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.

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.

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.