an emerging trend toward greater flexibility in trial conduct, with potential benefits of reduced burden on trial participants and sites and improved patient access to research.

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity

BACKGROUND

Avoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages.

METHODS

The guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages.

INTERPRETATION

Proven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

The impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare system resource use and costs in two provinces in Canada: An interrupted time series analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our study was to assess the initial impact of COVID-19 on total publicly-funded direct healthcare costs and health services use in two Canadian provinces, Ontario and British Columbia (BC).

METHODS

This retrospective repeated cross-sectional study used population-based administrative datasets, linked within each province, from January 1, 2018 to December 27, 2020. Interrupted time series analysis was used to estimate changes in the level and trends of weekly resource use and costs, with March 16-22, 2020 as the first pandemic week. Also, in each week of 2020, we identified cases with their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test and estimated their healthcare costs until death or December 27, 2020.

RESULTS

The resources with the largest level declines (95% confidence interval) in use in the first pandemic week compared to the previous week were physician services [Ontario: -43% (-49%,-37%); BC: -24% (-30%,-19%) (both p<0.001)] and emergency department visits [Ontario: -41% (-47%,-35%); BC: -29% (-35%,-23%) (both p<0.001)]. Hospital admissions declined by 27% (-32%,-23%) in Ontario and 21% (-26%,-16%) in BC (both p<0.001). Resource use subsequently rose but did not return to pre-pandemic levels. Only home care and dialysis clinic visits did not significantly decrease compared to pre-pandemic. Costs for COVID-19 cases represented 1.3% and 0.7% of total direct healthcare costs in 2020 in Ontario and BC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced utilization of healthcare services in the overall population outweighed utilization by COVID-19 patients in 2020. Meeting the needs of all patients across all services is essential to maintain resilient healthcare systems.

Potential global loss of life expected due to COVID-19 disruptions to organised colorectal cancer screening

Background

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) decreases cancer burden through removal of precancerous lesions and early detection of cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted organised CRC screening programs worldwide, with some programs completely suspending screening and others experiencing significant decreases in participation and diagnostic follow-up. This study estimated the global impact of screening disruptions on CRC outcomes, and potential effects of catch-up screening.

Methods

Organised screening programs were identified in 29 countries, and data on participation rates and COVID-related changes to screening in 2020 were extracted where available. Four independent microsimulation models (ASCCA, MISCAN-Colon, OncoSim, and Policy1-Bowel) were used to estimate the long-term impact on CRC cases and deaths, based on decreases to screening participation in 2020. For countries where 2020 participation data were not available, changes to screening were approximated based on excess mortality rates. Catch-up strategies involving additional screening in 2021 were also simulated.

Findings

In countries for which direct data were available, organised CRC screening volumes at a country level decreased by an estimated 1.3-40.5% in 2020. Globally, it is estimated that COVID-related screening decreases led to a deficit of 7.4 million fewer faecal screens performed in 2020. In the absence of any organised catch-up screening, this would lead to an estimated 13,000 additional CRC cases and 7,900 deaths globally from 2020 to 2050; 79% of the additional cases and 85% of additional deaths could have been prevented with catch-up screening, respectively.

Interpretation

COVID-19-related disruptions to screening will cause excess CRC cases and deaths, but appropriately implemented catch-up screening could have reduced the burden by over 80%. Careful management of any disruption is key to improving the resilience of colorectal cancer screening programs.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Cancer Council New South Wales, Health Canada, and Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment.

Implementation of a Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention for Under- or Never-Screened Women in Ontario, Canada: Understanding the Acceptability of HPV Self-Sampling

With appropriate screening, cervical cancer can be prevented. In Ontario, Canada, some groups of women have low screening rates. South Asian, Middle Eastern and North African women are particularly at risk of under-screening. Currently, cytology-based screening is used in Ontario, although the growing evidence and adoption of HPV testing for cervical screening has encouraged many jurisdictions around the world to move towards HPV testing, with the option of self-sampling. We conducted an intervention beginning in June 2018, where we recruited over 100 under- or never-screened (UNS) women who identify as South or West Asian, Middle Eastern or North African from the Greater Toronto Area, to understand the uptake and acceptability of HPV self-sampling as an alternative to a Pap test. Participants self-selected if they tried the kit or not and completed both quantitative and qualitative research activities. This paper focuses on the qualitative arm of the study, where follow-ups and five focus groups were conducted with those who tried the kit (three groups) and those who did not (two groups), as well as eight key informant interviews with community champions and others who were involved in our recruitment. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide our data collection and analysis. Major themes around convenience, privacy and comfort came from the data as important drivers of the uptake of the intervention. The role of community champions and peers in engaging and educating UNS women, as well as having self-confidence to collect the sample, also came out as factors impacting uptake and plans for continued use. Overall, the intervention showed that HPV self-sampling is an acceptable alternative to a Pap test for some but not all UNS women in Ontario.

Survival Outcomes of Ewing Sarcoma and Rhabdomyosarcoma by High- versus Low-Volume Cancer Centres in British Columbia, Canada

Due to the rarity and complexity of treatment for Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma, studies demonstrate improved patient outcomes when managed by a multidisciplinary team at high-volume centres (HVCs). Our study explores the difference in outcomes of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patients based on the centre of initial consultation in British Columbia, Canada. This retrospective study assessed adults diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020 undergoing curative intent therapy in one of five cancer centres across the province. Seventy-seven patients were included, 46 seen at HVCs and 31 at low-volume centres (LVCs). Patients at HVCs were younger (32.1 vs. 40.8 years, p = 0.020) and more likely to receive curative intent radiation (88% vs. 67%, p = 0.047). The time from diagnosis to first chemotherapy was 24 days shorter at HVCs (26 vs. 50 days, p = 0.120). There was no significant difference in overall survival by treatment centre (HR 0.850, 95% CI 0.448-1.614). Variations in care exist amongst patients treated at HVCs vs. LVCs, which may reflect differences in access to resources, clinical specialists, and varying practice patterns across centres. This study can be used to inform decisions regarding triaging and centralization of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patient treatment.

Association between the COVID-19 pandemic and first cancer treatment modality: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Physicians were directed to prioritize using nonsurgical cancer treatment at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to quantify the impact of this policy on the modality of first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or no treatment).

METHODS

In this population-based study using Ontario data from linked administrative databases, we identified adults diagnosed with cancer from January 2016 to November 2020 and their first cancer treatment received within 1 year postdiagnosis. Segmented Poisson regressions were applied to each modality to estimate the change in mean 1-year recipient volume per thousand patients (rate) at the start of the pandemic (the week of Mar. 15, 2020) and change in the weekly trend in rate during the pandemic (Mar. 15, 2020, to Nov. 7, 2020) relative to before the pandemic (Jan. 3, 2016, to Mar. 14, 2020).

RESULTS

We included 321 535 people diagnosed with cancer. During the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean rate of receiving upfront surgery over the next year declined by 9% (rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.95), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates rose by 30% (rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.23-1.36) and 13% (rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.19), respectively. Subsequently, the 1-year rate of upfront surgery increased at 0.4% for each week (rate ratio 1.004, 95% CI 1.002-1.006), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates decreased by 0.9% (rate ratio 0.991, 95% CI 0.989-0.994) and 0.4% (rate ratio 0.996, 95% CI 0.994-0.998), respectively, per week. Rates of each modality resumed to prepandemic levels at 24-31 weeks into the pandemic.

INTERPRETATION

An immediate and sustained increase in use of nonsurgical therapy as the first cancer treatment occurred during the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. Further research is needed to understand the consequences.

Performance of the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia in individuals under age 50

The increased demand for colonoscopy combined with increased incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) among younger populations presents a need to determine FIT performance among individuals in this age group. We conducted a systematic review to assess test performance characteristics of FIT in detecting CRC and advanced neoplasia in younger age populations. A search through December 2022 identified published articles assessing the sensitivity and specificity of FIT for advanced neoplasia or CRC among populations under age 50. Following the search, 3 studies were included in the systematic review. Sensitivity to detect advanced neoplasia ranged from 0.19 to 0.36 and specificity between 0.94 and 0.97 and the overall sensitivity and specificity were 0.23 (0.17-0.30) and 0.96 (0.94-0.98), respectively. Two studies that assessed these metrics in multiple age categories found similar sensitivity and specificity across all age groups 30-49. Sensitivity and specificity to detect CRC was assessed in one study and found no significant differences by age groups. These results suggest that FIT performance may be lower for younger individuals compared to those typically screened for CRC. However, there were few studies available for analysis. Given increasing recommendations to expand screening in younger age groups, more research is needed to determine whether FIT is an adequate screening tool in this population.

Early survival for patients newly diagnosed with cancer during COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients.

METHODS

This retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre-pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time-varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type.

RESULTS

Among 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post-diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96-1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05-1.49]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one-year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer care.

Time to surgery does not affect oncologic outcomes in locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a meta-analysis

Aim: The authors conducted a meta-analysis to determine the association between time-to-surgery (TTS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and patient outcomes in locally advanced gastric cancer. Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify potential studies, in which the authors compared patient outcomes between those with TTS within 4 (and 6) weeks of completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those after 4 (and 6) weeks. Results: Six studies, including 1238 patients, were eligible for inclusion. Pooled data showed no significant differences in rates of pathological complete response, major pathological response, ypN0, complications, R0 resection and operative time between groups of longer TTS and shorter TTS. Conclusion: There was no statistically advantageous impact of prolonged TTS on pathological and surgical outcomes. Large, population-based studies are warranted.

Imaging and physician visits at cancer diagnosis: COVID -19 pandemic impact on cancer care

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the COVID-19 pandemic impact on the provision of diagnostic imaging and physician visits at cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

We used administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, to identify MRI/CT/ultrasound scans and in-person/virtual physician visits conducted with cancer patients within 91 days around the date of diagnosis in 2016-2020. In separate segmented regression procedures, we assessed the trends in weekly volume of these services per thousand cancer patients in prepandemic (June 26, 2016 to March 14, 2020), the change in mean volume at the start of the pandemic, and the additional change in weekly volume during the pandemic (March 15, 2020, to September 26, 2020).

RESULTS

Totally, 403,561 cancer patients were included. On March 15, 2020 (COVID-19 arrived), mean scan volume decreased by 12.3% (95% CI: 6.4%-17.9%) where ultrasound decreased the most by 31.8% (95% CI: 23.9%-37.0%). Afterward, the volume of all scans increased further by 1.6% per week (95% CI: 1.3%-2.0%), where ultrasound increased the fastest by 2.4% (95% CI: 1.8%-2.9%). Mean in-person visits dropped by 47.4% when COVID-19 started (95% CI: 41.6%-52.6%) while virtual visits rose by 55.15-fold (95% CI: 4927%-6173%). In the pandemic (until September 26, 2020), in-person visits increased each week by 2.6% (95% CI: 2.0%-3.2%), but no change was observed for virtual visits (p -value = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of diagnostic imaging and virtual visits at cancer diagnosis has been increasing since the start of COVID-19 and has exceeded prepandemic utilization levels. Future work should monitor the impact of these shifts on quality of delivered care.

Prioritization of head and neck cancer patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic placed considerable strain on the healthcare system, leading to the re-allocation of resources and implementation of new practice guidelines. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of COVID-19 guideline modifications on head and neck cancer (HNC) care at two tertiary care centers in Canada.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. HNC patients seen at two tertiary care centers before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-pandemic: July 1st, 2019, to February 29th, 2020; pandemic: March 1st, 2020, to October 31st, 2020) were included. The pre-pandemic and pandemic cohorts were compared according to patient and tumor characteristics, duration of HNC workup, and treatment type and duration. Mean differences in cancer care wait times, including time to diagnosis, tumor board, and treatment as well as total treatment package time and postoperative hospital stay were compared between cohorts. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare characteristics and outcomes between cohorts.

RESULTS

Pre-pandemic (n = 132) and pandemic (n = 133) patients did not differ significantly in sex, age, habits, or tumor characteristics. The percentage of patients who received surgery only, chemo/radiotherapy (CXRT) only, and surgery plus adjuvant CXRT did not differ significantly between cohorts. Pandemic patients experienced a significant time reduction compared to pre-pandemic patients with regards to the date first seen by a HNC service until start of treatment ([Formula: see text] = 48.7 and 76.6 days respectively; p = .0001), the date first seen by a HNC service until first presentation at tumor board ([Formula: see text] = 25.1 and 38 days respectively; p = .001), mean total package time for patients who received surgery only ([Formula: see text] = 3.7 and 9.0 days respectively; p = .017), and mean total package time for patients who received surgery plus adjuvant CXRT ([Formula: see text] = 80.2 and 112.7 days respectively; p = .035).

CONCLUSION

The time to treatment was significantly reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic as compared to pre-pandemic. This transparent model of patient-centered operative-room prioritization can serve as a model for improving resource allocation and efficiency of HNC care during emergency and non-emergency scenarios.

Temporal Sequencing of Multimodal Treatment in Immediate Breast Reconstruction and Implications for Wait Times: A Regional Canadian Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction: Treatment of breast cancer requires a multimodal approach with numerous independent specialists. Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) adds another layer of coordination to comprehensive breast cancer care. To optimize health outcomes for patients seeking IBR, it is essential to efficiently coordinate the temporal sequence of care modalities inclusive of reconstruction. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, patients undergoing IBR following complete or partial mastectomy at one health centre from 2015 to 2021 were included. Patients were categorized into two main groups defined by the first treatment modality received, namely surgery first and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Primary outcome measures were wait times for diagnostic investigations, initiation of treatment, and transitions between therapeutic modalities. Results: Of 195 patients, 158 underwent surgery first, and 37 underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median wait time from first consultation to first treatment initiated in the neoadjuvant cohort was shorter by 11.5 days as compared to the Surgery First cohort (21.5 +/− 19 vs 33.0 +/− 28 days; P = 0.001). Twenty-three (82%) of the surgery first and 11 (38%) of the neoadjuvant cohort patients waited longer than 8 weeks for initiation of radiotherapy ( P = 0.001). Following surgical intervention, the majority of patients failed to meet target benchmarks for transition to chemotherapy ( n = 25, 53%) and transition to radiotherapy ( n = 26, 93%; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients undergoing IBR may incur delays in the setting of upfront surgery and in transitioning to adjuvant therapies. In the setting of breast reconstruction, further efforts are required to achieve target wait-times in multimodal breast cancer care.

The impact of lag time to cancer diagnosis and treatment on clinical outcomes prior to the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cancer care, raising concerns regarding the impact of wait time, or 'lag time', on clinical outcomes. We aimed to contextualize pandemic-related lag times by mapping pre-pandemic evidence from systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on the association between lag time to cancer diagnosis and treatment with mortality- and morbidity-related outcomes.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews for reviews published prior to the pandemic (1 January 2010-31 December 2019). We extracted data on methodological characteristics, lag time interval start and endpoints, qualitative findings from systematic reviews, and pooled risk estimates of mortality- (i.e., overall survival) and morbidity- (i.e., local regional control) related outcomes from meta-analyses. We categorized lag times according to milestones across the cancer care continuum and summarized outcomes by cancer site and lag time interval.

Results

We identified 9032 records through database searches, of which 29 were eligible. We classified 33 unique types of lag time intervals across 10 cancer sites, of which breast, colorectal, head and neck, and ovarian cancers were investigated most. Two systematic reviews investigating lag time to diagnosis reported different findings regarding survival outcomes among paediatric patients with Ewing's sarcomas or central nervous system tumours. Comparable risk estimates of mortality were found for lag time intervals from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy for breast, colorectal, and ovarian cancers. Risk estimates of pathologic complete response indicated an optimal time window of 7-8 weeks for neoadjuvant chemotherapy completion prior to surgery for rectal cancers. In comparing methods across meta-analyses on the same cancer sites, lag times, and outcomes, we identified critical variations in lag time research design.

Conclusions

Our review highlighted measured associations between lag time and cancer-related outcomes and identified the need for a standardized methodological approach in areas such as lag time definitions and accounting for the waiting-time paradox. Prioritization of lag time research is integral for revised cancer care guidelines under pandemic contingency and assessing the pandemic's long-term effect on patients with cancer.

Funding

The present work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR-COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding opportunity, VR5-172666 grant to Eduardo L. Franco). Parker Tope, Eliya Farah, and Rami Ali each received an MSc. stipend from the Gerald Bronfman Department of Oncology, McGill University.

Estimation of Oncologic Surgery Case Volume Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic in France

IMPORTANCE

COVID-19 has had a major effect on health care activities, especially surgery. At first, comparisons were proposed using 2019 activities as the highest standard. However, while such an approach might have been suitable during the first months of the pandemic, this might no longer be the case for a longer period.

OBJECTIVE

To examine approaches that may better assess the use of cancer surgeries.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In a cross-sectional design, the nationwide French hospital facility data (Medicalised Information System Program) were used to assess cancer surgery for 6 cancer site categories in adults from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021.

EXPOSURE

Estimated cancer surgery activity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Three models were proposed to assess the expected number of surgical procedures between 2020 and 2021 and make a comparison with those observed in earlier years.

RESULTS

In France, cancer removal surgeries account for approximately 7000 hospitalizations per year for liver cancer; 4000 for pancreatic cancer; 7700 for ovarian cancer; 1300 for esophagus cancer; 23 000 for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) cancer; 78 000 for breast cancer; and 16 600 for thoracic cancers. For most cancer sites, the number of surgical procedures increased from 2010 to 2019: liver, 14%; pancreas, 38%; ovary, 14%; esophagus, 18%; breast, 8%; and thoracic, 29%. Assuming stability, these values underestimate the gap in activity observed in 2020-2021. For other procedures, a decrease was observed: stomach, -10%, and ENT, -6%. Assuming stability, these values overestimate the gap in activity observed in 2020-2021. At the end of 2021, according to the model, the gap in activity observed in 2020-2021 was estimated at between -1.4% and 1.7% for breast, -6.6% and -7.3% for thoracic, -3.1% and -2.5% for ovarian, -4.2% and -1.7% for pancreas, -6.7% and 5.9% for stomach, and -13.0% and -13.9% for esophageal cancers. For ENT, liver, and urologic cancers, because the trend was different before and after 2015, it was necessary to opt for modeling using only the most recent period. The cumulative gap in activity observed in 2020-2021 was estimated at -1.0% for ENT cancers, -5.3% for liver cancers, and -2.9% for urologic cancers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that short- and medium-term trends must be considered to estimate COVID-19 cancer surgery activities. Breast cancer is the site for which the activity showed the smallest decrease during the pandemic, with almost full recovery in 2021.

Timeliness and Modality of Treatment for New Cancer Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada

IMPORTANCE

The impact of COVID-19 on the modality and timeliness of first-line cancer treatment is unclear yet critical to the planning of subsequent care.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with modalities of and wait times for first cancer treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data was conducted in Ontario, Canada, among adults newly diagnosed with cancer between January 3, 2016, and November 7, 2020. Participants were followed up from date of diagnosis for 1 year, until death, or until June 26, 2021, whichever occurred first, to ensure a minimum of 6-month follow-up time.

EXPOSURES

Receiving a cancer diagnosis in the pandemic vs prepandemic period, using March 15, 2020, the date when elective hospital procedures were halted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was a time-to-event variable describing number of days from date of diagnosis to date of receiving first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation) or to being censored. For each treatment modality, a multivariable competing-risk regression model was used to assess the association between time to treatment and COVID-19 period. A secondary continuous outcome was defined for patients who were treated 6 months after diagnosis as the waiting time from date of diagnosis to date of treatment.

RESULTS

Among 313 499 patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (14.1) years and 153 679 (49.0%) were male patients. Those who were diagnosed during the pandemic were less likely to receive surgery first (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) but were more likely to receive chemotherapy (sHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.30) or radiotherapy (sHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) first. Among patients who received treatment within 6 months from diagnosis (228 755 [73.0%]), their mean (SD) waiting time decreased from 35.1 (37.2) days to 29.5 (33.6) days for surgery, from 43.7 (34.1) days to 38.4 (30.6) days for chemotherapy, and from 55.8 (41.8) days to 49.0 (40.1) days for radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, the pandemic was significantly associated with greater use of nonsurgical therapy as initial cancer treatment. Wait times were shorter in the pandemic period for those treated within 6 months of diagnosis. Future work needs to examine how these changes may have affected patient outcomes to inform future pandemic guideline development.

Investigating the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer from areas of conflict within the MENA region treated at King Hussein Cancer Center

Background

There is a paucity of evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care among refugees or patients from areas of conflict. Cancer care for these populations remains fragmented due to resource scarcity and limited infrastructure.

Aims

To explore the effect of COVID-19 on cancer care among patients from areas of conflict treated at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC).

Methodology

We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients from areas of conflict, treated at KHCC from 2018 to 2021. Patients' demographics and clinical characteristics are presented in the form of descriptive statistics. Interrupted Time Series (ITS) analysis was utilized to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the number of admissions throughout the study's period.

Results

A total of 3317 patients from areas of conflict were included in the study. Among these, 1546 were males (46.6%) while 1771 (53.4%) were female. Libyans (34.6%), Palestinians (24.8%), Iraqis (24.5%), Syrians (15.3%), and Sudanese patients (0.9%) constituted our study sample. ITS analysis demonstrated that the start of the COVID-19 lockdown significantly decreased admissions by 44.0% (p = 0.020), while the end of the COVID-19 restriction significantly improved admissions by 43.0% (p = 0.023). Among those with available SEER stages, more than a quarter of patients had distant metastasis (n = 935, 28.2%) irrespective of age and biological sex. Advanced presentations during 2020 had approximately a 16% and 6% increase compared to 2018 and 2019, respectively. Breast cancer (21.4%), hematolymphoid cancers (18.1%), and cancers of the digestive system (16.5%) were the most common cancers among our cohort.

Conclusion

Restrictions associated with COVID-19 had a significant effect on the number of admissions of patients from areas of conflict. In the long term, this effect may impact the survival outcomes of affected patients.

From Alpha to Omicron: A Radiation Oncology Network's Biocontainment-Based COVID-19 Experience

Purpose

To develop the safest possible environment for treating urgent patients with COVID-19 requiring radiation, we describe the unique construction of negative air pressure computed tomography simulator and linear accelerator treatment vaults in addition to screening, delay, and treatment protocols and their evolution over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods and Materials

Construction of large high-efficiency particulate air filter air-flow systems into existing ductwork in computed tomography simulator rooms and photon and proton treatment vaults was completed to create negative-pressure rooms. An asymptomatic COVID-19 screening protocol was implemented for all patients before initiation of treatment. Patients could undergo simulation and/or treatment in the biocontainment environments according to a predefined priority scale and protocol. Patients treated under the COVID-19 protocol from June 2020 to January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Negative air-flow environments were created across a regional network, including a multi-gantry proton therapy unit. In total, 6525 patients were treated from June 2020 through January 2022 across 5 separate centers. The majority of patients with COVID-19 had radiation treatment deferred when deemed safe. A total of 42 patients with COVID-19, who were at highest risk of an adverse outcome should there be a radiation delay, were treated under the COVID-19 biocontainment protocol in contrast to those who were placed on treatment break. For 61.9% of patients, these safety measures mitigated an extended break during treatment. The majority of patients (64.3%) were treated with curative intent. The median number of biocontainment sessions required by each patient was 6 (range, 1-15) before COVID-19 clearance and resumption of treatment in a normal air-flow environment.

Conclusions

Constructing negative-pressure environments and developing a COVID-19 biocontainment treatment protocol allowed for the safe treatment of urgent radiation oncology patients with COVID-19 within our department and strengthens future biopreparedness. These biocontainment units set a high standard of safety in radiation oncology during the current or for any future infectious outbreak.

Effects of the COVID ‐19 pandemic on gastroenterological surgeries in 2020: A study using the National Clinical Database of Japan

Aim

This study aimed to investigate the effect of the coronavirus disease pandemic on the number of surgeries for gastroenterological cancer cases in Japan.

Methods

The data recorded in the National Clinical Database of Japan between 2018 and 2020 were utilized for this study. Five specific surgeries for primary cancers and surgery for acute diffuse peritonitis were considered the primary endpoints. We divided the study period into the prepandemic and postpandemic (after April 2020) periods and examined the number of surgeries in relation to clinical factors.

Results

Overall, 228 860 surgeries were analyzed. Among the five primary cancer surgeries, the number of distal gastrectomies for gastric cancer decreased the most (to 81.0% of the monthly number in the prepandemic period), followed by that of low anterior resections for rectal cancer (91.4%). In contrast, the number of pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer increased by 7.1%, while that of surgeries for peritonitis remained stable. This trend was observed nationwide. We also noted a marked reduction in the number of distal gastrectomy (to 72.5%), low anterior resection (84.0%), and esophagectomy (88.8%) procedures for T1 tumors. The noncurative resection rate and mortalities were low despite the increased proportion of T4 tumors and older patients.

Conclusion

A marked reduction in surgeries for gastric and rectal cancers with early T factors may reflect prioritization of surgeries and reduction in cancer screenings. Although the quality of the surgery was maintained in terms of reduced mortalities and morbidities, the long-term effects of this pandemic should be monitored.

Cancer Patients First Treated with Chemotherapy: Are They More Likely to Receive Surgery in the Pandemic?

Due to the ramping down of cancer surgery in early pandemic, many newly diagnosed patients received other treatments first. We aimed to quantify the pandemic-related shift in rate of surgery following chemotherapy. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study involving adults diagnosed with cancer between 3 January 2016 and 7 November 2020 in Ontario, Canada who received chemotherapy as first treatment within 6-months of diagnosis. Competing-risks regression models with interaction effects were used to quantify the association between COVID-19 period (receiving a cancer diagnosis before or on/after 15 March 2020) and receipt of surgical reSection 9-months after first chemotherapy. Among 51,653 patients, 8.5% (n = 19,558) of them ultimately underwent surgery 9-months after chemotherapy initiation. Receipt of surgery was higher during the pandemic than before (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13). Material deprivation was independently associated with lower receipt of surgery (least vs. most deprived quintile: sHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.17), but did not change with the pandemic. The surgical rate increase was most pronounced for breast cancer (sHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20). These pandemic-related shifts in cancer treatment requires further evaluations to understand the long-term consequences. Persistent material deprivation-related inequity in cancer surgical access needs to be addressed.

Comparison of Use of Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment for Breast Cancer and Short-term Outcomes Before vs During the COVID-19 Era in Ontario, Canada

IMPORTANCE

In response to an increase in COVID-19 infection rates in Ontario, several systemic treatment (ST) regimens delivered in the adjuvant setting for breast cancer were temporarily permitted for neoadjuvant-intent to defer nonurgent breast cancer surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the use and compare short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant-intent vs adjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. Patients with cancer starting selected ST regimens in the COVID-19 era (March 11, 2020, to September 30, 2020) were compared to those in the pre-COVID-19 era (March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020). Patients were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months of starting systemic therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimates were calculated for the use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant ST, the likelihood of receiving a surgical procedure, the rate of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, COVID-19 infections, and all-cause mortality between treatment groups over time.

RESULTS

Among a total of 10 920 patients included, 7990 (73.2%) started treatment in the pre-COVID-19 era and 7344 (67.3%) received adjuvant ST; the mean (SD) age was 61.6 (13.1) years. Neoadjuvant-intent ST was more common in the COVID-19 era (1404 of 2930 patients [47.9%]) than the pre-COVID-19 era (2172 of 7990 patients [27.2%]), with an odds ratio of 2.46 (95% CI, 2.26-2.69; P < .001). This trend was consistent across a range of ST regimens, but differed according to patient age and geography. The likelihood of receiving surgery following neoadjuvant-intent chemotherapy was similar in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (log-rank P = .06). However, patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant-intent hormonal therapy were significantly more likely to receive surgery in the COVID-19 era (log-rank P < .001). After adjustment, there were no significant changes in the rate of emergency department visits over time between patients receiving neoadjuvant ST, adjuvant ST, or ST only during the ST treatment period or postoperative period. Hospital admissions decreased in the COVID-19 era for patients who received neoadjuvant ST compared with adjuvant ST or ST alone (P for interaction = .01 for both) in either setting.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, patients were more likely to start neoadjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era, which varied across the province and by indication. There was limited evidence to suggest any substantial impact on short-term outcomes.