Oncological care organisation during COVID-19 outbreak

Telemedicine in Care of Sarcoma Patients beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges and Opportunities

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a challenging environment for sarcoma patients. Most oncology societies published guidelines or recommendations prioritizing sarcoma patients and established telehealth as an efficient method of approaching them. The aim of this review is the assessment of current evidence regarding the utilization of telemedicine in diagnosis, treatment modalities, telerehabilitation and satisfaction among sarcoma patients and healthcare providers (HP).

METHODS

This systematic review was carried out using the databases PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

RESULTS

The application of telemedicine to the management of sarcoma has yielded improved clinical and psychological outcomes. Specifically, significant progress has been demonstrated in the areas of tele-oncology and telerehabilitation during the last decade, and the COVID-19 outbreak has accelerated this transition toward them. Telehealth has been proven efficient in a wide spectrum of applications from consultations on physical therapy and psychological support to virtual care symptom management. Both HP and patients reported satisfaction with telehealth services at levels comparable to in-person visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth has already unveiled many opportunities in tailoring individualized care, and its role in the management of sarcoma patients has been established in the post-COVID-19 era, as well.

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care pathways in a comprehensive cancer center in northern Italy

The COVID-19 pandemic burdened health care systems worldwide. Health services were reorganized with the dual purpose of ensuring the most adequate continuity of care and, simultaneously, the safety of patients and health professionals. The provision of care to patients within cancer care pathways (cCPs) was not touched by such reorganization. We investigated whether the quality of care provided by a local comprehensive cancer center has been maintained using cCP indicators. A retrospective single-cancer center study was conducted on eleven cCPs from 2019 to 2021 by comparing three timeliness indicators, five care indicators and three outcome indicators yearly calculated on incident cases. Comparisons of indicators between 2019 and 2020, and 2019 and 2021, were performed to assess the performance of cCP function during the pandemic. Indicators displayed heterogeneous significant changes attributed to all cCPs over the study period, affecting eight (72%), seven (63%) and ten (91%) out of eleven cCPs in the comparison between 2019 and 2020, 2020 and 2021, and 2019 and 2021, respectively. The most relevant changes were attributed to a negative increase in time-to-treatment surgery-related indicators and to a positive increase in the number of cases discussed by cCP team members. No variations were found attributed to outcome indicators. Significant changes did not account for clinical relevance once discussed by cCP managers and team members. Our experience demonstrated that the CP model constitutes an appropriate tool for providing high levels of quality care, even in the most critical health situations.

Quality of life and emotional distress in sarcoma patients diagnosed during COVID-19 pandemic: a supplementary analysis from the SarCorD study

Background

The COVID-19 outbreak had a negative psychological impact on cancer patients. In this study, we analyzed emotional distress and quality of life in patients diagnosed with sarcoma during the first year of the pandemic compared to the previous year.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled patients with soft tissue, bone sarcoma, and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases diagnosed during the pandemic (COVID group) or the year before (control group) at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. Patients who had undergone a psychological assessment with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Distress Thermometer at diagnosis were included in the final analysis. We analyzed whether there is a difference in the various domains of quality of life between the two groups and whether there are changes over time in each group.

Results

We enrolled 114 patients (72 control group; 42 COVID group), affected by soft tissue (64%), bone sarcoma (29%), and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases (7%). We did not observe significant differences in the health-related quality of life domains in the control and COVID groups, except for the financial domain (p = 0.039), with 9.7% vs. 23.8% of patients with a score > 0 in the control and COVID groups, respectively. We observed emotional distress at diagnosis in 48.6% of patients in the control group vs. 69.0% in the COVID group (p = 0.034). In the control group, we observed an improvement in physical function (p = 0.043) and in QoL (p = 0.022), while in the COVID group, we observed a deterioration in role function (p = 0.044) during follow-up. In the COVID group, 22.2% of patients were concerned about COVID-19, 61.1% by tumor, 91.1% stated that the pandemic worsened their subjective perception of cancer, and 19.4% perceived that their quality of care had worsened.

Conclusion

We observed a higher level of distress among patients diagnosed during the pandemic compared to the year before, probably due to the increased concern for both infection and cancer, the worsened perception of health status, and the perception of a poorer quality of health care.

Teleoncology: A Solution for Everyone? A Single-Center Experience with Telemedicine during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telehealth was rapidly implemented without previous evidence. The ONCOTELEMD study aimed to evaluate the opinion of patients attended via telemedicine during this period and to study factors that condition patient preferences on its use. Included patients had a confirmed cancer diagnosis and were contacted by telephone between 13 March and 30 April 2020, in the Medical Oncology Service of Hospital Parc Taulí, Sabadell. A 12-question survey was presented to them between 4 February and 19 April 2021. Statistical analysis was carried out using chi-square and multivariable logistic regression tests. Six hundred forty-six patients were included; 487 responded to the survey. The median age was 68 years (27-90), 55.2% were female. Most patients had a surveillance visit (65.3%) and were diagnosed with colorectal or breast cancer (43% and 26.5%, respectively); 91.8% of patients were satisfied, and 60% would accept the use of telemedicine beyond the pandemic. Patients aged more than 50 years (OR 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81; p = 0.01) and diagnosed with breast cancer (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.69; p < 0.001) were less predisposed to adopt telehealth in the future. Patients agreed to be informed via telehealth of scan or lab results (62% and 84%, respectively) but not of new oral or endovenous treatments (52% and 33.5%, respectively). Additionally, 75% of patients had a medium or low-null technologic ability, and 51.3% would only use the telephone or video call to contact health professionals. However, differences were found according to age groups (p < 0.0001). In total, patients surveyed were satisfied with telemedicine and believed telehealth could have a role following the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, our results remark on the importance of individualizing the use of telehealth, showing relevant data on patient preferences and digital literacy.

The worldwide impact of COVID-19 on cancer care: A meta-analysis of surveys published after the first wave of the pandemic

Background

The rapid and global spread of COVID-19 posed a massive challenge to healthcare systems, which came across the need to provide high-intensity assistance to thousands of patients suffering from SARS-CoV-2 infection while assuring continuous care for all other diseases. This has been of particular importance in the oncology field. This study explores how oncology centers responded to the pandemic at a single center level by assessing surveys addressing different aspects of cancer care after the pandemic outbreak.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cancer care surveys published until December 11th, 2020. Data were analyzed according to three main areas of interest, namely health care organization, including cancellation/delay and/or modification of scheduled treatments, cancellation/delay of outpatient visits, and reduction of overall cancer care activities; routine use of preventive measures, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) by both patients and health care workers, and systematic SARS-CoV-2 screening by nasopharyngeal swabs; and implementation of telemedicine through remote consultations.

Findings

Fifty surveys reporting data on 9150 providers from 121 countries on 5 continents were included. Cancellation/delay of treatment occurred in 58% of centers; delay of outpatient visits in 75%; changes in treatment plans in 65%; and a general reduction in clinical activity in 58%. Routine use of PPE by patients and healthcare personnel was reported by 81% and 80% of centers, respectively; systematic SARS-CoV-2 screening by nasopharyngeal swabs was reported by only 41% of centers. Virtual visits were implemented by the majority (72%) of centers.

Interpretation

These results describe the negative impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, the rapid response of cancer centers in terms of preventive measures and alternative treatment approaches such as telemedicine, and confirm that surveys can provide the valuable, low-cost and immediate information that critical situations require.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis and treatment of patients with soft tissue and bone sarcomas or aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases: A single-center retrospective study (SarCorD study)

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid reorganization of healthcare activities, leading to reduced access to clinics, interruption of screenings, and treatment schedule modifications in several cancer types. Few data are available on sarcomas. We analyzed COVID-19-related diagnostic delay in a sarcoma referral center in Italy.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled in this study patients with histological diagnosis of soft tissue or bone sarcoma and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases obtained during the first year of the pandemic (Covid group) or the year before (Control group) and followed at the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. The primary endpoint was the time from the first symptom to histological diagnosis.

Results

We evaluated 372 patients, 185 of whom were eligible for primary endpoint analysis (92 patients in the Control group and 93 patients in the Covid group). The patients were affected by soft tissue sarcoma in most cases (63.0% and 66.7% in Covid and Control groups, respectively). We observed a diagnostic delay in the Covid group with a median time from the first symptom to the definitive histological diagnosis of 103.00 days (95% CI 92.77–113.23) vs. 90.00 days (95% CI 69.49–110.51) in the Control group (p = 0.024), but not a delay in treatment beginning (151 days, 95% CI 132.9–169.1 vs. 144 days, 95% CI 120.3–167.7, respectively, p = 0.208). No differences in stage at diagnosis were observed (12% vs. 16.5% of patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis in the Covid and Control groups, respectively, p = 0.380). Progression-free survival (p = 0.897) and overall survival (p = 0.725) were comparable in the subgroup of patients affected by soft tissue sarcoma.

Conclusions

A delay in sarcoma diagnosis but not in starting treatment has been observed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, no difference in stage at diagnosis or in terms of survival has been observed.

The evolving scenario of cancer care provision across the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has had short-term and long-term effects on the delivery of cancer care. Some European countries faced an unprecedented widespread crisis during the first year of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, only being able afterwards to gradually recover, thanks to the improvement in preventive measures, changes in public health and reactive processes in cancer care and a better understanding of the ongoing heath emergency.

RECENT FINDINGS

The development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and COVID-19 specific treatments, the growing testing and tracking capability to limit virus diffusion, and research efforts to better define areas of action have all greatly limited the negative impact of the health emergency on routine cancer care.The need to protect those more vulnerable and to ensure continuity of care for oncology patients has been balanced across the pandemic, with the aim to guarantee an optimal standard of care.

SUMMARY

This article aims to provide an overview on the evolving scenario of cancer care throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, focusing on the particular features that characterized the pandemic course as well as the main differences that were observed across it.

Unacceptable pain in oncology: The patients' perspective on reasons for absence of pain interventions

Objective

Around 40% of oncology patients receive inadequate pain treatment. A previous study reported pain interventions for only 70% of patients who reported unacceptable pain at the self‐service registration desk. The aim of this study is to gain insight in reasons for the absence of pain intervention among oncology patients who reported unacceptable pain.

Methods

In this mixed methods study, 20 patients visiting the oncology outpatient clinic were selected via patient record assessment and interviewed about their perceived reasons for absence of pain intervention.

Results

The reasons mentioned by the patients for absence of pain intervention included reluctance of the patient to discuss pain, no treatment preferred by the patient, focus of the physician on treatment of the disease, pain treatment difficult or impossible, and the perception that pain is an inevitable consequence of the cancer treatment. Almost 50% of the patients considered the physician responsible for the absence of pain intervention.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a variety of reasons for absence of pain intervention are reported by patients, including patient‐related and health professional‐related reasons. Improvements can be made by promoting regular discussion of pain during hospital visits and empowerment of patients.

Returning to Work after the COVID-19 Pandemic Earthquake: A Systematic Review

Background: The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has disrupted life and work habits and has produced landmark changes worldwide. This systematic review aimed to analyse the management of Return to Work (RTW) by work organisations following the virus spread. Methods: A selection of 2477 papers, using string research on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus from January 2020 to October 2021, were analysed. Results: Fifty-one articles were finally included, and the results obtained were discussed from three different points of view. Twenty articles concerning ‘Remodelling of Work Organization’ proposed some model strategies for resumption to work. Twenty-one papers, including ‘Clinical Evaluation of Workers’, mostly explored the psychosocial impact of returned workers. Finally, twelve articles explored the best ‘Testing Strategies related to RTW’. Despite the heterogeneity of included articles, several interesting approaches have emerged in managing RTW. Conclusions: The reported experiences could help to develop an RTW model for COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Ability to Care for an Ill Loved One During the First COVID-19 Lockdown: Mediators of Informal Caregivers' Stress in Europe

Informal caregivers are overlooked, healthcare actors. They are at particular risk of distress and suffer from poor mental health. This study aimed to investigate the perceived stress and modulating factors during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Europe, regardless of the illness that care recipients suffer from. Sociodemographic data, coping resources, and perceived stress level using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) questionnaire were assessed using a web-based survey in Switzerland, France, and Belgium with 232 informal caregivers. Mediation analyses were used to identify the factors that modulate stress. Higher perceived stress among informal caregivers was associated with a younger age for the care recipient, family relationship with the care recipient, cohabitation, and female sex of the informal caregiver. These associations were partially mediated by the fear of getting ill (age, cohabitation), the conviction that lockdowns had a negative impact on health (age, kinship), and the perceived deterioration of the care recipient's health (gender). The fear of losing the ability to cope with caregiving tasks due to an illness (COVID-19 and/or other) and the negative impact of the lockdown on care recipients' health, particularly on the mental health of young care recipients, increased the stress of informal caregivers. Our results emphasize the importance of informal caregiving support to prevent heightened stress in lockdown conditions, regardless of care recipient illness or kinship.

Patterns of Changes in Oncological Care due to COVID-19: Results of a Survey of Oncological Nurses and Physicians from the Region of Hanover, Germany

BACKGROUND

Healthcare staff is confronted with intensive decisional conflicts during the pandemic. Due to the specific burden of this moral distress in oncology, the investigation aimed at quantification of these conflicts and identification of risk factors that determine the extent and severity of these conflicts. We examined the heterogeneity of changes in oncology care due to COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of oncological physicians and nurses in the region of Hanover, Germany in the second half of 2020. Overall, N = 200 respondents, 54% nurses, were included in the sample. Indicators of changes in oncology care were used to determine profiles of changes. To characterize these profiles, a diverse set of variables, including decision conflicts, uncertainty, age, gender, work experience, changes in communication with patients, psychological distress, work stress, process organization, and personnel resources, was obtained. Latent class analysis was conducted to determine these latent profiles.

RESULTS

We found that three distinct profiles best described the overall changes in oncology care due to COVID-19 in our sample, with each profile being associated with specific characteristics: (1) "Few Changes in Oncology Care" profile with 33% of participants belonging to this profile, (2) "Medium Changes in Oncology Care" profile with 43% of participants, and (3) "Severe Changes in Oncology Care" profile (24%). Participants from these profiles significantly differed regarding their age, work experience, occupational group, the prevalence of decision conflicts, decision uncertainty, quality of communication with patients, and quality of process organization.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct profiles of change in oncology care due to COVID-19 can be identified. Most participants reported small to medium changes, while some participants also reported severe changes. Profiles also differed regarding their associated characteristics. As such, specific consequences for better pandemic preparedness can be derived based on the current study. Future studies should investigate the patterns of changes in routine care due to COVID-19.

Increased Prevalence of Neuropsychiatric Disorders during COVID-19 Pandemic in People Needing a Non-Deferrable Neurological Evaluation

Background: The novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak provoked a profound healthcare system reorganization. This study aimed to compare the reasons for requesting a non-deferrable neurological evaluation before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the lockdown. Methods: Retrospective observational study including non-deferrable neurological outpatients before the pandemic (pre-COVID-19 group, n = 223) and during the Italian second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (LOCKDOWN group, n = 318). Results: The number of patients sent for cerebrovascular disorders, headache, and vertigo significantly dropped between the pre-COVID-19 era and the lockdown period. While in the pre-COVID-19 group, the most frequent diagnosis was cerebrovascular disorder; neuropsychiatric disorders ranked first in the LOCKDOWN group. Moreover, the percentage of appropriate non-deferrable neurological evaluations significantly increased in the LOCKDOWN group compared with the pre-COVID-19 group. Discussion: Our study shows a significant increase of neuropsychiatric disorders in non-deferrable neurologic evaluations during the Italian second wave of the COVID-19. Overall, cases were more severe and required a more complex management during the lockdown compared with the pre-COVID era. These findings confirm that a careful approach to prevent the psychological consequences of the pandemic is needed, and long-term rearrangements of the healthcare system are desirable to guarantee appropriate management.

The Utilization and Benefits of Telehealth Services by Health Care Professionals Managing Breast Cancer Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Telehealth is the delivery of many health care services and technologies to individuals at different geographical areas and is categorized as asynchronously or synchronously. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions in health care delivery to breast cancer (BCa) patients and there is increasing demand for telehealth services. Globally, telehealth has become an essential means of communication between patient and health care provider. The application of telehealth to the treatment of BCa patients is evolving and increasingly research has demonstrated its feasibility and effectiveness in improving clinical, psychological and social outcomes. Two areas of telehealth that have significantly grown in the past decade and particularly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic are telerehabilitation and teleoncology. These two technological systems provide opportunities at every stage of the cancer care continuum for BCa patients. We conducted a literature review that examined the use of telehealth services via its various modes of delivery among BCa patients particularly in areas of screening, diagnosis, treatment modalities, as well as satisfaction among patients and health care professionals. The advantages of telehealth models of service and delivery challenges to patients in remote areas are discussed.

Oncological patients' reactions to COVID-19 pandemic: A single institution prospective study

Background

The spread of the COVID‐19 pandemic has led to a rapid reorganization in all human and hospital activities, with impact on cancer patients.

Aim

An analysis of cancer patients fears, and awareness of COVID‐19 has been done in this study.

Methods and results

We analyzed cancer patients' reactions to the pandemic and their perception of oncological care reorganization, through a 12‐item survey, proposed at the peak of pandemic and 3 months later. Overall, 237 patients were included in the study. During the peak of pandemic 34.6% of patients were more worried about COVID‐19 than cancer versus 26.4% in the post‐acute phase (p = .013). Although 49.8% of patients in the acute phase and 42.3% in the post‐acute phase considered their risk of death if infected ≥50%, and more than 70% of patients thought to be at higher risk of complications, the majority of them did not consider the possibility to stop or delay their treatment. Patients were more interested in following news about COVID‐19 than cancer and they complied with all preventive measures in more than 90% of the cases.

Conclusions

Although cancer patients worried about COVID‐19 and evaluated the risk of complication or death due to COVID‐19 as extremely high, they were still asking for the best oncological treatment.

The side effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on key public health elements - How the global emergency has changed the acute management of myocardial infarction and stroke, the network of cancer care, and assistance to frail individuals

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a primary health problem globally. In particular, it has caused troubles even to the advanced health systems of Western countrieswho attempted to limit the spread of the infection and manage patients with severe respiratory distress. However, this sudden contingency has had a much higher cost if we also consider the cost of suspending ordinary clinical care or delays in the emergency pathways of non-COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, the policies applied to contain the contagion have exacerbated the socio-economic disparities of the population and isolated fragile patients, making them subject to clinical relapses or aggravation of chronic diseases. For this reason, the various specialist centers have equipped themselves to guarantee an effective therapeutic path. In this brief review, we have outlined some consequent repercussions on the management of acute and chronic cardiovascular and neurovascular diseases and on oncological treatment. In particular, we have described the effects of the current health reorganization on some acute and time-dependent diseases, such as stroke and acute coronary syndromes, in which therapeutic delay is potentially disabling or fatal. Furthermore, we have focused on cancer treatments, whose essential cornerstones are early screening and follow-up. Finally, the suffering of the local health network has led to a lack of continuity of care in fragile patients, such as psychiatric, marginalized, or multiple comorbid patients.

Decline and incomplete recovery in cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium: a year-long, population-level analysis

BACKGROUND

Oncological care was considerably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Worrisome declines in diagnostic procedures and cancer diagnoses in 2020 have been reported; however, nationwide, population-based evidence is limited. Quantification of the magnitude and distribution of the remaining outstanding diagnoses is likewise lacking.

METHODS

Using accelerated delivery of data from pathology laboratories to the Belgian Cancer Registry, we compared the nationwide rates of new diagnoses of invasive cancers in 2020 to 2019.

RESULTS

We observed a 44% reduction in total diagnoses of invasive cancers in April 2020 compared with April 2019, coinciding with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The reduction was largest in older patients and for skin cancers (melanoma and nonmelanoma). Reductions in diagnosis were less pronounced among children and adolescents (0-19 years). A smaller decline was observed for most cancers with typically poorer prognosis or obvious symptoms, including some hematological malignancies, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Suspension of organized population screening programs was reflected in a strong decline in diagnosis in the screening age groups for female breast cancer (56%) and for colorectal cancer in both men (49%) and women (60%). The number of diagnoses began to increase from the end of April and stabilized at the beginning of June at or just above 2019 levels. There has yet to be a complete recovery in cancer diagnoses, with an estimated 6%, or ∼4000 diagnoses, still outstanding for all of 2020. Among solid tumors, head and neck cancers have the largest remaining year-over-year decrease in diagnoses at 14%.

CONCLUSION

These results add to the evidence of a profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological care and identify groups at risk for continuing diagnostic delays. These data should stimulate health care providers worldwide to facilitate targeted, accessible, and efficient procedures for detection of cancers affected by this delay.

Mortality in adult patients with solid or hematological malignancies and SARS-CoV-2 infection with a specific focus on lung and breast cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to estimate mortality in adult patients with solid or hematological malignancies and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, up to 31 January 2021, identified publications reporting the case-fatality rate (CFR) among adult patients with solid or hematological malignancies and SARS-CoV-2 infection. The CFR, defined as the rate of death in this population, was assessed with a random effect model; 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 135 selected studies (N = 33,879 patients), the CFR was 25.4% (95% CI 22.9%-28.2%). At a sensitivity analysis including studies with at least 100 patients, the CFR was 21.9% (95% CI 19.1%-25.1%). Among COVID-19 patients with lung (N = 1,135) and breast (N = 1,296) cancers, CFR were 32.4% (95% CI 26.5%-39.6%) and 14.2% (95% CI 9.3%-21.8%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with solid or hematological malignancies and SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high probability of mortality, with comparatively higher and lower CFRs in patients with lung and breast cancers, respectively.

COVID-19 epidemic strongly affected cancer research in Italy: a survey of the Italian Cancer Society (SIC)

Background

Italy was among the first countries hit by the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The application of strict lockdown measures disproportionately affected both cancer patient care as well as basic and translational cancer research.

Materials and methods

The Italian Cancer Society (SIC) conducted a survey on the effect of lockdown on laboratories involved in cancer research in Italy. The survey was completed by 570 researchers at different stages of their career, working in cancer centers, research institutes and universities from 19 Italian regions.

Results

During the lockdown period, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic emergency on face-to-face research activities was high, with a complete (47.7%) or partial (36.1%) shutdown of the laboratories. In the post-lockdown period, research activities were resumed in most of the respondents’ institutions (80.4%), though with some restrictions (77.2%). COVID-19 testing was offered to research personnel only in ~50% of research institutions. Overall, the response to the pandemic was fragmented as in many cases institutions adopted different strategies often aimed at limiting possible infections without a clearly defined contingency plan. Nevertheless, research was able to provide the first answers and possible ways out of the pandemic, also with the contribution of many cancer researchers that sacrificed their research programs to help overcome the pandemic by offering their knowledge and technologies.

Conclusions

Given the current persistence of an emergency situation in many European countries, a more adequate organization of research centers will be urgent and necessary to ensure the continuity of laboratory activities in a safe environment.

•

The SIC conducted a survey on the effect of COVID-19 lockdown on cancer research laboratories in Italy.

•

The impact of the lockdown on research activities was high, with complete or partial shutdown of >80% of the laboratories.

•

Response to the pandemic was fragmented with different strategies adopted without a clearly defined contingency plan.

•

An adequate organization of research centers is urgently needed to ensure laboratory activities in a safe environment.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review

Infectious diseases and human behavior are intertwined. On one side, our movements and interactions are the engines of transmission. On the other, the unfolding of viruses might induce changes to our daily activities. While intuitive, our understanding of such feedback loop is still limited. Before COVID-19 the literature on the subject was mainly theoretical and largely missed validation. The main issue was the lack of empirical data capturing behavioral change induced by diseases. Things have dramatically changed in 2020. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been the key weapon against the SARS-CoV-2 virus and affected virtually any societal process. Travel bans, events cancellation, social distancing, curfews, and lockdowns have become unfortunately very familiar. The scale of the emergency, the ease of survey as well as crowdsourcing deployment guaranteed by the latest technology, several Data for Good programs developed by tech giants, major mobile phone providers, and other companies have allowed unprecedented access to data describing behavioral changes induced by the pandemic. Here, I review some of the vast literature written on the subject of NPIs during the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, I analyze 348 articles written by more than 2518 authors in the first 12 months of the emergency. While the large majority of the sample was obtained by querying PubMed, it includes also a hand-curated list. Considering the focus, and methodology I have classified the sample into seven main categories: epidemic models, surveys, comments/perspectives, papers aiming to quantify the effects of NPIs, reviews, articles using data proxies to measure NPIs, and publicly available datasets describing NPIs. I summarize the methodology, data used, findings of the articles in each category and provide an outlook highlighting future challenges as well as opportunities.

Major impact of COVID-19 national containment on activities in the French northern comprehensive cancer center

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has significantly impacted cancer patient management. National and local recommendations to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission have been applied in a comprehensive cancer center located in Northern France. We prospectively measured key indicators for three successive eight-week periods: directly before, during, and right after the containment (from 16 March to 10 May 2020). Overall, the number of newly diagnosed and referred cancer patients in our hospital steadily increased (1027; 1135 and then 1704; +11% during containment and +50% just after). To reduce patient transportation, teleconsultations were implemented. Teleconsulting activity steadily increased during the three periods (5, 2025, and 2351). However, a marked decrease in the number of surgical procedures was observed (448; 330 and 288; −26% during containment and −13% just after). We observed a slight decrease in the number of radiation therapy sessions (7761; 7328 and 7075; −6% during containment and −3% just after) and in day-hospital cycles of IV systemic treatment (2891; 2736 and 2717; −5% during containment and −1% just after). We observed an increase in the number of patients admitted to palliative care and a dramatic reduction in clinical trial enrollment. During this 24-week period, organizational changes were mainly characterized by an increase in newly diagnosed cancer patient referral and the implementation of protective measures, such as teleconsultations. Activities in cancer surgery have decreased while radiotherapy and chemotherapy activities were stable.

Expected Medium- and Long-Term Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Oncology

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected healthcare systems globally, leading to reorganization of medical activities. We performed an international survey aimed to investigate the medium- and long-term impact on oncology units.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An 82-item survey was distributed from June 17 to July 14, 2020 among medical oncologists worldwide.

RESULTS

One hundred nine medical oncologists from 18 countries in Europe (n = 93), United States (n = 5), and Latin America (n = 11) answered the survey. A systematic tracing of COVID-19–positive patients was continued in the postacute phase by 77.1% of the centers; 64.2% of the respondents participated in a local registry and 56% in international or national registries of infected patients. Treatment adaptations were introduced, and surgery was the most affected modality being delayed or canceled in more than 10% of patients in 34% of the centers, whereas early cessation of palliative treatment was reported in 32.1% of the centers; 64.2% of respondents reported paying attention to avoid undertreatments. The use of telemedicine has been largely increased. Similarly, virtual tools are increasingly used particularly for medical education and international or national or multidisciplinary meetings. 60.6% of the participants reduced clinical activity, and 28.4% compensated by increasing their research activity. Significant reduction of clinical trial activities is expected in 37% of centers this year. The well-being of healthcare staff would not recover by the end of the year according to 18% of the participants.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 outbreak has had a major impact on oncologic activity, which will persist in the future, irrespective of geographical areas.

Optimizing the Use of Telemedicine in Oncology Care: Postpandemic Opportunities

Utilization of telehealth as part of the cancer care delivery continuum dramatically escalated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic at major cancer centers across the globe. The rapid shift toward telehealth visits for nontreatment cancer care provided immediate benefit through reducing unnecessary risk of exposure, overcoming transportation barriers faced by both patients and caregivers, and fast-tracking care transformation. As such, delineating the impact of telehealth on access, health equity, quality, and outcomes will be essential for refining the use of digital strategies and telehealth toward optimizing cancer care. Herein, experiences to date with telehealth usage for oncology care are reviewed, and priorities are outlined for postpandemic opportunities to improve the lives of patients with cancer through telemedicine.

Continuing Cancer Therapy through the Pandemic While Protecting Our Patients: Results of the Implementation of Preventive Strategies in a Referral Oncology Unit

Cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have worse outcomes, including higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. Protecting this vulnerable group of patients from COVID-19 is of the utmost importance for the continuous operation of an oncology unit. Preventive strategies have been proposed by various societies, and centers around the world have implemented these or modified measures; however, the efficacy of these measures has not been evaluated. In our center, a referral oncology/hematology unit in Athens, Greece, we implemented strict protective measures from the outset of the pandemic in the country and we have prospectively recorded the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19. Among 11,618 patient visits performed in our unit, 26 patients (case-to-visit ratio of 0.22%) were found positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 4 (1%) among 392 patients that were screened before starting primary systemic treatment. Among patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 22 were symptomatic at the time of diagnosis; subsequently, 12 required hospitalization and 5 died due to COVID-19. Detailed contact tracing indicated that there was no in-unit transmission of the infection. Thus, strict implementation of multilevel protective strategies along with a modestly intense screening program allowed us to continue cancer care in our unit through the pandemic.

The Effects of COVID-19 on Cancer Care Provision: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to gather primary data from cancer institutions that have implemented changes to cancer service provision amid the COVID-19 outbreak to inform future intervention and health care facility response strategies. A comprehensive literature search was done on Global Health Medline and EMBASE using pertinent key words and MeSH terms relating to COVID-19 and Cancer service provision. A total of 72 articles were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. Following the narrative synthesis that was conducted of the literature, 6 core themes that encompassed common cancer service intervention adopted by institutions were identified: (1) Testing and Tracking, (2) Outreach and Communication, (3) Protection, (4) Social Distancing (5) Treatment Management, (6) Service Restructuring. Since cancer patients are a high-risk population amid the COVID-19 pandemic, these areas of targeted intervention can be used to inform necessary actions in institutions facing similar risks, based on previous learning from numerous cancer centers globally.

Lower Patient Anxiety and Unchanged Levels of Adherence to Hemato-Oncologic Treatment in Response to New Measures to Reduce Hospital Exposure Risk to COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

Hemato-oncology patients are at high risk for morbidity and mortality from coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The resultant heightened anxiety among these patients may negatively affect adherence to therapy and treatment-related outcome. We aimed to assess whether the adoption of precautionary measures provided by the medical team led to a reduction in COVID-19-related anxiety and, consequently, to successful execution of treatment plans.

METHODS

All adult hemato-oncology patients actively treated or being followed-up at the outpatient service at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center between March 25 and May 3, 2020, were invited to answer a questionnaire that focused on their anxiety and adherence to treatment following new measures to reduce risk of infection during the first COVID-19 outbreak.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty patients (representing 24% of those being approached), average age 67 years, 52% male, and 57% undergoing antineoplastic therapy, responded to the survey. The introduction of precautionary measures resulted in a significant reduction in anxiety level in all patients, irrespective of age, sex, or treatment status. Attendance to scheduled visits in day care and outpatient clinics remained unchanged. Adherence to planned blood and imaging tests were 81% and 73%, respectively, and 93% of the patients were satisfied with their medical care. Thirty-two percent of patients used telemedicine. Satisfaction with telemedicine was highest among non-actively treated patients and those experiencing high anxiety levels.

CONCLUSION

Reorganization of the hemato-oncology unit and provision of information to patients reduced COVID-19-related anxiety and enabled the same delivery of therapy as that prior to the pandemic.

COVID-19 risk for patients undergoing anticancer treatment at the outpatient clinic of the National Cancer Institute of Milan: the COVINT study

Background

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with cancer are regarded as a highly vulnerable population. Overall, those requiring hospital admission for treatment administration are potentially exposed to a higher risk of infection and worse outcome given the multiple in-hospital exposures and the treatment immunosuppressive effects.

Methods

COVINT is an observational study assessing COVID-19 incidence among patients receiving anticancer treatment in the outpatient clinic of the Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano. All consecutive patients with non-haematological malignancies treated with intravenous or subcutaneous/intramuscular anticancer therapy in the outpatient clinic were enrolled. The primary endpoint is the rate of occurrence of COVID-19. Secondary endpoints included the rate of COVID-19-related deaths and treatment interruptions. The association between clinical and biological characteristics and COVID-19 occurrence is also evaluated. COVID-19 diagnosis is defined as (1) certain if confirmed by reverse transcriptase PCR assay of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS); (2) suspected in case of new symptoms or CT scan evidence of interstitial pneumonia with negative/not performed NPS; (3) negative in case of neither symptoms nor radiological evidence.

Results

In the first 2 months (16 February–10 April 2020) of observation, 1081 patients were included. Of these, 11 (1%) were confirmed and 73 (6.7%) suspected for COVID-19. No significant differences in terms of cancer and treatment type emerged between the three subgroups. Prophylactic use of myeloid growth factors was adopted in 5.3%, 2.7% and 0% of COVID-19-free, COVID-19-suspected and COVID-19-confirmed patients (p=0.003). Overall, 96 (8.9%) patients delayed treatment as a precaution for the pandemic. Among the 11 confirmed cases, 6 (55%) died of COVID-19 complications, and anticancer treatment was restarted in only one.

Conclusions

During the pandemic peak, accurate protective measures successfully resulted in low rates of COVID-19 diagnosis, although with high lethality. Prospective patients’ surveillance will continue with NPS and serology testing to provide a more comprehensive epidemiological picture, a biological insight on the impact of cytotoxic treatments on the immune response, and to protect patients and healthcare workers.