Virtual Tumor Board Increases Provider Attendance and Case Presentations.

PURPOSE: Many cancer centers engage in multidisciplinary tumor board meetings to determine the optimal approach to complex cancer care. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions changed the format of these meetings from in-person to virtual. The aim of this study was to determine if the change to a virtual meeting format had an impact on attendance and cases presented. METHODS: Tumor board records were analyzed to obtain attendance and case presentation information at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Twelve-month in-person tumor board data were compared with 12-month virtual tumor board data to assess for difference in attendance and case presentation patterns. RESULTS: Seven separate weekly tumor board meetings at the beginning of the study (breast, GI, gynecology, liver, lung, melanoma, and urology) were expanded to nine meetings on the virtual platform (+endocrine and pancreas). Overall attendance increased by 46% on the virtual platform compared with in-person meetings (4,030 virtual attendances v 2,753 in-person, P < .001). Increased attendance was present across all specialties on the virtual platform. In addition, the number of patient cases discussed increased from 2,127 in in-person meeting to 2,656 on the virtual platform (a 20% increase, P < .001). CONCLUSION: A significant increase was observed in overall tumor board attendance and in case presentations per meeting, requiring the expansion of additional weekly meetings. Furthermore, in a major cancer center with multiple community affiliates, virtual tumor boards may encourage increased participation from remote sites with the benefit of obtaining expert specialist advice as compared with geographically challenging in-person meetings.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical oncology practice-Results of an SSO survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected healthcare delivery, shifting focus away from nonurgent care. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the pandemic on the practice of surgical oncology. METHODS: A web-based survey of questions about changes in practice during the COVID-19 pandemic was approved by the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) Research and Executive Committees and sent by SSO to its members. RESULTS: A total of 121 SSO members completed the survey, 77.7% (94/121) of whom were based in the United States. Breast surgeons were more likely than their peers to refer patients to neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.000171). Head and neck surgeons were more likely to refer patients to definitive nonoperative treatment (p = 0.044), while melanoma surgeons were less likely to do so (p = 0.029). In all, 79.2% (95/120) of respondents are currently using telemedicine. US surgeons were more likely to use telemedicine (p = 0.004). Surgeons believed telemedicine is useful for long-term/surveillance visits (70.2%, 80/114) but inappropriate (50.4%, 57/113) for new patient visits. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased use of neoadjuvant therapy, delays in operative procedures, and increased use of telemedicine. Telemedicine is perceived to be most efficacious for long-term/surveillance visits or postoperative visits.

COVID-19 is Affecting the Presentation and Treatment of Melanoma Patients in the Northeastern United States.

BACKGROUND: Covid-19 significantly affected healthcare delivery over the past year, with a shift in focus away from nonurgent care. Emerging data are showing that screening for breast and colon cancer has dramatically decreased. It is unknown whether the same trend has affected patients with melanoma. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of melanoma patients at two large-volume cancer centers. Patients were compared for 8 months before and after the lockdown. Outcomes focused on delay in treatment and possible resultant upstaging of melanoma. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were treated pre-lockdown and 313 patients were treated post-lockdown (17% decrease). Fewer patients presented with in situ disease post-lockdown (15.3% vs. 17.9%), and a higher proportion presented with stage III-IV melanoma (11.2% vs. 9.9%). Comparing patients presenting 2 months before versus 2 months after the lockdown, there was an even more significant increase in Stage III-IV melanoma from 7.1% to 27.5% (p < 0.0001). Finally, in Stage IIIB-IIID patients, there was a decrease in patients receiving adjuvant therapy in the post lockdown period (20.0% vs. 15.2%). CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the recent pandemic, it appears there has been a shift away from melanoma in situ and toward more advanced disease, which may have significant downstream effects on prognosis and could be due to a delay in screening. Significantly patients have presented after the lockdown, and fewer patients are undergoing the recommended adjuvant therapies. Patient outreach efforts are essential to ensure that patients continue to receive preventative medical care and screening as the pandemic continues.