ABSTRACT
Purpose/Objective(s) The COVID-19 pandemic largely suspended conventional in-person scientific meetings because of the risk of disease spread. In the era of vaccination and social distancing practices, meetings have slowly begun to return to in-person formats. We surveyed attendees and potential attendees of two United States oncology meetings to identify rates of mixing behavior and the subsequent rate of self-reported COVID-19 infection. Materials/Methods We collected reported social mixing behavior and COVID-19 positivity of actual and potential in-person oncology meeting attendees of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Quality Care Symposium in Boston, Massachusetts on September 24-25, 2021, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois on October 24-27, 2021 via survey. Participants were identified through publicly available meeting materials and targeted via email when possible. Recruitment was also conducted through Twitter and a radiation oncology newsletter, as well as an anonymous link made available to emailed recruits, with sharing encouraged. In-person respondents to the later ASTRO survey who had attended the ASCO meeting were excluded from the analysis. Statistical significance was determined using Fisher's exact test for rates of COVID-19 positivity and the chi-squared statistic for differences in group characteristics, with a cutoff for statistical significance p<0.05. Results Response rates from attendees with publicly available emails were 27.4% for the ASCO meeting and 14.3% for the ASTRO meeting. The ASCO survey produced 94 responses, with 48 responding as in-person attendees. The ASTRO survey produced 370 responses, with 267 responding as in-person attendees. Across both meetings, 3 of 308 (1.0%) of in-person attendees versus 2 of 141 (1.4%) of non-attendees tested positive for COVID-19 (p=0.65). Among in-person attendees, there were similar low COVID-19 positivity rates among those spending more (>20) vs less (≤20) hours attending live sessions (2.2% vs 0%, p=0.25) and between those who went to indoor social events vs those who did not during the meeting periods (0.8% vs 1.9%, p=0.44). Attendees largely felt that they would feel comfortable attending additional in-person meetings after experiencing the ASCO (87.5%) or ASTRO (91.9%) meetings and that mask compliance was good or excellent at the ASCO (100%) and ASTRO (94.6%) meetings. Conclusion This study indicates that in-person meetings do not seem to be contributing to high rates of new COVID-19 infections in the setting of mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and decreased room capacity allowances. The rate of self-reported COVID-19 infection of both in-person attendees and non-attendees was very low and the meetings were successful at creating an environment where participants felt safe. These findings support the possibility of a path forward for at least partially in-person conferences as new variants emerge and COVID-19 becomes endemic.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused shifts in terms of cancer management, but the impact of this has not been wellelucidated in a contemporary cohort of patients in clinical practice in the US. We hypothesized that closure of operating rooms would increase the use of neoadjuvant therapy (NT) during the early pandemic period. Methods: The nationwide Flatiron Health database is a longitudinal electronic health record (EHR)- derived database, comprising de-identified, patient-level structured and unstructured data, curated via technology-enabled abstraction. These data originated from approximately 280 cancer clinics. We compared patients diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer during the early pandemic period (March 1 - June 30, 2020;group 1) with those diagnosed in the four month period prior (November 1, 2019 - February 29, 2020;group 2) and those diagnosed during the same period one year earlier (March 1 - June 30, 2019;group 3). Results: There were 174 patients in group 1, 277 in group 2, and 348 in group 3. Overall, 591 (74.1%) were ER/PR+HER2-, 100 (12.6%) were HER2+, and 106 (13.3%) were triple negative (TN). Patients in the three groups were equally likely to be ER/PR+HER2- (75.3% vs. 72.2% vs. 74.9%, p = 0.68), HER2+ (12.1% vs. 14.9% vs. 11%, p = 0.33), TN (12.6% vs. 12.7% vs. 14.2%, p = 0.83) and to be high risk by genomic testing (either Oncotype Dx or Mammaprint;p = 0.72). While there was no difference in the clinical stage (p = 0.36) nor patient age at diagnosis (p = 0.76) across the three groups, patients diagnosed during the early pandemic (group 1) were more likely to receive NT compared to those diagnosed one year earlier (group 3);28.7% vs 16.4%, p < 0.01 (see table). The use of NT differed between the three groups in the ER/PR+her2- (p < 0.01) and her2+ patients (p = 0.05), but not in the TN patients (p = 0.61). There was no difference in the use of NT overall during the pandemic by geographic state (p = 0.32) nor practice setting (p = 0.23);NT was also similar by geographic state and practice setting when considering the ER/PR+HER2-, HER2+, and TNBC subsets. Conclusions: Despite similar clinicopathologic features as earlier time periods, there was an increased use of NT during the early pandemic when compared to the same period in the prior year. This was seen particularly in the ER/PR+HER2- group, suggesting an increased use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy.