Adverse events following immunization and psychological distress among cancer patients/survivors following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Purpose: This study aims to describe the adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in cancer patients/survivors associated with their psychological distress. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess AEFIs after the receipt of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in cancer patients/survivors attending a university hospital in Malaysia. Psychological distress was measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) before and after the first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccine. Results: A total of 217 complete responses were received. Compared with before vaccination, both HADS Anxiety (HADS-A) and HADS Depression (HADS-D) scores were significantly reduced after the first and second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Most of the participants had mild-or-moderate systemic and local AEFIs, with the most common being pain at the injection site, tiredness, and headache for both the first and second doses of the vaccine. Positive correlations between the total AEFI score and HADS-A (r = 0.309, p < 0.001) and HADS-D (r = 0.214, p = 0.001) scores were observed after the first dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Similarly, positive associations were observed between the total AEFI score and HADS-A (r = 0.305, p < 0.001) and HADS-D (r = 0.235, p < 0.001) scores after the second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Conclusion: Mild-to-moderate AEFIs found in this study help address vaccine hesitancy in cancer patients/survivors. Receiving the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine had a positive effect on decreasing psychological distress in cancer patients/survivors. High severity of an AEFI was associated with higher anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Psychological distress among elderly surgical patients who had their surgery postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Many institutions withheld elective lists and triaged surgeries during the peak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As a result, older surgical patients have had to wait for rescheduled dates in a long waitlist. This study aimed to identify the psychological impact in these patients when they returned for surgery. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study which included 153 patients aged ≥ 65 years undergoing elective surgery. Trained interviewers recruited and assessed psychological status pre-operatively with two validated questionnaires - Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Specific questions were asked about their postponed surgeries, appetite and fear. RESULTS: A total of 36 out of 153 (23.5%) patients had their procedures deferred during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. Postponed cases were significantly based on the nature of surgery (p = 0.002), cancer diagnosis (p = 0.006) and surgical specialty (p = 0.023). Median HADS scores were higher for patients who were postponed (2.00 versus 4.00 for anxiety, p = 0.180 and 0.00 versus 1.00 for depression, p = 0.424) although no statistical significance was shown. In the whole study population, anxiety was a significant predictor for depression and vice versa (p < 0.001) with other predictive risk factors for anxiety that were age ≥ 85 years old (odds ratio [OR] 6.14, p = 0.018), female (OR 2.41, p = 0.024), cancer (OR 2.19, p = 0.039) and major surgery (OR 2.39, p = 0.023). Similarly, older patients ≥ 85 years old (OR 10.44, p = 0.003) and female (OR 6.07, p = 0.006) had higher risk for depression. Both anxiety and depression were significant risks for loss of appetite (p = 0.005 and 0.001). Lastly, the fear of disease progression due to rescheduling was more frequent in cancer patients (p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: The mental health and disease burden of older surgical patients should be taken into careful consideration when cases need to be postponed in our healthcare system.

Managing advanced prostate cancer in the Asia Pacific region: "Real-world" application of Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019 statements.

AIM: The second Asia-Pacific Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APAC APCCC 2020) gathered insights into the real-world application in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region of consensus statements from the 3rd Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2019). METHODS: The 4-h our virtual meeting in October 2020 brought together 26 experts from 14 APAC countries to discuss APCCC 2019 recommendations. Presentations were prerecorded and viewed prior to the meeting. A postmeeting survey gathered views on current practice. RESULTS: The meeting and survey highlighted several developments since APAC APCCC 2018. Increased access and use in the region of PSMA PET/CT imaging is providing additional diagnostic and staging information for advanced prostate cancer and influencing local and systemic therapy choices. Awareness of oligometastatic disease, although not clearly defined, is increasing. Novel androgen receptor pathway antagonists are expanding treatment options. Cost and access to contemporary treatments and technologies continue to be a significant factor influencing therapeutic decisions in the region. With treatment options increasing, multidisciplinary treatment planning, shared decision making, and informed choice remain critical. A discussion on the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted challenges for diagnosis, treatment, and clinical trials and new service delivery models that will continue beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSION: APAC-specific prostate cancer research and data are important to ensure that treatment guidelines and recommendations reflect local populations and resources. Facilitated approaches to collaboration across the region such as that achieved through APAC APCCC meetings continue to be a valuable mechanism to ensure the relevance of consensus guidelines within the region.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Urology Residencies in Asia - An Observational Study

Abstract Objective The Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic affected surgical training in many ways. This observational study was carried out to evaluate the impact of Covid-19 on urological residencies across Asia. Methodology An open-ended survey questionnaire examining key areas in a urology training program was distributed to several urologists in Asia. The survey evaluated seven areas including the burden of Covid-19 disease, the need for re-deployment of residents, the impact on clinical work, the effect on research work for residents, the delivery of teaching to the residents, the impact on training and assessments, the effects on mental, personal health and social welfare of residents. Results Reports from eleven Asian countries were analysed. There is stark variability in Covid-19 disease burden across Asia. Re-deployment occurred in selected Asian countries. Affected residents reported challenges obtaining personal protective equipment and training. Clinical workload and research were generally reduced except for countries reporting low volume Covid-19 cases. Residents teaching evolved from in-person to online platforms. Almost all residency program postponed their examinations. Mental health disturbance was more pronounced than personal health. Conclusions The Covid-19 pandemic presented multiple obstacles towards Asian urology residencies. The understanding of these challenges will assist program directors in developing mitigating measures.

Cross-continental comparison of safety and protection measures amongst urologists during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the well-being of urologists worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and whether they have adequate personal protective equipment knowledge and supplies appropriate to their clinical setting. METHODS: Urologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d'Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences. RESULTS: There were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a "0 = not at all" to "10 = very" scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one-third reported their institution provided the required personal protective equipment (35.78%), and nearly half indicated their hospital has or had limited personal protective equipment availability (48.08%). Worldwide, a large majority of respondents answered affirmatively for testing the healthcare team (83.09%). Approximately half of the respondents (52.85%) across all regions indicated that all surgical team members face an equal risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (52.85%). Nearly one-third of respondents reported that they had experienced social avoidance (28.97%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that urologists lack up-to-date knowledge of preferred protocols for personal protective equipment selection and use, social distancing, and coronavirus disease 2019 testing. These data can provide insights into functional domains from which other specialties could also benefit.