A Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Trial for Early Breast Cancer is Impacted by COVID-19: Addressing Vaccination and Cancer Trials Through Education, Equity, and Outcomes.

While COVID-19 vaccine distribution has addressed vulnerabilities related to age and comorbidities, there is a need to ensure vaccination of patients with cancer receiving experimental and routine treatment, where interruption of treatment by infection is likely to result in inferior outcomes. Among patients with cancer, those undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (Adj chemo) for early breast cancer (EBC) are at particularly high risk for inferior outcomes, in part, because optimal timing of chemotherapy is essential for promoting distant disease-free survival. COVID-19 data from the ongoing multicenter I-SPY 2 trial of NAC for EBC provides a window into the magnitude of the problem of treatment interruption, not only for the trial itself but also for routine Adj chemo. In the I-SPY 2 trial, 4.5% of patients had disruption of therapy by COVID-19, prior to wide vaccine availability, suggesting that nationally up to 5,700 patients with EBC were at risk for adverse outcomes from COVID-19 infection in 2020. To address this problem, vaccine education and public engagement are essential to overcome hesitancy, while equity of distribution is needed to address access. To accomplish these goals, healthcare organizations (HCO) need to not only call out disinformation but also engage the public with vaccine education and find common ground for vaccine acceptance, while partnering with state/local governments to improve efficiency of vaccine distribution. These approaches are important to improve trial access and to reduce susceptibility to COVID-19, as the pandemic could continue to impact access to clinical trials and routine cancer treatment.

Expected Medium- and Long-Term Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Oncology.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected healthcare systems globally, leading to reorganization of medical activities. We performed an international survey aimed to investigate the medium- and long-term impact on oncology units. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 82-item survey was distributed from June 17 to July 14, 2020 among medical oncologists worldwide. RESULTS: One hundred nine medical oncologists from 18 countries in Europe (n = 93), United States (n = 5), and Latin America (n = 11) answered the survey. A systematic tracing of COVID-19-positive patients was continued in the postacute phase by 77.1% of the centers; 64.2% of the respondents participated in a local registry and 56% in international or national registries of infected patients. Treatment adaptations were introduced, and surgery was the most affected modality being delayed or canceled in more than 10% of patients in 34% of the centers, whereas early cessation of palliative treatment was reported in 32.1% of the centers; 64.2% of respondents reported paying attention to avoid undertreatments. The use of telemedicine has been largely increased. Similarly, virtual tools are increasingly used particularly for medical education and international or national or multidisciplinary meetings. 60.6% of the participants reduced clinical activity, and 28.4% compensated by increasing their research activity. Significant reduction of clinical trial activities is expected in 37% of centers this year. The well-being of healthcare staff would not recover by the end of the year according to 18% of the participants. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 outbreak has had a major impact on oncologic activity, which will persist in the future, irrespective of geographical areas.

Planning for post-pandemic cancer care delivery: Recovery or opportunity for redesign?

The delivery of cancer care has never changed as rapidly and dramatically as we have seen with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. During the early phase of the pandemic, recommendations for the management of oncology patients issued by various professional societies and government agencies did not recognize the significant regional differences in the impact of the pandemic. California initially experienced lower than expected numbers of cases, and the health care system did not experience the same degree of the burden that had been the case in other parts of the country. In light of promising trends in COVID-19 infections and mortality in California, by late April 2020, discussions were initiated for a phased recovery of full-scale cancer services. However, by July 2020, a surge of cases was reported across the nation, including in California. In this review, the authors share the response and recovery planning experience of the University of California (UC) Cancer Consortium in an effort to provide guidance to oncology practices. The UC Cancer Consortium was established in 2017 to bring together 5 UC Comprehensive Cancer Centers: UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Irvine Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, and the UC San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. The interventions implemented in each of these cancer centers are highlighted, with a focus on opportunities for a redesign in care delivery models. The authors propose that their experiences gained during this pandemic will enhance pre-pandemic cancer care delivery.

Considerations for Use of Hematopoietic Growth Factors in Patients With Cancer Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Hematopoietic growth factors, including erythrocyte stimulating agents (ESAs), granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, and thrombopoietin mimetics, can mitigate anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia resulting from chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. In the context of pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with cancer have been identified as a group at high risk of morbidity and mortality from this infection. Our subcommittee of the NCCN Hematopoietic Growth Factors Panel convened a voluntary group to review the potential value of expanded use of such growth factors in the current high-risk environment. Although recommendations are available on the NCCN website in the COVID-19 Resources Section (https://www.nccn.org/covid-19/), these suggestions are provided without substantial context or reference. Herein we review the rationale and data underlying the suggested alterations to the use of hematopoietic growth factors for patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era.

Oncological care organisation during COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA. METHODS: A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit. RESULTS: Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres. CONCLUSION: Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.