ABSTRACT
Background: At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, a plan for cancer management during a pandemic did not exist. It soon became clear that without proper planning, cancer outcomes would worsen. Cancer patients are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection, morbidity, and mortality. Health sectors internationally reduced or paused non-urgent cancer care to protect cancer patients from COVID-19. However, disproportionate delays in screening, diagnosis, and treatment can unduly impact cancer outcomes, and backlogs can further burden a strained health system. Tailored approaches to cancer management are required which balance health resource availability along with the risks of exposure and benefits of treatment. Australia's relatively low COVID-19 case numbers afforded Cancer Australia an opportunity to proactively plan for optimal cancer management during this, and future, pandemics. Methods: Cancer Australia's Cancer care in the time of COVID-19: A conceptual framework for the management of cancer during a pandemic (the framework) maps evidence-based cancer care considerations in relation to a health system's capacity across acute and recovery pandemic phases, in relation to steps of the cancer care pathway. The framework promotes infection control and resource prioritisation in the context of innovative care models, triaging approaches and individualised treatment plans, underpinned by effective communication and shared decision-making. Results: The framework supports health system planning and risk-stratified approaches to guide decision-making and improve cancer outcomes. Many aspects of cancer care are recommended to continue (to varying degrees) in most pandemic phases, with modifications or pauses in some aspects of care as the pandemic curve approaches or exceeds health system capacity. Principles of the framework were employed during the second wave of COVID-19 in the Australian state of Victoria, with continuation of cancer screening programs, diagnostic investigations, and treatments wherever it was safe to do so. This resulted in reductions in cancer services and treatment being relatively smaller than in the first wave. Conclusions: Cancer management in a pandemic is not a one-size-fits-all. Countries and jurisdictions need to tailor cancer care according to the risk of the health system becoming overwhelmed. The framework guides optimal cancer care to improve outcomes for people with cancer, while minimising COVID-19 infection. As further evidence becomes available from this pandemic or in future pandemics, this framework can be refined to inform ongoing and future pandemic health system planning.
ABSTRACT
Background: Australian oncologists reported dramatic decreases in cancer referrals during the pandemic. As real time data were difficult to acquire, Cancer Australia used surrogate measures to infer where reductions in medical services occurred. We analysed data available through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), a list of the medical services and professional attendances subsidised by the Australian Government, for the five highest incidence cancers: breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, and skin cancers. Methods: We identified over 500 MBS item codes for diagnostic and treatment procedures for malignancies and pre-cancerous conditions. Item codes were categorised into analysis groups based on cancer type and/or similarities in type of service. Data were examined at national and jurisdictional levels for 2020 to determine reductions during the initial COVID-19 period and to monitor subsequent recovery. Data were compared to 2019 to account for normal seasonal variation. Results: Australia's first wave of the pandemic ran from March to May, and a second wave in the state of Victoria alone ran from July to September 2020. We observed notable reductions across all diagnostic and surgical procedure groups examined, with initial reductions observed between March and April for diagnostic procedures, and a one-month delay for surgical procedures, between April and May. Some services showed an initial recovery in May, with many showing partial or full recovery by June. For some groups, analyses showed sustained reductions over the 12- month period. While COVID-19 case numbers were greater during the second wave, the impact on services was less pronounced, likely owing to more refined policy approaches to managing health system and workforce capacity. There was further recovery by September for some but not all services. Similar patterns of change were observed across all Australian states and territories, with some variation by jurisdiction. Conclusions: The pandemic has impacted the delivery of cancer care. Any potential delays in diagnoses and treatment due to these reductions in services may lead to more advanced cancer stage at diagnosis and poorer patient outcomes including recurrence and survival. Impact of COVID-19 on selected cancer services in Australia in 2020.
ABSTRACT
Background: Health systems pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic have driven adoption of innovative models of cancer care which optimise resources and protect patients and staff. High-value changes should be identified and retained to improve resilience of cancer care. Methods: Cancer Australia reviewed the literature and consulted with oncology health professionals, cancer control experts and consumers to examine elements of cancer care that changed during the pandemic. Strategies that support high-value care and improve cancer outcomes were identified. Results: The pandemic highlighted models of care which minimise risk of infection for cancer patients, whilst optimising outcomes. Of the numerous cancer care elements that we examined, this abstract focuses on key enhancements in digital health and treatment practices. Digital health helped maintain quality and continuity of cancer care during the pandemic. Use of telehealth (for clinical and supportive care), eprescribing, and e-ordering of investigations increased, supported by national health system funding. Shared care between care settings was facilitated by rapid uptake of telehealth, ehealth records, virtual multidisciplinary team meetings and secure messaging. Treatment modifications included hypofractionated radiotherapy, transitioning to oral chemotherapy where possible, and home-based palliative care. Lower thresholds adopted for use of G-CSF with chemotherapy to reduce risk of febrile neutropenia, aimed to decrease hospital admission rates. It is important to address barriers to uptake of these high value changes. For digital health, variations in patient access to telehealth and digital health literacy can be reduced through technical and coordination support (tailored to people with diverse needs and backgrounds), with telehealth consultations offered in safe, accessible clinical or community settings. Administrative and technical burdens in health service settings can be mitigated through sustainable IT infrastructure, standardised processes for appointments, and improving staff digital health capabilities. Patient anxiety regarding changes in care plans can be mitigated through transparent, accessible, and culturally appropriate communication, documentation and shared decision-making. Clinician uncertainty in calculating risks and benefits in treatment modifications can be addressed through evidence-based standardised care procedures and riskstratification protocols. Conclusions: Many modifications to cancer care made during the pandemic can have long-term benefits and should become standard care, including enhancements in digital health and treatment practices. Strategies have been identified which enable these changes and address barriers to uptake at the system-, service-, practitioner-, and patient-level. Efforts to embed high value changes are required across the cancer control sector.