COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer, a rapid review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine development and administration have become global priorities since the beginning of the pandemic, particularly for special populations at higher risk of complications and mortality, such as patients with haematologic and solid organ malignancies. This review aims to summarise the current data for COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer, suggest priority areas for future research and look at potential disparities at a global level. Although patients diagnosed with or receiving therapy for cancer were excluded from the initial vaccine trials, emerging evidence now supports vaccine safety with potentially diminished immune response in this group. Several studies that evaluated antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination found that patients with solid malignancies had lower serologic response rates compared to healthy controls, but better than patients with haematologic malignancies, who had the lowest seroconversion rates and antibody titres. As anticipated, poor serologic responses have been particularly observed among patients receiving B-cell depleting therapies. The data on cellular response are scarce and conflicting since not all studies have showed a difference between patients with malignancies and healthy subjects. Several questions concerning vaccination remain unanswered and require further exploration, such as response duration, need for response monitoring and rates of breakthrough infections.

Building Capacity for Cancer Research in the Era of COVID-19: Implementation and Results From an International Virtual Clinical Research Training Program in Zambia.

PURPOSE: The incidence of cancer in sub-Saharan Africa is increasing rapidly, yet cancer research in the region continues to lag. One contributing factor is limited exposure to clinical research among trainees. We describe implementation and results of a virtual clinical research training program for Zambian clinical oncology fellows developed jointly by the Cancer Diseases Hospital in Zambia and the MD Anderson Cancer Center to address this need. METHODS: The clinical research training program consisted of 14 weekly virtual lectures, development of research questions by Zambian clinical oncology fellows, assignment of faculty and peer mentors, longitudinal mentorship of research protocols, and anonymous precourse and postcourse surveys. The paired t-test was used to analyze the change in academic self-efficacy scores. RESULTS: Fourteen Zambian clinical oncology fellows participated. Senior fellows were paired with research mentors, leading to the development of eight research protocols. A total of 70 meetings and 126 hours of mentorship occurred with a median of seven meetings and 15 hours per pairing. The precourse and postcourse survey response rates were 86% and 79%, respectively. There were statistically significant increases in nine of 12 academic self-efficacy domains. The largest gains were in ability to independently perform research (P < .001) and research mentorship (P = .02) with an average increase of 1.5 points on a five-point scale in both domains. CONCLUSION: The Cancer Diseases Hospital MD Anderson Cancer Center clinical research training program for Zambian clinical oncology fellows led to increases in multiple academic self-efficacy domains among participants, formation of longitudinal mentorship groups with both faculty and peer mentors, and development of Zambian-led research protocols, demonstrating the feasibility of implementing a virtual model. This may be especially relevant because of shifting international collaboration paradigms after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gynecologic radiation therapy in low and middle income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forever affected healthcare and posed an incredible challenge to our society to care for our sick. Patients with cancer were found early on to have higher rates of complications with COVID-19. Radiation therapy is an integral part of treatment for many types of gynecologic cancer and adaptation on its utilization during the pandemic varied across the globe. In this review, we detail certain guidelines for the use of radiation in gynecologic cancers during the pandemic as well as real world accounts of how different countries adapted to these guidelines or created their own based on individualized resources, staffing, government restrictions, and societal norms. Critically, this review demonstrates the breadth of fractionation schemes and technologies used when resources were limited but highlights the importance of long term follow-up for many of our patients during this time.

Contingency planning for cancer care in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid assessment for future disaster resilience.

BACKGROUND: Many countries appear to be ill-prepared in their emergency responses towards the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly in managing chronic diseases such as cancer. We aimed to gain insight on the preparedness of health systems within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in maintaining delivery of cancer care amid the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a rapid review of publications focusing on emergency contingency plans for cancer care during the pandemic in LMICs. An online desk research was conducted to identify relevant policy documents, guidelines or scientific publications. RESULTS: Very few LMICs had readily accessible documents to ensure continuity in delivery of cancer care during the pandemic. A majority of publications were focused on delivery of cancer treatment whereas early detection, diagnosis and delivery of supportive and survivorship care received very little attention. Far fewer of the published guidelines appear to have been formulated at the national level by governmental agencies. A vast majority of publications constituted consensus guidelines from professional societies, followed by sharing of best practices from local institutions. Overall, three main strategies have been recommended to maintain delivery of cancer care amid the pandemic in LMICs: 1) Modification of cancer treatment regimens, 2) Changes in methods of administration of curative and supportive cancer care and 3) Implementation of generic measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection in healthcare settings. CONCLUSION: All LMICs should consider collating best practices from the current pandemic and translating them into an explicit cancer preparedness plan, which can be escalated during future disasters.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Researchers in 2020: A Qualitative Study of Events to Inform Mitigation Strategies.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on global health systems and economies. With ongoing and future challenges posed to the field due to the pandemic, re-examining research priorities has emerged as a concern. As part of a wider project aiming to examine research priorities, here we aimed to qualitatively examine the documented impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer researchers. Materials and Methods: We conducted a literature review with the aim of identifying non-peer-reviewed journalistic sources and institutional blog posts which qualitatively documented the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer researchers. We searched on 12th January 2021 using the LexisNexis database and Google, using terms and filters to identify English-language media reports and blogs, containing references to both COVID-19 and cancer research. The targeted search returned 751 results, of which 215 articles met the inclusion criteria. These 215 articles were subjected to a conventional qualitative content analysis, to document the impacts of the pandemic on the field of cancer research. Results: Our analysis yielded a high plurality of qualitatively documented impacts, from which seven categories of direct impacts emerged: (1) COVID measures halting cancer research activity entirely; (2) COVID measures limiting cancer research activity; (3) forced adaptation of research protocols; (4) impacts on cancer diagnosis, cases, and services; (5) availability of resources for cancer research; (6) disruption to the private sector; and (7) disruption to supply chains. Three categories of consequences from these impacts also emerged: (1) potential changes to future research practice; (2) delays to the progression of the field; and (3) potential new areas of research interest. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic had extensive practical and economic effects on the field of cancer research in 2020 that were highly plural in nature. Appraisal of cancer research strategies in a post-COVID world should acknowledge the potential for substantial limitations (such as on financial resources, limited access to patients for research, decreased patient access to cancer care, staffing issues, administrative delays, or supply chain issues), exacerbated cancer disparities, advances in digital health, and new areas of research related to the intersection of cancer and COVID-19.

Novel coronavirus mitigation measures implemented by radiotherapy centres in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to identify strategies adopted by radiotherapy centres in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to mitigate the effects of COVID-19. Studies summarising COVID-19 mitigation strategies designed and implemented by radiotherapy centres in LMICs to avoid delays, deferrments and interruptions of radiotherapy services are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis guideline. Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed articles that reported measures adopted by radiotherapy centres in LMICs to reduce the risk of COVID-19. Information on different strategies were extracted from the included studies and textual narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Of 60 articles retrieved, eleven were included. Majority of the studies were conducted in China. Ten of the included studies employed a qualitative design. Four themes were identified: preparing and equipping staff; reinforcing infection prevention and control policies; strengthening coordination and communication; and maintaining physical distancing. Studies reported that radiotherapy centres had: formed COVID-19 response multidisciplinary team; maximised the use of telehealth; adjusted the layout of waiting areas; divided staff into teams; dedicated a room for isolating suspected cases; and adopted triage systems. CONCLUSIONS: Local adaptation of established global strategies coupled with timely development of guidelines, flexibility and innovation have allowed radiotherapy leaders to continue to deliver radiotherapy services to cancer patients in LMICs during the COVID-19 crisis. Robust data collection must be encouraged in LMICs to provide an evidence-based knowledge for use in the event of another pandemic.

Silver linings: a qualitative study of desirable changes to cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Public health emergencies and crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic can accelerate innovation and place renewed focus on the value of health interventions. Capturing important lessons learnt, both positive and negative, is vital. We aimed to document the perceived positive changes (silver linings) in cancer care that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify challenges that may limit their long-term adoption. METHODS: This study employed a qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were conducted with key opinion leaders from 14 countries. The participants were predominantly members of the International COVID-19 and Cancer Taskforce, who convened in March 2020 to address delivery of cancer care in the context of the pandemic. The Framework Method was employed to analyse the positive changes of the pandemic with corresponding challenges to their maintenance post-pandemic. RESULTS: Ten themes of positive changes were identified which included: value in cancer care, digital communication, convenience, inclusivity and cooperation, decentralisation of cancer care, acceleration of policy change, human interactions, hygiene practices, health awareness and promotion and systems improvement. Impediments to the scale-up of these positive changes included resource disparities and variation in legal frameworks across regions. Barriers were largely attributed to behaviours and attitudes of stakeholders. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to important value-based innovations and changes for better cancer care across different health systems. The challenges to maintaining/implementing these changes vary by setting. Efforts are needed to implement improved elements of care that evolved during the pandemic.

Negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of cervical cancer patients in Zambia.

International travel has largely been suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to this situation, Zambia has not been able to import radioactive isotopes for High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy, Iridium 192 (I192) and this has led to suspension of treatment for patients. Cancer of the cervix is the most common cancer in Zambia and brachytherapy is a core component of the treatment armamentarium. Mitigation strategies may include external beam radiotherapy boost or hysterectomy but both systems are overburdened and fragile.

Zambia's National Cancer Centre response to the COVID-19 pandemic-an opportunity for improved care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health systems around the globe even in countries with strong economies. This is of particular concern for nations with weaker health systems. This article reports the response of a comprehensive cancer centre in a lower-middle income country to prevent COVID-19 transmission and how the implementation of pragmatic strategies have served as a springboard to improve cancer services beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. The strategies included establishment of a local taskforce, increased education and facilitation of good hygiene practices, staff training, patient triaging, improved patient scheduling, remote review of patients and establishing a virtual platform for meetings.