Applying Lessons Learned From Low-Resource Settings to Prioritize Cancer Care in a Pandemic

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer patient pathways and outcomes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland - a scoping review

The COVID-19 pandemic brought unplanned service disruption for breast cancer diagnostic, treatment and support services. This scoping review describes these changes and their impact in the UK and the Republic of Ireland based on studies published between January 2020 and August 2023. Thirty-four of 569 papers were included. Data were extracted and results thematically organized. Findings include fewer new cases; stage shift (fewer early- and more late-stage disease); and changes to healthcare organization, breast screening and treatment. Examples are accepting fewer referrals, applying stricter referral criteria and relying more on virtual consultations and multi-disciplinary meetings. Screening service programs paused during the pandemic before enacting risk-based phased restarts with longer appointment times to accommodate reduced staffing numbers and enhanced infection-control regimes. Treatments shifted from predominantly conventional to hypofractionated radiotherapy, fewer surgical procedures and increased use of bridging endocrine therapy. The long-term impact of such changes are unknown so definitive guidelines for future emergencies are not yet available. Cancer registries, with their large sample sizes and population coverage, are well placed to monitor changes to stage and survival despite difficulties obtaining definitive staging during diagnosis because surgery and pathological assessments are delayed. Multisite longitudinal studies can also provide guidance for future disaster preparedness.

Systematic scoping review on moral distress among physicians

BACKGROUND

Concepts of moral distress (MD) among physicians have evolved and extend beyond the notion of psychological distress caused by being in a situation in which one is constrained from acting on what one knows to be right. With many accounts involving complex personal, professional, legal, ethical and moral issues, we propose a review of current understanding of MD among physicians.

METHODS

A systematic evidence-based approach guided systematic scoping review is proposed to map the current concepts of MD among physicians published in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, SCOPUS, ERIC and Google Scholar databases. Concurrent and independent thematic and direct content analysis (split approach) was conducted on included articles to enhance the reliability and transparency of the process. The themes and categories identified were combined using the jigsaw perspective to create domains that form the framework of the discussion that follows.

RESULTS

A total of 30 156 abstracts were identified, 2473 full-text articles were reviewed and 128 articles were included. The five domains identified were as follows: (1) current concepts, (2) risk factors, (3) impact, (4) tools and (5) interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial reviews suggest that MD involves conflicts within a physician's personal beliefs, values and principles (personal constructs) caused by personal, ethical, moral, contextual, professional and sociocultural factors. How these experiences are processed and reflected on and then integrated into the physician's personal constructs impacts their self-concepts of personhood and identity and can result in MD. The ring theory of personhood facilitates an appreciation of how new experiences create dissonance and resonance within personal constructs. These insights allow the forwarding of a new broader concept of MD and a personalised approach to assessing and treating MD. While further studies are required to test these findings, they offer a personalised means of supporting a physician's MD and preventing burn-out.

Prioritization of Surgery in Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons From a Failed Balancing Act

The prioritization of surgical oncology over other elective interventions during COVID-19 has failed to preserve the quality of care in oncology and will likely lead to an increase of cancer-related mortality in the coming years. We propose five components for systems to improve the organization of surgical oncology during future crises, namely (1) a multidisciplinary governance structure employing predictive models and risk/benefit evaluations, (2) predefined quality objectives based on measurable markers (regularly reviewed and adapted), (3) temporary flexibility in therapeutic algorithms and authorization procedures (with associated safeguards), (4) systems to ensure access to transparent, apolitical information, and (5) explicit, dedicated logistical surgical capacities to optimize coordination and resource allocation.

Early assessment of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening services: The International Cancer Screening Network COVID-19 survey

Screening can decrease the burden of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to suspend cancer screening services as part of their response to the pandemic. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) carried out an online survey to assess the effects of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening. A 33-item survey was distributed to 834 email addresses to gather information about settings and assess decision-making processes that led to cancer screening suspension. Information about communication, impact on resources, and patient follow-up was collected. Quantitative data was analyzed as frequencies overall and by setting, while a comment section under each survey item captured nuanced details. Responses were recategorized into 66 settings, representing 35 countries. Most settings suspended cancer screening services (n = 60, 90.9%) in March 2020 (n = 45, 68.2%), guided by a government decision (n = 51, 77.3%). Few settings made the decision whether to suspend services based on a preparedness plan (n = 17, 25.8%). In most settings, professionals were reassigned (n = 41, 62.1%) and infrastructure repurposed (n = 35, 53.0%). The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on cancer screening worldwide, including the suspension of services in almost all settings. Most settings were unprepared to deal with the scale of the pandemic but demonstrated flexibility in the response. These results contribute to inform, through experiences and lessons learned, the next steps for the global cancer screening community to further evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and prepare for future disruptions.

Interruption of cancer screening services due to COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from previous disasters

PURPOSE

To review the scientific literature seeking lessons for the COVID-19 era that could be learned from previous health services interruptions that affected the delivery of cancer screening services.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted up to April 17, 2020, with no restrictions on language or dates and resulted in 385 articles. Two researchers independently assessed the list and discussed any disagreements. Once a consensus was achieved for each paper, those selected were included in the review.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were included. Three studies were based in Japan, two in the United States, one in South Korea, one in Denmark, and the remaining four offered a global perspective on interruptions in health services due to natural or human-caused disasters. No articles covered an interruption due to a pandemic. The main themes identified in the reviewed studies were coordination, communication, resource availability and patient follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Lessons learned applied to the context of COVID-19 are that coordination involving partners across the health sector is essential to optimize resources and resume services, making them more resilient while preparing for future interruptions. Communication with the general population about how COVID-19 has affected cancer screening, measures taken to mitigate it and safely re-establish screening services is recommended. Use of mobile health systems to reach patients who are not accessing services and the application of resource-stratified guidelines are important considerations. More research is needed to explore best strategies for suspending, resuming and sustaining cancer screening programs, and preparedness for future disruptions, adapted to diverse health care systems.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Kidney Cancer Management

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still has a huge impact on the management of many chronic diseases such as cancer. Few data are presently available reagarding how the management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed due to this unprecedented situation. OBJECTIVE: To discuss the challenges and issues of the diagnosis and treatment of RCC in the COVID-19 era, and to provide recommendations based on the collected literature and our personal experience. METHODS: Systematic review of the available Literature regarding the management of RCC during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. RESULTS: Our review showed a prevalence of narrative publications, raising the issue of the real relevance of the evidence retrieved. Indeed, the only original data about RCC and COVID-19 found were a small retrospective case series and two surveys, providing either patients’ or physicians’ viewpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The expected delayed diagnosis of RCC could lead to an increase of advanced/metastatic cases; thus, proper therapeutic choices for patients with small renal masses should be carefully evaluated case by case, in order to avoid negative effects on long-term survival rates. The controversial interaction between immune checkpoint blockade and COVID-19 pathogenesis is more hypothetical than evidence-based, and thus immunotherapy should not be denied, whenever appropriate. To avoid treatments which won’t have an impact on patients’ survival, a honest and accurate evaluation of the cost/benefit ratio of each treatment option should be always performed. Finally, SARS-CoV-2 swab positivity should not prevent the continuation of ongoing active treatments in asymptomatic cases, or or after symptoms’ resolution.

Association of clinical factors and recent anticancer therapy with COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer: a report from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients).

RESULTS

A total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

NCT04354701.

Moral Distress and Resilience Associated with Cancer Care Priority Setting in a Resource-Limited Context

Background

Moral distress and burnout are highly prevalent among oncology clinicians. Research is needed to better understand how resource constraints and systemic inequalities contribute to moral distress in order to develop effective mitigation strategies. Oncology providers in low‐ and middle‐income countries are well positioned to provide insight into the moral experience of cancer care priority setting and expertise to guide solutions.

Methods

Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and clinical advisors at a cancer center in Rwanda. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the framework method.

Results

Participants identified sources of moral distress at three levels of engagement with resource prioritization: witnessing program‐level resource constraints drive cancer disparities, implementing priority setting decisions into care of individual patients, and communicating with patients directly about resource prioritization implications. They recommended individual and organizational‐level interventions to foster resilience, such as communication skills training and mental health support for clinicians, interdisciplinary team building, fair procedures for priority setting, and collective advocacy for resource expansion and equity.

Conclusion

This study adds to the current literature an in‐depth examination of the impact of resource constraints and inequities on clinicians in a low‐resource setting. Effective interventions are urgently needed to address moral distress, reduce clinician burnout, and promote well‐being among a critical but strained oncology workforce. Collective advocacy is concomitantly needed to address the structural forces that constrain resources unevenly and perpetuate disparities in cancer care and outcomes.

Implications for Practice

For many oncology clinicians worldwide, resource limitations constrain routine clinical practice and necessitate decisions about prioritizing cancer care. To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first in‐depth analysis of how resource constraints and priority setting lead to moral distress among oncology clinicians in a low‐resource setting. Effective individual and organizational interventions and collective advocacy for equity in cancer care are urgently needed to address moral distress and reduce clinician burnout among a strained global oncology workforce. Lessons from low‐resource settings can be gleaned as high‐income countries face growing needs to prioritize oncology resources.

Oncology providers in low‐ and middle‐income countries face resource priority setting decisions on a routine basis. This article describes the moral experience and recommendations of oncology clinicians, advisors, and program leaders engaged in clinical priority setting at a cancer center in Rwanda.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Imaging

"Starting in Wuhan, China, followed quickly in the United States in January 2020, an outbreak of a novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, escalated to a global pandemic by March. Significant disruptions occurred to breast imaging, including deferred screening mammography, triaging diagnostic breast imaging, and changes in breast cancer care algorithms. This article summarizes the effect of the global pandemic-and efforts to curtail its spread-on both breast cancer care and on breast imaging practices including effects on patients, clinical workflow, education, and research."