COVID-19 and the impact on gynecologic cancer care

Training the gynecologic oncologists of the future - challenges and opportunities

Several recent advances in gynecologic cancer care have improved patient outcomes. These include national screening and vaccination programs for cervical cancer as well as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. Conversely, these advances have cumulatively reduced surgical opportunities for training creating a need to supplement existing training strategies with evidence-based adjuncts. Technologies such as virtual reality and augmented reality, if properly evaluated and validated, have transformative potential to support training. Given the changing landscape of surgical training in gynecologic oncology, we were keen to summarize the evidence underpinning current training in gynecologic oncology.In this review, we undertook a literature search of Medline, Google, Google Scholar, Embase and Scopus to gather evidence on the current state of training in gynecologic oncology and to highlight existing evidence on the best methods to teach surgical skills. Drawing from the experiences of other surgical specialties we examined the use of training adjuncts such as cadaveric dissection, animation and 3D models as well as simulation training in surgical skills acquisition. Specifically, we looked at the use of training adjuncts in gynecologic oncology training as well as the evidence behind simulation training modalities such as low fidelity box trainers, virtual and augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic training. Finally, we provided context by looking at how training curriculums varied internationally.Whereas some evidence to the reliability and validity of simulation training exists in other surgical specialties, our literature review did not find such evidence in gynecologic oncology. It is important that well conducted trials are used to ascertain the utility of simulation training modalities before integrating them into training curricula.

Enhancing Uterine Fibroid Care: Clinician Perspectives on Diagnosis, Disparities, and Strategies for Improving Health Care

Objective

To explore clinicians' perspectives on diagnosing, treating, and managing uterine fibroids, identifying gaps and challenges in health care delivery, and offering recommendations for improving care.

Materials and Methods

A qualitative design was used to conduct 14 semistructured interviews with clinicians who treat fibroid patients in central Indiana. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. Constant comparative analysis was used to identify emergent themes.

Results

Four themes emerged. (1) Lack of patient fibroid awareness: Patients lacked fibroid awareness, leading to challenges in explaining diagnoses and treatment. Misconceptions and emotional distress highlighted the need for better education. (2) Inequities in care and access: Health care disparities affected Black women and rural patients, with transportation, scheduling delays, and financial constraints hindering access. (3) Continuum of care: Clinicians prioritized patient-centered care and shared decision-making, tailoring treatment based on factors like severity, location, size, cost, fertility goals, and recovery time. (4) Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impact: The pandemic posed challenges and opportunities, prompting telehealth adoption and consideration of nonsurgical options.

Conclusions

Clinician perspectives noted patient challenges with fibroids, prompting calls for enhanced education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and accessible care to address crucial aspects of fibroid management and improve women's well-being.

Practice Implications

Clinicians identified a lack of patient awareness and unequal access to fibroid care, highlighting the need for improved education and addressing disparities. Findings also emphasized the importance of considering multidimensional aspects of fibroid care and adapting to challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending broader education, affordability, interdisciplinary collaboration, and research for better fibroid health care.

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.

Effect of COVID-19 on Gynecologic Oncology Care: A Survey of Practicing Gynecologic Radiation Oncologists in the United States

Purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed demands and limitations on the delivery of health care. We sought to assess the effect of COVID-19 on the delivery of gynecologic oncologic care from the perspective of practicing radiation oncologists in the United States.

Methods and Materials

An anonymous online survey was created and distributed to preidentified radiation oncologists in the United States with clinical expertise in the management of gynecologic patients. The survey consisted of demographic questions followed by directed questions to assess specific patterns of care related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

A total of 47 of 96 invited radiation oncologists responded to the survey for a response rate of 49%. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported an increase in locally advanced cervical cancer with no similar increase for endometrial, vulvar, or vaginal patients. Most respondents (66%) reported a pause in surgical management, with a duration of 1 to 3 months being most common (61%). There was a reported increased use of shorter brachytherapy regimens during the pandemic. Most providers (61%) reported caring for at least 1 patient with a positive COVID-19 test. A pause or delay in treatment due to COVID-19 positivity was reported by 45% of respondents, with 55% reporting that patients chose to delay their own care because of COVID-19-related concerns. Total treatment times >8 weeks for patients with cervical cancer were observed by 33% of respondents, but occurred in >25% of patients.

Conclusions

Data from this prospectively collected anonymous survey of practice patterns among radiation oncologists reveal that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in delays initiating care, truncated brachytherapy treatment courses, and a reported increase in locally advanced cervical cancer cases at presentation. These data can be used as a means of self-assessment to ensure appropriate decision making for gynecologic patients during the endemic phase of COVID-19.

Managing the cancer backlog: a national population-based study of patient mobility, waiting times and 'spare capacity' for cancer surgery

Background

Waiting times for cancer treatments continue to increase in many countries. In this study we estimated potential 'spare surgical capacity' in the English NHS and identified regions more likely to have spare capacity based on patterns of patient mobility (the extent to which patients receive surgery at hospitals other than their nearest).

Methods

We identified patients who had an elective breast or colorectal cancer surgical resection between January 2016 and December 2018. We estimated each hospital's 'maximum surgical capacity' as the maximum 6-month moving average of its surgical volume. 'Spare surgical capacity' was estimated as the difference between maximum surgical capacity and observed surgical volume. We assessed the association between spare surgical capacity and whether a hospital performed more or fewer procedures than expected due to patient mobility as well as the association between spare surgical capacity and whether or not waiting times targets for treatment were likely to be met.

Findings

100,585 and 49,445 patients underwent breast and colorectal cancer surgery respectively. 67 of 166 hospitals (40.4%) providing breast cancer surgery and 82 of 163 hospitals (50.3%) providing colorectal cancer surgery used less than 80% of their maximum surgical capacity. Hospitals with a 'net loss' of patients to hospitals further away had more potential spare capacity than hospitals with a 'net gain' of patients (p < 0.001 for breast and p = 0.01 for colorectal cancer). At the national level, we projected an annual potential spare capacity of 8389 breast cancer and 4262 colorectal cancer surgical procedures, approximately 25% of the volumes actually performed.

Interpretation

Spare surgical capacity potentially exists in the present configuration of hospitals providing cancer surgery and requires regional allocation for efficient utilisation.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the stage of endometrial cancer at diagnosis

Background

Endometrial cancer generally presents at an early stage affording a high rate of surgical cure. Early in the Covid-19 pandemic it was suggested that treatment of tumors with favorable pathologic features might safely be delayed.

Objective

We hypothesized that disruption to health care services during the pandemic would impact the stage at presentation for these patients. Here we compare the stage at presentation of Endometrial Cancer in the months immediately preceding the pandemic to the stage at presentation during the pandemic.

Study design

Charts of patients presenting with Endometrial Cancer between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2022 were reviewed. March 1, 2020 separated the "pre-pandemic" era from the "pandemic" era. Data was collected regarding patient age, body mass index (BMI), tumor stage, histology, grade, size, and depth of invasion.

Results

322 of 374 (86.09%) of surgically staged patients presented with FIGO stage I disease "pre-pandemic" compared to 263 of 329 (71.73%) of surgically staged patients in the "pandemic" cohort (p =.029). 2.08% pre-pandemic compared to 5.48% during the pandemic presented with FIGO stage IV (p =.015).

Conclusion

We found a significant difference in the stage at presentation in endometrial cancer patients, a statistic which may be attributed to the disruption of healthcare services caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Impact of Multiple COVID-19 Waves on Gynaecological Cancer Services in the UK

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the impact of multiple COVID-19 waves on UK gynaecological-oncology services.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to all UK-British-Gynaecological-Cancer-Society members during three COVID-19 waves from 2020 to2022.

RESULTS

In total, 51 hospitals (including 32 cancer centres) responded to Survey 1, 42 hospitals (29 centres) to Survey 2, and 39 hospitals (30 centres) to Survey 3. During the first wave, urgent referrals reportedly fell by a median of 50% (IQR = 25-70%). In total, 49% hospitals reported reduced staffing, and the greatest was noted for trainee doctors, by a median of 40%. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 40%. A median of 30% of planned operations was postponed. Multidisciplinary meetings were completely virtual in 39% and mixed in 65% of the total. A median of 75% of outpatient consultations were remote. By the second wave, fewer hospitals reported staffing reductions, and there was a return to pre-pandemic urgent referrals and multidisciplinary workloads. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 10%, with 5% of operations postponed. The third wave demonstrated worsening staff reductions similar to Wave 1, primarily from sickness. Pre-pandemic levels of urgent referrals/workload continued, with little reduction in surgical capacity.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 led to a significant disruption of gynaecological-cancer care across the UK, including reduced staffing, urgent referrals, theatre capacity, and working practice changes. Whilst disruption eased and referrals/workloads returned to normal, significant staff shortages remained in 2022, highlighting persistent capacity constraints.

Risk Stratified Follow-Up for Endometrial Cancer: The Clinicians' Perspective

Risk-stratified follow-up for endometrial cancer (EC) is being introduced in many cancer centres; however, there appears to be diversity in the structure and availability of schemes across the UK. This study aimed to investigate clinicians' and clinical specialist nurses' (CNS) experiences of follow-up schemes for EC, including patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), telephone follow-up (TFU) and clinician-led hospital follow-up (HFU). A mixed-methods study was conducted, consisting of an online questionnaire to CNSs, an audience survey of participants attending a national "Personalising Endometrial Cancer Follow-up" educational meeting, and qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews with clinicians involved in the follow-up of EC. Thematic analysis identified three main themes to describe clinicians' views: appropriate patient selection; changing from HFU to PIFU schemes; and the future of EC follow-up schemes. Many participants reported that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted EC follow-up by accelerating the transition to PIFU/TFU. Overall, there was increasing support for non-HFU schemes for patients who have completed primary treatment of EC; however, barriers were identified for non-English-speaking patients and those who had communication challenges. Given the good long-term outcome associated with EC, greater focus is needed to develop resources to support patients post-treatment and individualise follow-up according to patients' personal needs and preferences.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Diagnosis and Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted health systems worldwide, particularly cancer care. Because the actual implications of these changes on gynecological oncology healthcare are still unclear, we aim to evaluate the impact of this pandemic on the diagnosis and management of gynecological cancer. Materials and Methods: This is a single-center retrospective observational study, including patients diagnosed with gynecological malignancies between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were included into three groups based on the timing of cancer diagnosis: pre-pandemic (2019), pandemic with high restrictions (2020) and pandemic recovery (2021). Results: Overall, 234 patients were diagnosed with gynecological cancer during the period of study. A decrease in the number of newly diagnosed cervical cancers and other rare tumors (leiomyosarcoma, invasive hydatidiform mole) was apparent in 2020. Some aggressive histological types of endometrial and ovarian cancer were more commonly diagnosed in the pandemic recovery group (p < 0.05), although no differences were demonstrated concerning tumor staging in all gynecological cancers. The median time between the first multidisciplinary team meeting and the treatment initiation was higher after the COVID-19 pandemic in endometrial cancer (23.0 vs. 34.0 vs. 36.0 days, p < 0.05). Patients with ovarian cancer were more frequently proposed for neoadjuvant therapy in 2020 compared to the other periods (33.3% vs. 55.0% vs. 10.0% p < 0.05). A significant reduction in the laparoscopic approach was observed during 2020 in endometrial cancer (32.1% vs. 14.3% vs. 36.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were registered regarding median hospitalization days or intra- and post-operative complications between these periods. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the diagnosis and management of most gynecological malignancies, namely, on time to first treatment, chosen oncological therapies and surgical approaches. These results suggest important clinical and healthcare implications that should be addressed in future prospective studies.