Summary of international recommendations in 23 languages for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of COVID-19 on hospital visit behaviour in cancer patients in Japan: a nationwide study

OBJECTIVES

Lockdowns and outing restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic may have altered attitudes towards hospital visits. This study aimed to investigate changes in long-distance visits outside of secondary healthcare service areas (SHSA) among cancer patients in Japan.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Inpatient data from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We retrospectively analysed inpatient data from January 2018 to December 2021, extracted from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. The study examined whether the patient's hospital was within their residence's SHSA and compared the admission rates before and after the pandemic.

RESULTS

The data of a total of 2 394 760 patients were analysed. Admission rates outside the SHSA significantly decreased after the pandemic compared with prepandemic years (26.67% and 27.58%, respectively, p<0.001). Significant reductions were observed in nearly all age groups over 30 years old, but not in younger ones. Characteristics of patients' residences, including COVID-19 infection rates, population density and the number of regional cancer hospitals, were also influential factors. The cancer site was a significant factor, with the respiratory system showing a 3.77% decrease, particularly a 5.29% decrease in those who needed surgeries that are not highly specialised (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Admission to distant hospitals among cancer patients decreased following the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating a restraint in their behaviour of visiting distant hospitals. The appropriate allocation of specialised hospitals will serve as a measure for the next pandemic.

Time interval between breast cancer diagnosis and surgery is associated with disease outcome

Time interval between breast cancer (BC) diagnosis and surgery is of concern to patients and clinicians, but its impact on survival remains unclear. We identified 5130 BC patients receiving surgery between 2009 and 2017 from the Shanghai Jiaotong University Breast Cancer Database (SJTU-BCDB), and divided as Ruijin cohort and SJTU cohort. All participants were divided into three groups according to the interval between diagnosis and surgery: ≤ 1 week, 1-2 weeks, and > 2 weeks. Among 3144 patients of Ruijin cohort, the estimated 5-year breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) rates for the ≤ 1 week, 1-2 weeks and > 2 weeks groups were 91.8%, 87.5%, and 84.0% (P = 0.088), and the estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 95.6%, 89.6%, and 91.5% (P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed that patients with a TTS > 2 weeks had significantly lower BCFI (HR = 1.80, 95%CI 1.05-3.11, P = 0.034) and OS (HR = 2.07, 95% CI 1.04-4.13, P = 0.038) rates than patients with a TTS ≤ 1 week. Among 5130 patients when combining Ruijin cohort with SJTU cohort, the estimated 5-year BCFI rates for the ≤ 1 week, 1-2 weeks, and > 2 weeks groups were 91.0%, 87.9%, and 78.9%, and the estimated 5-year OS rates for the ≤ 1 week, 1-2 weeks, and > 2 weeks groups were 95.8%, 90.6%, and 91.5%, both with a significantly p value < 0.001. Our findings demonstrated the prolonged time to surgery (more than 2 weeks) after BC diagnosis was associated with poor disease outcomes, suggesting that efforts to early initiate treatment after diagnosis need to be pursued where possible to improve survival.

COVID-19 Emotional and Mental Impact on Cancer Patients Receiving Radiotherapy: An Interpretation of Potential Explaining Descriptors

Background: Significant changes in the accessibility and viability of health services have been observed during the COVID-19 period, particularly in vulnerable groups such as cancer patients. In this study, we described the impact of radical practice and perceived changes on cancer patients’ mental well-being and investigated potential outcome descriptors. Methods: Generalized anxiety disorder assessment (GAD-7), patient health (PHQ-9), and World Health Organization-five well-being index (WHO-5) questionnaires were used to assess anxiety, depression, and mental well-being. Information on participants, disease baseline information, and COVID-19-related questions were collected, and related explanatory variables were included for statistical analysis. Results: The mean score values for anxiety, depression, and mental well-being were 4.7 ± 5.53, 4.9 ± 6.42, and 72.2 ± 18.53, respectively. GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were statistically associated (p < 0.001), while high values of GAD-7 and PHQ-9 questionnaires were related to low values of WHO-5 (p < 0.001).Using the GAD-7 scale, 16.2% of participants were classified as having mild anxiety (GAD-7 score: 5−9).Mild to more severe anxiety was significantly associated with a history of mental health conditions (p = 0.01, OR = 3.74, 95% CI [1.372−10.21]), and stage category (stage III/IV vs. I/II, p = 0.01, OR = 3.83, 95% CI [1.38−10.64]. From the participants, 36.2% were considered to have depression (PHQ-9 score ≥ 5). Depression was related with older patients (p = 0.05, OR = 1.63, 95% CI [1.16−2.3]), those with previous mental health conditions (p = 0.03, OR = 14.24, 95% CI [2.47−81.84]), those concerned about the COVID-19 impact on their cancer treatment (p = 0.027, OR = 0.19, 95% CI [0.045−0.82]) or those who felt that COVID-19 pandemic has affected mental health (p = 0.013, OR = 3.56, 95% CI [1.30−9.72]). Additionally, most participants (86.7%) had a good well-being score (WHO-5 score ≥ 50). Mental well-being seemed more reduced among stage I−III patients than stage IV patients (p = 0.014, OR = 0.12, 95% CI [0.023−0.65]). Conclusion: There is a necessity for comprehensive cancer care improvement. These patients’ main concern related to cancer therapy, yet the group of patients who were mentally affected by the pandemic should be identified and supported.

Translating COVID-19: From Contagion to Containment

This article tests the hypothesis that all pandemics are inherently translational. We argue that translation and translation theory can be fruitfully used to understand and manage epidemics, as they help us explore concepts of infectivity and immunity in terms of cultural and biological resistance. After examining the linkage between translation and coronavirus disease from three different yet interlinked perspectives-cultural, medical, and biocultural-we make a case for a translational medical humanities framework for tackling the multifactorial crisis brought about by the SARS-CoV-2 infection. This innovative entanglement of perspectives has the merit of carving out a new space for translation research at the intersection of the sciences and the humanities, providing sustainable ways to conceptualize the production of science at times of crisis, and challenging conventional views of translation as a primarily linguistic and cultural phenomenon that traditionally does not engage with science.

COVID-19 Vaccinations: Summary Guidance for Cancer Patients in 28 Languages: Breaking Barriers to Cancer Patient Information

BACKGROUND

Covid-19 vaccination has started in the majority of the countries at the global level. Cancer patients are at high risk for infection, serious illness, and death from COVID-19 and need vaccination guidance and support. Guidance availability in the English language only is a major limit for recommendations' delivery and their application in the world's population and generates information inequalities across the different populations.

METHODS

Most of the available COVID-19 vaccination guidance for cancer patients was screened and scrutinized by the European Cancer Patients Coalition (ECPC) and an international oncology panel of 52 physicians from 33 countries.

RESULTS

A summary guidance was developed and provided in 28 languages in order to reach more than 70 percent of the global population.

CONCLUSION

Language barrier and e-guidance availability in the native language are the most important barriers when communicating with patients. E-guidance availability in various native languages should be considered a major priority by international medical and health organizations that are communicating with patients at the global level.

Palliative radiotherapy indications during the COVID-19 pandemic and in future complex logistic settings: the NORMALITY model

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged healthcare systems worldwide over the last few months, and it continues to do so. Although some restrictions are being removed, it is not certain when the pandemic is going to be definitively over. Pandemics can be seen as a highly complex logistic scenario. From this perspective, some of the indications provided for palliative radiotherapy (PRT) during the COVID-19 pandemic could be maintained in the future in settings that limit the possibility of patients achieving symptom relief by radiotherapy.

This paper has two aims: (1) to provide a summary of the indications for PRT during the COVID-19 pandemic; since some indications can differ slightly, and to avoid any possible contradictions, an expert panel composed of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) and the Palliative Care and Supportive Therapies Working Group (AIRO-palliative) voted by consensus on the summary; (2) to introduce a clinical care model for PRT [endorsed by AIRO and by a spontaneous Italian collaborative network for PRT named “La Rete del Sollievo” (“The Net of Relief”)]. The proposed model, denoted “No cOmpRoMise on quality of life by pALliative radiotherapy” (NORMALITY), is based on an AIRO-palliative consensus-based list of clinical indications for PRT and on practical suggestions regarding the management of patients potentially suitable for PRT but dealing with highly complex logistics scenarios (similar to the ongoing logistics limits due to COVID-19).

Material and Methods

First, a summary of the available literature guidelines for PRT published during the COVID-19 pandemic was prepared. A systematic literature search based on the PRISMA approach was performed to retrieve the available literature reporting guideline indications fully or partially focused on PRT. Tables reporting each addressed clinical presentation and respective literature indications were prepared and distributed into two main groups: palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies. These summaries were voted in by consensus by selected members of the AIRO and AIRO-palliative panels. Second, based on the summary for palliative indications during the COVID-19 pandemic, a clinical care model to facilitate recruitment and delivery of PRT to patients in complex logistic scenarios was proposed. The summary tables were critically integrated and shuffled according to clinical presentations and then voted on in a second consensus round. Along with the adapted guideline indications, some methods of performing the first triage of patients and facilitating a teleconsultation preliminary to the first in-person visit were developed.

Results

After the revision of 161 documents, 13 papers were selected for analysis. From the papers, 19 clinical presentation items were collected; in total, 61 question items were extracted and voted on (i.e., for each presentation, more than one indication was provided from the literature). Two tables summarizing the PRT indications during the COVID-19 pandemic available from the literature (PRT COVID-19 summary tables) were developed: palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies. The consensus of the vote by the AIRO panel for the PRT COVID-19 summary was reached. The PRT COVID-19 summary tables for palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies were adapted for clinical presentations possibly associated with patients in complex clinical scenarios other than the COVID-19 pandemic. The two new indication tables (i.e., “Normality model of PRT indications”) for both palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies were voted on in a second consensus round. The consensus rate was reached and strong. Written forms facilitating two levels of teleconsultation (triage and remote visits) were also developed, both in English and in Italian, to evaluate the patients for possible indications for PRT before scheduling clinical visits.

Conclusion

We provide a comprehensive summary of the literature guideline indications for PRT during COVID-19 pandemic. We also propose a clinical care model including clinical indications and written forms facilitating two levels of teleconsultation (triage and remote visits) to evaluate the patients for indications of PRT before scheduling clinical visits. The normality model could facilitate the provision of PRT to patients in future complex logistic scenarios.

Experiences of people affected by cancer during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic: an exploratory qualitative analysis of public online forums

PURPOSE

Studies focusing on patients with and survivors of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic highlight unique psychological and behavioral challenges. These findings were obtained in surveys using self-report questionnaires with pre-specified response options that may not capture the broad range of experiences of individuals affected by cancer, including people with cancer and informal caregivers, in this unprecedented situation. Online forums produce a large amount of valuable first-hand user-generated content that can be used to better understand their day-to-day lives. This study, based on the analysis of narratives in cancer online forums, aims to describe and categorize the experiences of people affected by cancer during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

An inductive, descriptive, thematic approach was applied to publicly available cancer forums from Germany, the USA, the UK, and Ireland posted between mid-March and mid-April 2020.

RESULTS

An analysis of the content of 230 main posts revealed three major themes: (1) concerns related to the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, the risks and fears of getting infected, logistic issues, and economic impact; (2) adaptation challenges faced at the individual and societal level; and (3) the need for advice including information about COVID-19 and the (self-)management of cancer symptoms and treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our qualitative description of the experiences of people affected by cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak can help to improve communication, education, and the development of supportive care strategies. Furthermore, the themes and subthemes identified could potentially inform item development for future self-report questionnaires.

A survey on the frequency of COVID-19-like symptoms on students and staff of the University of Milan

A survey was conducted through a web link on the students and staff of the Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy in the period 14-30 April 2020. It was anonymous at the source and included history of COVID-19-related questions (fever, headache, cold, cough, anosmia, gastrointestinal complaints and separately fever over 38.5°C) in the previous three weeks, and similar information on cohabitants. A total of 14 374 subjects were included. Overall, from 24 March to 30 April, 3138 subjects (21.8%) reported COVID-19-like symptoms, and 219 (1.5%) fever above 38.5°C; 217 subjects performed at least one swab. Of these, 46 were positive (21.3% of those performed, 0.3% of the total). The frequency of any symptom was similar in women and men, but fever above 38.5°C was lower in women (multivariate odds ratio (OR) = 0.65, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.49-0.85). There was a strong association between symptoms in the respondent and in cohabitants: 64% of subjects with symptoms reported at least one cohabitant with symptoms, compared to 14% of asymptomatic subjects (OR = 11.4, 95% CI, 10.4-12.6). The lower risk of serious symptoms in women, and the strong intra-nucleus of cohabitation contagiousness are an indication that at least part of the symptoms was caused by a new pathogen - SARS-CoV-2. These data, therefore, suggest that the number of persons affected by COVID-19 was much greater in northern Italy than the number of recorded cases. This has implications for the prevention, management and mortality of other serious diseases, including cancer.

[COVID pandemic and clinical nutrition response in Spain: results of a national survey]

Introduction

Introduction: the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has forced major organizational and care changes in the health system. However, in Spain, the circumstances suffered by the health professionals who have cared for pandemic patients from a clinical nutrition standpoint has remained unknown up to this moment. Objectives: the management and care changes made in clinical nutrition units in Spain, and their impact on clinical practice are described. Material and methods: a cross-sectional study was carried out using a survey directed at SENPE members (June 2020). Responses sent by health professionals in the field of clinical nutrition who had treated patients with COVID-19 in Spanish hospitals were included in the study. Resultados: a total of 116 survey forms were analyzed, mostly filled out by doctors (57.8 %) working at hospitals with more than 500 beds (56 %); 46 % of survey respondents were on telework. There was a nutritional care plan in 68 % of cases, such plan being present mainly in hospitals with more than 500 beds (p < 0.001). In these hospitals more specific diets for COVID-19 were implemented than in those under 500 beds: 18 (35.3 %) vs 44 (67.7 %), (p < 0.001). The use of recommendations issued by scientific societies was reported in 86 % of cases. Never or almost never could a satisfactory nutritional assessment be performed for 38.8 %. The prescription of nutritional supplements was not less than 50 %. Health workers rated their performance as satisfactory or very satisfactory (51.7 %), and this was not related to hospital size but to having implemented a COVID-19 diet (p < 0.05). Conclusions: clinical nutrition in Spain has responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with organizational and managerial changes and, although care has been clearly affected, some quality standards were ultimately maintained. Larger hospitals have had some advantages in making these adjustments.

Time to Treatment Initiation for Breast Cancer During the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant pressures on healthcare systems, raising concern that related care delays will result in excess cancer-related deaths. Because data regarding the impact on patients with breast cancer are urgently needed, we aimed to provide a preliminary estimate of the impact of COVID-19 on time to treatment initiation (TTI) for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer cared for at a large academic center.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer between January 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, a time period during which care was affected by COVID-19, and an unaffected cohort diagnosed between January 1, 2018 and May 15, 2018. Outcomes included patient volume, TTI, and initial treatment modality. Adjusted TTI was compared using multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-six patients were included. There was an 18.8% decrease in patient volume in 2020 (n = 164) versus 2018 (n = 202). There was no association between time of diagnosis (pre-COVID-19 or during COVID-19) and adjusted TTI (P = .926). There were fewer in situ diagnoses in the 2020 cohort (P = .040). There was increased use of preoperative systemic therapy in 2020 (43.9% overall, 20.7% chemotherapy, and 23.2% hormonal therapy) versus 2018 (16.4% overall, 12.4% chemotherapy, and 4.0% hormonal therapy) (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

TTI was maintained among patients diagnosed and treated for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic at a single large academic center. There was a decrease in patient volume, specifically in patients with in situ disease and a shift in initial therapy toward the use of preoperative hormonal therapy.

Assessment of Simulated SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Mortality Risk Associated With Radiation Therapy Among Patients in 8 Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer therapy may put patients at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. The impacts of proposed alternatives on reducing infection risk are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with the risks and benefits of standard radiation therapy (RT).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This comparative effectiveness study used estimated individual patient-level data extracted from published Kaplan-Meier survival figures from 8 randomized clinical trials across oncology from 1993 to 2014 that evaluated the inclusion of RT or compared different RT fractionation regimens. Included trials were Dutch TME and TROG 01.04 examining rectal cancer; CALGB 9343, OCOG hypofractionation trial, FAST-Forward, and NSABP B-39 examining early stage breast cancer, and CHHiP and HYPO-RT-PC examining prostate cancer. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality associated with receipt of RT in the treatment arms were simulated and trials were reanalyzed. Data were analyzed between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020.

EXPOSURES

COVID-19 risk associated with treatment was simulated across different pandemic scenarios, varying infection risk per fractions (IRFs) and case fatality rates (CFRs).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Overall survival was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards modeling under different pandemic scenarios.

RESULTS

Estimated IPLD from a total of 14 170 patients were included in the simulations. In scenarios with low COVID-19-associated risks (IRF, 0.5%; CFR, 5%), fractionation was not significantly associated with outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, short-course RT was associated with better outcomes than long-course chemoradiation (TROG 01.04) and was associated with similar outcomes as RT omission (Dutch TME) in most settings (eg, TROG 01.04 median HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96]; Dutch TME median HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.80-1.03] in a scenario with IRF 5% and CFR 20%). Moderate hypofractionation in early stage breast cancer (OCOG hypofractionation trial) and prostate cancer (CHHiP) was not associated with survival benefits in the setting of COVID-19 (eg, OCOG hypofractionation trial median HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.06]; CHHiP median HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.75-1.01] under high-risk scenario with IRF 10% and CFR 30%). More aggressive hypofractionation (FAST-Forward, HYPO-RT-PC) and accelerated partial breast irradiation (NSABP B-39) were associated with improved survival in higher risk scenarios (eg, FAST-Forward median HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.68]; HYPO-RT-PC median HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.75] under scenario with IRF 10% and CFR 30%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this comparative effectiveness study of data from 8 clinical trials of patients receiving radiation therapy to simulate COVID-19 risk and mortality rates, treatment modification was not associated with altered risk from COVID-19 in lower-risk scenarios and was only associated with decreased mortality in very high COVID-19-risk scenarios. This model, which can be adapted to dynamic changes in COVID-19 risk, provides a flexible, quantitative approach to assess the potential impact of treatment modifications and supports the continued delivery of standard evidence-based care with appropriate precautions against COVID-19.

The Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak on the Psychological Flexibility and Behaviour of Cancelling Medical Appointments of Italian Patients with Pre-Existing Medical Condition: The "ImpACT-COVID-19 for Patients" Multi-Centre Observational Study

Psychological distress imposed by the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak particularly affects patients with pre-existing medical conditions, and the progression of their diseases. Patients who fail to keep scheduled medical appointments experience a negative impact on care. The aim of this study is to investigate the psychosocial factors contributing to the cancellation of medical appointments during the pandemic by patients with pre-existing health conditions. Data were collected in eleven Italian hospitals during the last week of lockdown, and one month later. In order to assess the emotional impact of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and the subject's degree of psychological flexibility, we developed an ad hoc questionnaire (ImpACT), referring to the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) model. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) and the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ) were also used. Pervasive dysfunctional use of experiential avoidance behaviours (used with the function to avoid thought, emotions, sensations), feelings of loneliness and high post-traumatic stress scores were found to correlate with the fear of COVID-19, increasing the likelihood of cancelling medical appointments. Responding promptly to the information and psychological needs of patients who cancel medical appointments can have positive effects in terms of psychological and physical health.

Medical Liability in Cancer Care During COVID-19 Pandemic: Heroes or Guilty?

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak rapidly became a public health emergency affecting particularly the frail category as cancer patients. This led oncologists to radical changes in patient management, facing the unprecedent issue whether treatments in oncology could be postponed without compromising their efficacy.

Purpose: To discuss legal implications in oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perspective: Treatment delay is not always feasible in oncology where the timing often plays a key role and may impact significantly in prognosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the oncologists were found between the anvil and the hammer, on the one hand the need to treat cancer patients aiming to improve clinical benefits, and on the other hand the goal to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection avoiding or delaying immunosuppressive treatments and hospital exposure. Therefore, two rising scenarios with possible implications in both criminal and civil law are emerging. Firstly, oncologists may be “accused” of having delayed or omitted the diagnosis and/or treatments with consequent worsening of patients' outcome. Secondly, oncologists can be blamed for having exposed patients to hospital environment considered at risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical decision making should be well-balanced through a careful examination between clinical performance status, age, comorbidities, aim of the treatment, and the potential risk of COVID-19 infection in order to avoid the risk of suboptimal cancer care with potential legal repercussion. Moreover, all cases should be discussed in the oncology team or in the tumor board in order to share the best strategy to adopt case by case.

The Impact of Changes in Service Delivery in Patients With Colorectal Cancer During the Initial Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed significant changes in cancer service delivery resulting in increased anxiety and distress in both patients and clinicians. We aimed to investigate how these changes have been perceived by patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer and identify determinants of increased anxiety.

Patients and Methods

An anonymized 32-item survey in the specialized lower gastrointestinal cancer outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer center in North West England between May 18 and July 1, 2020. Self-reported anxiety was based on the General Anxiety Disorder-7 screening tool.

Results

Of 143 participants who completed the survey (response rate, 67%), 115 (82%) were male, and the median age group was 61 to 70 years. A total of 112 (78%) participants had telephone consultation (83% met needs), and 57 (40%) had radiologic scan results discussed over the phone (96% met needs). In total, 23 (18%) participants were considered to have anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 score ≥ 5), with 7 (5.5%) scoring for moderate or severe anxiety. Those concerned about getting COVID-19 infection, and worried COVID-19 would have effect on their mental health, and affect their experience of cancer care, were most likely to have anxiety (P < .05, multivariate analysis). The majority did not feel they needed support during this phase of the pandemic. Participants felt that friends and family had been very supportive, but less so the primary care services (P < .05).

Conclusions

The findings of this survey suggest that some of the service changes implemented may have already improved the overall experience of cancer care among patients with colorectal cancer at our institute. Reassuringly, the incidence of participants with moderate to severe anxiety levels during the peak of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom was much lower than anticipated. Importantly, patients were much more concerned about their cancer treatment than COVID-19, emphasizing the need to continue to provide comprehensive cancer care even with a “second wave” of COVID-19.

Cancer Treatment and Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience of the First 6 Months

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on patients with underlying malignancy. In this article, we summarize emerging data related to patients with cancer and COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, a higher proportion have an underlying diagnosis of cancer than seen in the general population. Also, patients with malignancy are likely to be more vulnerable than the general population to contracting COVID-19. Mortality is significantly higher in patients with both cancer and COVID-19 compared with the overall COVID-19-positive population. The early months of the pandemic saw a decrease in cancer screening and diagnosis, as well as postponement of standard treatments, which could lead to excess deaths from cancer in the future.

Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Management in the COVID-19 Era: Risk of Infection, Adapted Role of Endoscopy, and Potential Treatment Algorithm Alterations

INTRODUCTION

The safety of upper gastrointestinal cancer patients in the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak is extremely important and most surgeons need to establish a contingency management.

AIM

In this study, we present the surgical outlines of patients suffering from upper gastrointestinal cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were obtained from PubMed, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and SCOPUS of reports up to September 2020.

RESULTS

The COVID-19 outbreak makes surgical procedures extremely difficult to be performed. The most common criteria to prioritize patients for surgical treatment are stage, tumor biology, presence of tumor-related symptoms, the risk of tumor to become non-resectable, and time interval from neoadjuvant therapy. The multidisciplinary teams can help assigning a priority level to each clinical case.

CONCLUSION

We have to continue providing treatment to oncologic patients in the face of COVID-19 uncertainty, with higher caution and responsibility in order to develop a safer and more effective personalized treatment plan.

Cancer or COVID-19? A Review of Guidelines for Safe Cancer Care in the Wake of the Pandemic

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to reasons beyond control, health care workers have struggled to deliver treatment for the patients with cancer. The concern for otherwise healthy patients with curable cancers that require timely intervention or therapy is the risk of contracting COVID-19 may outweigh the benefits of cancer treatment. Lack of international guidelines leaves health care providers with a case-to-case approach for delivering optimal cancer care in the wake of the pandemic. Transition to telemedicine has somewhat bridged the gap for in-office visits, but there is a continuing challenge of delays in cancer screening or significant decline of new diagnoses of cancers due to the pandemic. We aim to propose a balance in risk from treatment delay versus risks from COVID-19 with emphasis on treatment modality (surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy) as well as supportive care for cancer patients, and therefore have reviewed the publications and recommendations from international societies and study groups available as of October 2020.

Synthesis of Recommendations From 25 Countries and 31 Oncology Societies: How to Navigate Through Covid-19 Labyrinth

INTRODUCTION

Pandemic COVID-19 is an unexpected challenge for the oncological community, indicating potential detrimental effects on cancer patients. Our aim was to summarize the converging key points providing a general guidance in order to support decision making, pertaining to the oncologic care in the middle of a global outbreak.

METHODS

We did an international online search in twenty five countries that have managed a surge in cancer patient numbers. We collected the recommendations from thirty one medical oncology societies.

RESULTS

By synthesizing guidelines for a) oncology service delivery adjustments, b) general and specific treatment adaptations, and c) discrepancies from guidelines comparison, we present a clinical synopsis with the forty more crucial statements. A Covid-19 risk stratification base was also created in order to obtain a quick, objective patient assessment and a risk-benefit evaluation on a case-by-case basis.

CONCLUSIONS

In an attempt to face these complex needs and due to limited understanding of COVID-19, a variability of recommendations based on general epidemiological and infectious disease principles rather than definite cancer-related evidence has evolved. Additionally, the absence of an effective treatment or vaccine requires the development of cancer management guidance, capitalizing on comprehensive COVID-19 oncology experience globally.

Clinical risk factors for mortality in patients with cancer and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent observational studies

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cancer are more vulnerable to COVID-19 than the general population. Accordingly, it is necessary to identify the risk factors for death in patients with cancer and COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase Ovid databases were searched for relevant articles published before July 31^st, 2020. Studies that explored the risk factors for mortality were included. The effect size was relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

We included 17 observational studies involving 3268 patients. The pooled mortality was 24.8%. Male gender, age above 65 years, and comorbidities (especially hypertension and COPD) were risk factors for death (RR 1.16, 1.27, 1.12; 95% CI 0.7-1.95, 1.08-1.49, 1.04-1.2; P = 0.006, 0.004, and 0.002, respectively). Recent anti-cancer treatments did not increase mortality (P > 0.05). Dyspnea, cough, and sputum canused an elevated risk of death (P < 0.05). Antibiotics, glucocorticoids, interferons, invasive ventilation, and complications were associated with a high probability of death (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Various demographic and clinical characteristics, such as male gender, advanced age, comorbidities, and symptoms, were risk factors for mortality in patients with cancer and COVID-19. Our findings suggest recent anti-cancer treatments do not increase mortality.

Cardio-oncology care in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: An International Cardio-Oncology Society (ICOS) statement

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has given rise to a pandemic of unprecedented proportions in the modern era because of its highly contagious nature and impact on human health and society: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and established CV disease (CVD) are among those initially identified at the highest risk for serious complications, including death. Subsequent studies have pointed out that patients with cancer are also at high risk for a critical disease course. Therefore, the most vulnerable patients are seemingly those with both cancer and CVD, and a careful, unified approach in the evaluation and management of this patient population is especially needed in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of the unique implications of the viral outbreak for the field of cardio-oncology and outlines key modifications in the approach to this ever-increasing patient population. These modifications include a shift toward greater utilization of cardiac biomarkers and a more focused CV imaging approach in the broader context of modifications to typical practice pathways. The goal of this strategic adjustment is to minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other future viral outbreaks) while not becoming negligent of CVD and its important impact on the overall outcomes of patients who are being treated for cancer.

Breast cancer patients with hormone neoadjuvant bridging therapy due to asymptomatic Corona virus infection. Case report, clinical and histopathologic findings

•

Oncological treatments experienced a significant slowdown due to COVID-19 pandemic.

•

Breast cancer management has changed according to scientific recommendations.

•

Breast cancer patients with simultaneous COVID-19 could receive delayed treatments.

•

Treatments delay could impact breast cancer staging.

Introduction

Breast cancer management during COVID-19 pandemic has changed and in case of COVID-19 patients with simultaneous neoplasia, it has been strongly recommended to treat Sars-CoV-2 infection firstly.

Presentation of case

We reported a case of a 53-years-old women with early breast cancer and simultaneous asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. According to COVID-19 breast cancer recommendations she underwent hormone neoadjuvant treatment as a bridging therapy for surgery. Six months from the diagnosis, after virus eradication, patient underwent breast surgery. No SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found both in the surgical specimen and sentinel lymph node but micrometastasis were reported. During the last follow-up, the patient was in good clinical condition and started the adjuvant chemotherapy.

Discussion

COVID-19 outbreak determined the publication of temporary recommendation leading to an extensive use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Although endocrine therapy is a mainstay in the adjuvant treatment, its role in the neoadjuvant schedule is unclear.

Conclusion

Upfront awake surgery should be preferred especially in asymptomatic COVID-19 patient with early breast cancer when monitoring of tumor response is not feasible.

Oncological care organisation during COVID-19 outbreak

Background

COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA.

Methods

A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit.

Results

Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres.

Conclusion

Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer treatment scheduling

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic is associated with a heavy burden on the mental and physical health of patients, regional healthcare resources, and global economic activity. Many patients with lung cancer are thought to be affected by this situation. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on lung cancer treatment scheduling. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of lung cancer patients who were undergoing anticancer treatment at the National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center (600 beds) in Kyoto, Japan, between 1 March 2020 and 31 May 2020. After the medical records were reviewed, the patients were assigned to one of two groups, depending on whether their lung cancer treatment schedule was delayed. We assessed the characteristics, types of histopathology and treatment, and the reason for the delay. A total 15 (9.1%) patients experienced a delay in lung cancer treatment during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Patients with a treatment delay received significantly more immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy than patients without a treatment delay (P = 0.0057). On the contrary, no patients receiving molecular targeted agents experienced a treatment delay during the COVID‐19 pandemic period (P = 0.0027). The treatments of most of the patients were delayed at their request. We determined that 9.1% lung cancer patients suffered anxiety and requested a treatment delay during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Oncologists should bear in mind that patients with cancer have more anxiety than expected under unprecedented circumstances such as the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Cancer Management during COVID-19 Pandemic: Is Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors-Based Immunotherapy Harmful or Beneficial?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently representing a global health threat especially for fragile individuals, such as cancer patients. It was demonstrated that cancer patients have an increased risk of developing a worse symptomatology upon severe acute respiratory syndrome associated coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, often leading to hospitalization and intensive care. The consequences of this pandemic for oncology are really heavy, as the entire healthcare system got reorganized. Both oncologists and cancer patients are experiencing rescheduling of treatments and disruptions of appointments with a concurrent surge of fear and stress. In this review all the up-to-date findings, concerning the association between COVID-19 and cancer, are reported. A remaining very debated question regards the use of an innovative class of anti-cancer molecules, the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), given their modulating effects on the immune system. For that reason, administration of ICIs to cancer patients represents a question mark during this pandemic, as its correlation with COVID-19-associated risks is still under investigation. Based on the mechanisms of action of ICIs and the current evidence, we suggest that ICIs not only can be safely administered to cancer patients, but they might even be beneficial in COVID-19-positive cancer patients, by exerting an immune-stimulating action.

Cancer in the Time of Coronavirus: A Call for Crisis Oncology Standards of Care

Since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was identified as a global pandemic, health systems have been severely strained, particularly affecting vulnerable populations such as patients with cancer. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of oncology specialty societies are making recommendations for standards of care. These diverse standards and gaps in standards can lead to inconsistent and heterogeneous care among governments, cancer centers, and even among oncologists within the same practice. These challenges highlight the need for a common nomenclature and crisis guidelines. For times of increased scarcity of resources, the National Academy of Medicine developed Crisis Standards of Care, defined as fairness, duty to care, duty to steward resources, transparency, consistency, proportionality, and accountability. However, we believe there is an urgent need to develop cancer-specific guidelines by convening a panel of experts from multiple specialties. These would be Crisis Oncology Standards of Care (COSCs) that are sensitive to both the individual cancer patient and to the broader health system in times of scarce resources, such as pandemic, natural disaster, or supply chain disruptions.