Real-World Scenario of Patients With Lung Cancer Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in the People's Republic of China

Resource allocation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the impact on patients with lung cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in unprecedented tolls on both economies and human life. Healthcare resources needed to be reallocated away from the care of patients and towards supporting the pandemic response. In this systematic review, we explore the impact of resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic on the screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of patients with lung cancer during the pandemic.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for articles investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with lung cancer. Of the 1605 manuscripts originally screened, 47 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Patients with lung cancer during the pandemic experienced reduced rates of screening, diagnostic testing and interventions but did not experience worse outcomes. Population-based modelling studies predict significant increases in mortality for patients with lung cancer in the years to come.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced access to resources during the pandemic resulted in reduced rates of screening, diagnosis and treatment for patients with lung cancer. While significant differences in outcomes were not identified in the short term, ultimately the effects of the pandemic and reductions in cancer screening will likely be better delineated in the coming years. Future consideration of the long-term implications of resource allocation away from patients with lung cancer with an attempt to provide equitable access to healthcare and limited interruptions of patient care may help to provide the best care for all patients during times of limited resources.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on lung cancer patients: A meta-analysis

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a great challenge to the treatment of lung cancer patients.

Materials and methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published before March 15, 2022, and Stata 14.0 software was used to perform a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported.

Results

Our meta-analysis included 80 articles with 318,352 patients involved. The proportion of lung cancer patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was 2.4% (95% CI: 0.02-0.03) prior to the Omicron variant outbreak. Among COVID-19 patients, those with lung cancer showed a higher mortality rate than those with other types of malignant solid tumors (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.61-2.06) and non-cancer patients (OR = 4.67, 95% CI: 3.61-6.05); however, no significant difference was observed in the mortality rate between patients with lung cancer and those with hematologic malignancies (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.85-1.33). SARS-CoV-2 infection significantly increased the mortality rate in lung cancer patients (OR = 8.94, 95% CI: 6.50-12.31). By contrast, the all-cause mortality rate in lung cancer patients (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.69-1.57) and the proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.85-1.27) did not significantly change before and after the pandemic.

Conclusions

More attention should be paid on improving the health of lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Delayed Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Henan, China: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Objective

To investigate the possible impact of lockdown policies on the diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients in Henan, China.

Design Setting and Participants

We collected data from the Henan Cancer Hospital, affiliated with Zhengzhou University. The monthly numbers of inpatient admissions from January 2014 to December 2019 were used to forecast the number of inpatient admissions in 2020, which was then compared to the actual number of patients admitted during the pandemic to evaluate how the actual number diverges from this forecast. We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

For specific diagnoses, treatment modalities, and age groups, we compared the changes in monthly admissions after the pandemic with the forecasted changes from the model.

Results

The observed overall monthly number of inpatient admissions decreased by 20.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.7-27.2%], 78.9% (95% CI, 77.3-80.4%), and 40.9% (95% CI, 35.6-45.5%) in January, February, and March 2020, respectively, as compared with those predicted using the ARIMA model. After the lockdown, visits for all treatment modalities decreased sharply. However, apparent compensation and recovery of the backlog appeared in later surgeries. As a result, the number of patients who underwent surgery in 2020 (30,478) was close to the number forecasted by the ARIMA model (30,185). In the same period, patients who received other treatments or underwent examinations were 106,074 and 36,968, respectively; the respective numbers that were forecasted by ARIMA were 127,775 and 60,025, respectively. These findings depict a decrease of 16.9 and 38.4% in patients who received other treatments or underwent examinations only, respectively. Regarding diagnosis, the reported incidence of various cancers decreased dramatically in February, with varying extent and speed of recovery.

Conclusion and Relevance

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly delayed the diagnosis and treatment of cancer in Henan, China. Long-term research should be conducted to assess the future effects of lockdown policies.

Patient Throughput Initiatives in Ambulatory Care Organizations during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ambulatory (outpatient) health care organizations continue to respond to the COVID-19 global pandemic using an array of initiatives to provide a continuity of care for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this study is to systematically identify the facilitators and barriers experienced by outpatient health care organizations in an effort to maintain effective and efficient patient throughput during the pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study systematically reviewed articles focused on initiatives taken by ambulatory care organizations to maintain optimal outpatient throughput levels while balancing pandemic precautions, published during 2020.

RESULTS

Among the 30 articles that met the inclusion criteria, three initiatives healthcare organizations have taken to maintain throughput were identified: the use (and enhanced use) of telehealth, protocol development, and health care provider training. The research team also identified three barriers to patient throughput: lack of telehealth, lack of resources, and overall lack of knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

To maintain patient throughput during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare organizations need to develop strategies such as the use of virtual consultation and follow-up, new guidelines to move patients along the care delivery value-chain, and ongoing training of providers. Additionally, the availability of required technology for telehealth, availability of resources, and adequate knowledge are vital for continuous patient throughput to ensure continuity of care during a pandemic.

Deontological or Utilitarian? An Eternal Ethical Dilemma in Outbreak

Both deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics are important theories that affect decision making in medical and health care. However, it has been challenging to reach a balance between these two ethical theories. When there is a conflict between these two ethical principles in the medical context, the conflict must be addressed in order to reach an appropriate solution for patients and others involved. To demonstrate decisions made in terms of deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics, the study will use the film Outbreak as example to further understand these two ethics in relation to epidemiology and public health. The paper will also analyze film scenarios to examine how deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics are involved and strike a balance with different pearspectives to reach an appropriate public health solution. To reach more just solutions, it is essential to determine how to make wise decisions by balancing deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics. However, the decision-making process is complicated because any solution must consider not only medical ethics but also political, environmental, and military issues. In order to reach an appropriate public health decision, those involved should be inclined toward empathy and contemplate things from different ethical perspectives to deal with ethical/moral dilemmas and create greater beneficence and justice for patients and humanity at large.

COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.

COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.

Delays and Disruptions in Cancer Health Care Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review

PURPOSE

There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally.

METHODS

This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented.

RESULTS

Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%).

CONCLUSION

The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.

Evaluation of carcinogenic activities and sperm abnormalities of Gram-negative bacterial metabolites isolated from cancer patients after subcutaneous injection in albino rats

Microbial pathogens drive tumorigenesis in 20% of cancer cases, so the present study is aimed to evaluate the carcinogenic activities, sperm abnormalities and other dangerous effects of the subcutaneous injection of extracts obtained from various clinical Gram-negative bacteria derived from cancer patients using albino rats. We isolated, identified and extracted of their secondary metabolites of carbapenem resistant Gram-negative bacteria derived from cancer patients. Various methods have been used to determine hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, tumorigenesis, inflammatory and sperm abnormalities in the albino rats injected with extracts. In comparison with the normal animals group, all extracts induced hepatotoxicity which was evidenced by the significant elevation in the activity of the serum alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyltransferase and alkaline phosphatase; also, nephrotoxicity that was indicated through the marked increase in the serum urea and creatinine levels; tumorigenesis was achieved from the sharp elevation in serum levels of alpha fetoprotein, carcinoembryonic antigen and lactate dehydrogenase values as tumor markers; as well as severe inflammatory characteristics were monitored from the marked raise of tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-1beta. Furthermore, the proportion of micronuclei in polychromatic erythrocytes and sperm abnormalities were statistically significant in all groups compared to control group. Various kinds of head abnormalities and coiled tail were noted. Histopathological examination of hepatic tissue came in line with the biochemical and cytological findings. It could conclude that the extracts of Serratia sp. Esraa 1, Stenotrophomonas sp. Esraa 2, Acinetobacter sp. Esraa 3, Escherichia sp. Esraa 4 and Pseudomonas sp. Esraa 5 were able to initiate cytotoxicity and tumorigenesis in rats.

Cancer treatment in the coronavirus disease pandemic

•

COVID-19 patients with cancer had increased risk of death and severe outcomes compared to those without cancer.

•

There is no conclusive evidence indicating that antineoplastic treatment aggravates COVID-19 disease

•

There was no significant difference in COVID-19 severity regardless of PD-1 blockade exposure.

Half a year after its emergence, severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a pandemic, with cases continuing to increase in nearly every country. Surges in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) cases have clearly had profound effects on current cancer treatment paradigms. Considering the effect of antineoplastic treatment and the immunosuppressive properties of cancer itself, cancer patients are deemed to be more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2. Hence, the specific risk of SARS-CoV-2 must be carefully weighed against the benefit of antineoplastic treatment for cancer patients in the COVID-19 era. In this review, we discuss the current evidence in this important field, and in particular, the effect of SARS-CoV-2 on antineoplastic treatment.