Patients’ experiences undergoing breast evaluation in Rwanda’s Women’s Cancer Early Detection Program (preprint)

Purpose There is urgent need for interventions to facilitate earlier diagnosis of breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries where mammography screening is not widely available. Understanding patients’ experiences with early detection efforts, whether they are ultimately diagnosed with cancer or benign disease, is critical to optimize interventions and maximize community engagement. We sought to understand the experiences of patients undergoing breast evaluation in Rwanda’s Women’s Cancer Early Detection Program (WCEDP).Methods We conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with 30 patients in two districts of Rwanda participating in the WCEDP. Patients represented a range of ages and both benign and malignant diagnoses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, translated, and thematically analyzed.Results Participants identified facilitators and barriers of timely care along the breast evaluation pathway. Community awareness initiatives were facilitators to care-seeking, while persistent myths and stigma about cancer were barriers. Participants valued clear clinician-patient communication and emotional support from clinicians and peers. Poverty was a major barrier for participants who described difficulty paying for transport, insurance premiums, and other direct and indirect costs of hospital referrals in particular. COVID-19 lockdowns caused delays for referred patients. Although false-positive clinical breast exams conferred financial and emotional burdens, participants nonetheless voiced appreciation for their experience and felt empowered to monitor their own breast health and share knowledge with others.Conclusion Rwandan women experienced both benefits and burdens as they underwent breast evaluation. Enthusiasm for participation was not reduced by the experience of a false positive result. Reducing financial, logistical and emotional burdens of the breast diagnostic pathway through patient navigation, peer support and decentralization of diagnostic services could improve patients’ experience.

Peer Review in a General Medical Research Journal Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Although peer review is an important component of publication for new research, the viability of this process has been questioned, particularly with the added stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To characterize rates of peer reviewer acceptance of invitations to review manuscripts, reviewer turnaround times, and editor-assessed quality of reviews before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic at a large, open-access general medical journal. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, pre-post cohort study examined all research manuscripts submitted to JAMA Network Open between January 1, 2019, and June 29, 2021, either directly or via transfer from other JAMA Network journals, for which at least 1 peer review of manuscript content was solicited. Measures were compared between the period before the World Health Organization declaration of a COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020 (14.3 months), and the period during the pandemic (15.6 months) among all reviewed manuscripts and between pandemic-period manuscripts that did or did not address COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each reviewed manuscript, the number of invitations sent to reviewers, proportions of reviewers accepting invitations, time in days to return reviews, and editor-assessed quality ratings of reviews were determined. Results: In total, the journal sought review for 5013 manuscripts, including 4295 Original Investigations (85.7%) and 718 Research Letters (14.3%); 1860 manuscripts were submitted during the prepandemic period and 3153 during the pandemic period. Comparing the prepandemic with the pandemic period, the mean (SD) number of reviews rated as high quality (very good or excellent) per manuscript increased slightly from 1.3 (0.7) to 1.5 (0.7) (P < .001), and the mean (SD) time for reviewers to return reviews was modestly shorter (from 15.8 [7.6] days to 14.4 [7.0] days; P < .001), a difference that persisted in linear regression models accounting for manuscript type, study design, and whether the manuscript addressed COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the speed and editor-reported quality of peer reviews in an open-access general medical journal improved modestly during the initial year of the pandemic. Additional study will be necessary to understand how the pandemic has affected reviewer burden and fatigue.

Digital Health Applications in Oncology: An Opportunity to Seize.

Digital health advances have transformed many clinical areas including psychiatric and cardiovascular care. However, digital health innovation is relatively nascent in cancer care, which represents the fastest growing area of health-care spending. Opportunities for digital health innovation in oncology include patient-facing technologies that improve patient experience, safety, and patient-clinician interactions; clinician-facing technologies that improve their ability to diagnose pathology and predict adverse events; and quality of care and research infrastructure to improve clinical workflows, documentation, decision support, and clinical trial monitoring. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated shifts of care to the home and community dramatically accelerated the integration of digital health technologies into virtually every aspect of oncology care. However, the pandemic has also exposed potential flaws in the digital health ecosystem, namely in clinical integration strategies; data access, quality, and security; and regulatory oversight and reimbursement for digital health technologies. Stemming from the proceedings of a 2020 workshop convened by the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, this article summarizes the current state of digital health technologies in medical practice and strategies to improve clinical utility and integration. These recommendations, with calls to action for clinicians, health systems, technology innovators, and policy makers, will facilitate efficient yet safe integration of digital health technologies into cancer care.

Patient and clinician nudges to improve symptom management in advanced cancer using patient-generated health data: study protocol for the PROStep randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced cancers often face significant symptoms from their cancer and adverse effects from cancer-associated therapy. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) are routinely collected information about symptoms and activity levels that patients either directly report or passively record using devices such as wearable accelerometers. The objective of this study was to test the impact of an intervention integrating remote collection of PGHD with clinician and patient nudges to inform communication between patients with advanced cancer and their oncology team regarding symptom burden and functional status. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial randomises patients with metastatic gastrointestinal or lung cancers into one of three arms: (A) usual care, (B) an intervention that integrates PGHD (including weekly text-based symptom surveys and passively recorded step counts) into a dashboard delivered to oncology clinicians at each visit and (C) the same intervention as arm B but with an additional text-based active choice intervention to patients to encourage discussing their symptoms with their oncology team. The study will enrol approximately 125 participants. The coprimary outcomes are patient perceptions of their oncology team's understanding of their symptoms and their functional status. Secondary outcomes are intervention utility and adherence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the institutional review board at the University of Pennsylvania. Study results will be disseminated using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04616768 and 843 616.

COVID-19 and Cancer Center Operations: Lessons Learned From the NCCN Best Practices Committee.

The NCCN Best Practices Committee, which is composed of senior physician, nursing, and administrative leaders from NCCN Member Institutions, evaluated the status of cancer center operations after 1 year of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two major initiatives stood out: the increase in the utilization of network sites, and the gains made in telemedicine operations and reimbursement. Experts from NCCN Member Institutions participated in a webinar series in June 2021 to share their experiences, knowledge, and thoughts on these topics and discuss the impact on the future of cancer care.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Treatment Patterns for Patients With Metastatic Solid Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for life-threatening conditions; however, its impact on treatment patterns for patients with metastatic cancer is unknown. We assessed the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on time to treatment initiation (TTI) and treatment selection for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer. METHODS: We used an electronic health record-derived longitudinal database curated via technology-enabled abstraction to identify 14 136 US patients newly diagnosed with de novo or recurrent metastatic solid cancer between January 1 and July 31 in 2019 or 2020. Patients received care at approximately 280 predominantly community-based oncology practices. Controlled interrupted time series analyses assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period (April-July 2020) on TTI, defined as the number of days from metastatic diagnosis to receipt of first-line systemic therapy, and use of myelosuppressive therapy. RESULTS: The adjusted probability of treatment within 30 days of diagnosis was similar across periods (January-March 2019 = 41.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 32.2% to 51.1%; April-July 2019 = 42.6%, 95% CI = 32.4% to 52.7%; January-March 2020 = 44.5%, 95% CI = 30.4% to 58.6%; April-July 2020 = 46.8%, 95% CI= 34.6% to 59.0%; adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.4%, 95% CI = -2.7% to 5.5%). Among 5962 patients who received first-line systemic therapy, there was no association between the pandemic period and use of myelosuppressive therapy (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.6%, 95% CI = -2.6% to 5.8%). There was no meaningful effect modification by cancer type, race, or age. CONCLUSIONS: Despite known pandemic-related delays in surveillance and diagnosis, the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect TTI or treatment selection for patients with metastatic solid cancers.

Automated Text-Based Symptom Monitoring With Rapid Clinician Triage for Patients With Cancer and Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at greater risk of developing severe symptoms from COVID-19 than the general population. We developed and tested an automated text-based remote symptom-monitoring program to facilitate early detection of worsening symptoms and rapid assessment for patients with cancer and suspected or confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study of Cancer COVID Watch, an automated COVID-19 symptom-monitoring program with oncology nurse practitioner (NP)-led triage among patients with cancer between April 23 and June 30, 2020. Twenty-six patients with cancer and suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled. Enrolled patients received twice daily automated text messages over 14 days that asked "How are you feeling compared to 12 hours ago? Better, worse, or the same?" and, if worse, "Is it harder than usual for you to breathe?" Patients who responded worse and yes were contacted within 1 hour by an oncology NP. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 62.5 years. Seventeen (65%) were female, 10 (38%) Black, and 15 (58%) White. Twenty-five (96%) patients responded to ≥ 1 symptom check-in, and overall response rate was 78%. Four (15%) patients were escalated to the triage line: one was advised to present to the emergency department (ED), and three were managed in the outpatient setting. Median time from escalation to triage call was 11.5 minutes. Four (15%) patients presented to the ED without first escalating their care via our program. Participant satisfaction was high (Net Promoter Score: 100, n = 4). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an intensive remote symptom monitoring and rapid NP triage program for outpatients with cancer and suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection is possible. Similar tools may facilitate more rapid triage for patients with cancer in future pandemics.

Nurse and nurse practitioner-lead monoclonal antibody initiative for solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with COVID-19

Purpose: Monoclonal antibody (mAB) infusion (bamlanivimab or casirivimab/ imdevimab) for symptomatic, non-hypoxemic, high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 infection, is an available early intervention for COVID-19+ SOT recipients. We aimed to assess efficiency in time from diagnosis to treatment, and outcomes in a retrospective cohort of SOT recipients with COVID-19 who received mAB. Methods: We developed a Nurse Coordinator-led initiative to screen, refer, and facilitate mAB infusion for COVID-19+ SOT recipients within 10 days of symptom onset. SOT recipients received electronic messaging to promptly report potential COVID-19 symptoms to the transplant team. Data were collected on time from symptom onset to diagnosis, mAB infusion, and follow-up > 21 days, and hospital admissions, disease severity, mortality, and rejection. Results: 34 out of 36 referred SOT recipients with symptomatic COVID-19 disease without hypoxia received mAB therapy (3 heart, 8 lung, 16 kidney, 2 Liver-Kidney, 2 Pancreas-Kidney, 3 Kidney-Heart). Median time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 2 days and from date of diagnosis to mAB infusion was 4 days. Of those 34, 88% did not require hospitalization and recovered uneventfully. 12% required hospitalization for COVID disease progression, two on the same day as mAB infusion, and the other 2, more than 26 days post infusion. Of these, 2 patients had mild-moderate hypoxia, and 2 had critical disease. Only 1 patient died from COVID-19 complications and no episodes of rejection or graft loss were observed. Conclusions: The Nurse Coordinator-led initiative efficiently facilitated mAB therapy for COVID-19+ SOT recipients and was associated with excellent outcomes. Compared to prior published COVID-19 outcomes in SOT recipients, patients who received mAB may have reduce hospitalization and low mortality. As mAB therapy may be underutilized in the general population, these results support efforts to educate transplant centers to implement efficient interventions for the screening and referral of COVID+ SOT recipients for mAB therapy.

Impact of telemedicine adoption on accessibility and time to treatment in patients with thoracic malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To ensure safe delivery of oncologic care during the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has been rapidly adopted. However, little data exist on the impact of telemedicine on quality and accessibility of oncologic care. This study assessed whether conducting an office visit for thoracic oncology patients via telemedicine affected time to treatment initiation and accessibility. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with thoracic malignancies seen by a multidisciplinary team during the first surge of COVID-19 cases in Philadelphia (March 1 to June 30, 2020). Patients with an index visit for a new phase of care, defined as a new diagnosis, local recurrence, or newly discovered metastatic disease, were included. RESULTS: 240 distinct patients with thoracic malignancies were seen: 132 patients (55.0%) were seen initially in-person vs 108 (45.0%) via telemedicine. The majority of visits were for a diagnosis of a new thoracic cancer (87.5%). Among newly diagnosed patients referred to the thoracic oncology team, the median time from referral to initial visit was significantly shorter amongst the patients seen via telemedicine vs. in-person (median 5.0 vs. 6.5 days, p < 0.001). Patients received surgery (32.5%), radiation (24.2%), or systemic therapy (30.4%). Time from initial visit to treatment initiation by modality did not differ by telemedicine vs in-person: surgery (22 vs 16 days, p = 0.47), radiation (27.5 vs 27.5 days, p = 0.86, systemic therapy (15 vs 13 days, p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid adoption of telemedicine allowed timely delivery of oncologic care during the initial surge of the COVID19 pandemic by a thoracic oncology multi-disciplinary clinic.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on treatment patterns for US patients with metastatic solid cancer (preprint)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for life-threatening conditions; however, its impact on treatment patterns for patients with metastatic cancer is unknown. We assessed the COVID-19 pandemics impact on time to treatment initiation (TTI) and treatment selection for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer. MethodsWe used an electronic health record-derived longitudinal database curated via technology-enabled abstraction to identify 14,136 US patients newly diagnosed with de novo or recurrent metastatic solid cancer between January 1 and July 31 in 2019 or 2020. Patients received care at [~]280 predominantly community-based oncology practices. Controlled interrupted time series analyses assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period (April-July 2020) on TTI, defined as the number of days from metastatic diagnosis to receipt of first-line systemic therapy, and use of myelosuppressive therapy. ResultsThe adjusted probability of treatment within 30 days of diagnosis [95% confidence interval] was similar across periods: January-March 2019 41.7% [32.2%, 51.1%]; April-July 2019 42.6% [32.4%, 52.7%]; January-March 2020 44.5% [30.4%, 58.6%]; April-July 2020 46.8% [34.6%, 59.0%]; adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 1.4% [-2.7%, 5.5%]. Among 5,962 patients who received first-line systemic therapy, there was no association between the pandemic period and use of myelosuppressive therapy (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 1.6% [-2.6%, 5.8%]). There was no meaningful effect modification by cancer type, race, or age. ConclusionsDespite known pandemic-related delays in surveillance and diagnosis, the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact time to treatment initiation or treatment selection for patients with metastatic solid cancers.

Assessing Veterinary Practice and Practitioner Preparedness for Natural and Man-Made Disasters, Including COVID-19.

Natural and man-made disasters lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses annually worldwide. Veterinarians are most qualified to support local, state, national, and international efforts in emergency management. However, they may lack the knowledge and advanced training to most effectively plan, prepare, and respond. Currently, only two colleges offer training embedded in their core veterinary curriculum. In this study, a survey was conducted to gain an understanding of veterinary practice and practitioner preparedness for natural and man-made disasters in the United States and Canada, with questions assessing pandemic preparedness. The participants graduated from 28 American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)-accredited veterinary colleges globally and 2 non-accredited veterinary colleges, represent a diverse set of veterinary practice types, and have an average of 26 years' practice experience. Overall, 63.5% of veterinary respondents had experienced a natural disaster, while only 9.6% had experienced a man-made disaster. Approximately 66% reported having a practice disaster preparedness plan, while less than 20% of those actively maintained and updated the plan. Furthermore, less than 50% of the practices and practitioners were ready to face the challenges of a global pandemic. Approximately 68% reported using some form of communication to educate clients about family and pet disaster readiness. Many felt that some advanced disaster readiness training would have been helpful in their veterinary curriculum. Our findings indicate that additional training in the veterinary curriculum, as well as continuing education, would help veterinarians and practices be better prepared for natural and man-made disasters.

An Ergonomic, Safety and Wellness Perspective of a Screener Role During the COVID-19 Pandemic

A Screener role was created at the London Health Sciences Centre during the COVID-19 Pandemic to ‘screen-out’ staff, patients and visitors entering the hospital who may potentially have COVID-19, and to re-direct them appropriately. This paper shares the experiences of the hospital’s Ergonomist and safety team in relation to this role from the start of the role to current state. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal cancer care delivery.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study quantifies how changes in healthcare utilization and delivery during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic have altered the presentation, treatment, and management of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies within an academic health system. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients diagnosed with a GI malignancy (ICD10: C15-C26) who received medical care within the health system during the observation period (first 44 weeks of 2019 and 2020) were identified for a retrospective cohort study. Deidentified patient encounter parameters were collected for this observation period and separated into pre-pandemic (weeks 1-10) and early pandemic (weeks 11-20) study periods. Difference-in-difference analyses adjusted for week-specific and year-specific effects quantified the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on care delivery between pre-pandemic and early pandemic study periods in 2020. Across all GI malignancies, the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a significant decline in the number of patients with new patient visits (NPVs) (p = 1.2 × 10-4 ), Radiology encounters (p = 1.9 × 10-7 ), Surgery encounters (p = 1.6 × 10-3 ), Radiation Oncology encounters (p = 4.1 × 10-3 ), and infusion visits (6.1 × 10-5 ). Subgroup analyses revealed cancer-specific variations in changes to delivery. Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) had the most significant decrease in NPVs (p = 7.1 × 10-5 ), which was significantly associated with a concomitant decrease in colonoscopies performed during the early pandemic period (r2  = 0.722, p = 2.1 × 10-10 ). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with significant disruptions to care delivery. While these effects were appreciated broadly across GI malignancies, CRC, diagnosed and managed by periodic screening, has been affected most acutely.

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.

Creative Strategies Implemented During the Coronavirus Pandemic That Will Impact the Future of Cancer Care.

The coronavirus pandemic has significantly impacted operations at leading cancer centers across the United States. In the midst of the chaos, at least one silver lining has emerged: the development of new, creative strategies for delivering cancer care that are likely to continue post pandemic. The NCCN Best Practices Committee, which is composed of senior physician, nursing, and administrative leaders at NCCN Member Institutions, conducted a webinar series in June 2020 highlighting the most promising and effective strategies to date. Experts from NCCN Member Institutions participated in the series to share their experiences, knowledge, and thoughts about the future of cancer care.

Applying Lessons Learned From Low-Resource Settings to Prioritize Cancer Care in a Pandemic.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced oncology clinicians and administrators in the United States to set priorities for cancer care owing to resource constraints. As oncology practices adapt to a contracted health care system, expertise gained from partnerships in low-resource settings can be used for guidance. This article provides a primer on priority setting in oncology and ethical guidance based on lessons learned from experience with cancer care priority setting in low-resource settings. Observations: Lessons learned from real-world experiences are myriad. First, in the setting of limited resources, a utilitarian approach to maximizing survival benefit should guide decision-making. Second, conflicting principles will often arise among stakeholders and decision makers. Third, fair decision-making procedures should be established to ensure moral legitimacy and accountability. Fourth, proactive safeguards must be implemented to protect vulnerable individuals, or disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes will only widen further. Fifth, communication with patients and families about priority setting decisions should be intentional and standardized. Sixth, moral distress among clinicians must be addressed to avoid burnout during a time when resilience is critical. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the need to triage cancer care may be new to those who underwent training and now practice oncology in high-resource settings, it is familiar for those who practice in low- and middle-income countries. Oncologists in the United States facing unprecedented decisions about prioritization can draw on ethical frameworks and lessons learned from real-world cancer care priority setting in resource-constrained environments.

Management of Lung Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a devastating impact around the world. With high rates of transmission and no curative therapies or vaccine yet available, the current cornerstone of management focuses on prevention by social distancing. This includes decreased health care contact for patients. Patients with lung cancer are a particularly vulnerable population, where the risk of mortality from cancer must now be balanced by the potential risk of a life-threatening infection. In these unprecedented times, a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach is required to streamline but not compromise care. We have developed guidelines at our academic cancer center to standardize management of patients with lung cancer across our health care system and provide guidance to the larger oncology community. We recommend that general principles of lung cancer treatment continue to be followed in most cases where delays could result in rapid cancer progression. We recognize that our recommendations may change over time based on clinical resources and the evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. In principle, however, treatment paradigms must continue to be individualized, with careful consideration of risks and benefits of continuing or altering lung cancer-directed therapy.