ABSTRACT
We present the case of a 68-year-old woman who presented with a blistering skin eruption 5 days after the administration of the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Examination revealed tense bullae in a localized distribution confined to the dorsal aspect of her hands, forearms and ears only. This was preceded by severe pruritus. She had no mucosal involvement and was otherwise systemically well. She had a background of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hypercholesterolaemia with no previous history of COVID-19. Skin biopsy revealed a subepidermal bulla containing numerous eosinophils in keeping with bullous pemphigoid (BP). The diagnosis was confirmed with a positive direct immunofluorescence (IF) which showed linear IgG and C3 deposition at the basement membrane zone. Indirect IF was positive for anti-BP180 and anti-BP230. The patient was treated with oral prednisolone and doxycycline to good effect She proceeded to have the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while on treatment and did not experience a flare of BP. However, a week later, she developed erythematous annular plaques with milia over the dorsi of her hands. Skin biopsy revealed multiple milia within the papillary dermis in keeping with milia en plaque. To to our knowledge, this is the first case of a patient developing BP with subsequent milia en plaque following the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Damiani G, Pacifico A, Pelloni F, Iorizzo M. The first dose of COVID-19 vaccine may trigger pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid flares: is the second dose therefore contraindicated? J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2021;35: e645-7). She has since been weaned off systemic treatment for BP;however, she continues to require ongoing input for the management of milia en plaque.
ABSTRACT
Background: When the first wave of COVID-19 hit globally in early 2020, concerns were raised about access to surgical interventions for cancer patients. It was considered that neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) although conventionally given to locally advanced breast cancer may need to also be provided to earlier-stage disease. In addition, due to the temporary closure of breast cancer screening programs during the pandemic, concerns were raised about patients presenting with later-stage disease at initial diagnosis. This project aims to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the volume of neoadjuvant referrals at a large cancer centre, as well as any stage migration, impact on treatment timelines and impact on outcomes for breast cancer patients compared to the pre-pandemic population. Methods: The BC Cancer Vancouver centre has a neoadjuvant breast cancer program to ensure high quality of care is maintained. This program's prospective database of breast cancer patients referred for and treated with NAT between the years 2012-2021 was queried to assess data on neoadjuvant referrals, clinical stage, receptor status, treatment timelines, and outcomes between January 1, 2019-December 31, 2020. Data from the years 2019 and 2020 were compared to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on NAT. Summary data available from earlier years were also utilized as reference. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a 51% increase in Sthe number of patients referred to the neoadjuvant program, with 102 patients referred for NAT in 2019, whereas 154 patients were referred in 2020. This proportional increase in referrals is higher than any other year since the database inception. Of note, during 2020 there were no COVID related closures for cancer surgeries in the province. The proportion of patients referred who received NAT remained similar between 2019 and 2020 (69.1% vs 70.8% in 2020). The trend in referrals by month varied between the two years. In 2019, the majority of patients were referred between April to July with the lowest proportion of referrals in October to December. In 2020, the opposite occurred with the lowest proportion of referrals transpiring between January-June, and the greatest proportion in October to December. The proportion of patients who presented with de-novo metastatic disease was consistent between the two years (7.8% in 2019 vs 9.7% in 2020). Despite the closure of all screening mammography programs between March-June of 2020, the clinical stage and receptor status are equivalent between 2019 and 2020. With regards to treatment timelines, there was a 3 day increase in the median time between referral date and medical oncology consultation in 2020 compared to 2019. No other treatment timeline delays were found between 2019 and 2020. With regards to outcomes, 34.9% of patients achieved pCR in 2019, but only 24.1% achieved pCR in 2020, despite similar stage and receptor subtypes. Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a higher volume of patients were referred for NAT than had ever before been referred, despite the fact that there were no closures of operating rooms in our province for COVID-19. From a quality of care perspective there was a delay in referral to consultation for medical oncology, but no delay on referral to treatment, treatment to surgery, or surgery to radiation. However, and a significantly lower pCR rates was seen in 2020 compared to 2019. The 10% decrease in pCR rates may have resulted from increased complexity in breast cancer cases. This trend may continue, as the impact of COVID-19 on breast cancer outcomes will likely take many years to fully appreciate. Attention should be paid to encouraging women to return to regular breast screening programs to decrease the number of patients needing neoadjuvant therapy.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Most breast cancers are diagnosed after an image-guided biopsy. When performed under stereotactic guidance, biopsy markers (clips) are almost always placed. In comparison, clip placement after ultrasound (US) guided biopsy is variable. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) may be administered before surgery to shrink large tumors so breast conservation therapy (BCT) instead of mastectomy can be done. After NAT, tumors may no longer be clinically palpable or visible on imaging. The clip localizes tumors so that the site can be identified and less extensive and more precise surgery can be performed. If no clip is placed at the time of biopsy, NAT is delayed and mastectomy may be required in a patient who would have otherwise qualified for BCT. Most often, a second US procedure for clip placement will be required and sometimes a second biopsy prior to NAT. International and national guidelines state that clips should be placed when the radiologist suspects the patient is a candidate for NAT. The aim of this project was to decrease the number of patients presenting to the NAT clinic at BC Cancer Vancouver Center without a clip in situ to less than 5% by the end of 2020. Methods: Ethical risk assessed using the ARECCI screening tool were minimal. Initial data included all patients who presented for NAT at BC Cancer VCC from January 2018 to January 2019 and final data was from January 2021 to March 2021 (delayed due to Covid-19 pandemic). All lower mainland health authority sites (LMMI) were surveyed in regards to Swhether they perform US guided breast biopsies. An online survey about specific radiologist practices was sent out to radiologists at all LMMI sites, as well as in community imaging clinics (CICs) and other health authorities in the province. Patient interviews have been conducted through BC Cancer Patient Engagement. A fee code specific to CICs in the lower mainland, which performover 60% of the US guided breast biopsies, to encourage and support appropriate clip use was proposed to the British Columbia ministry of health and was implemented in July 2019. Education was targeted at other community sites where surgeons were engaged to explain the impact on clinical outcomes when clips are not used. An online webinar about clip placement was developed in conjunction with a local surgeon and was hosted by the Canadian Society of Breast Imaging. Results: 19 LMMI sites perform US breast biopsies. 25% of radiologists surveyed stated anticipation of NAT as a reason for clip placement and 21% were aware of the national guidelines for clip placement. Initial data included 121 patients who presented for NAT clinic in our time frame and 77 were included in our analysis (received NAT and clip status was known). Final data included 33 patients who presented to the NAT clinic and 30 were include in our analysis. Before intervention, 49% of patients considered for NAT had a clip placed at the initial biopsy. Of 50 patients who did not have a clip at initial biopsy, 21 (42%) required a clip prior to NAT. There was a 5.5 day difference in time to NAT after biopsy for patients who had clips placed initially at the time of biopsy (34.7 days) and patients who did not (40.2 days). There was no difference in mastectomy rates. After intervention, 80% of patients considered for NAT had a clip placed at the initial biopsy. Though it is difficult to quantify the clinical impact a 5.5 day delay to start of therapy may have, patient interviews indicate significant anxiety associated with the time between diagnosis and treatment. Conclusion: Targeted education on clip use with engagement of surgeons to explain the clinical implications, and development of a fee code to encourage and support appropriate use of clip placement, reduced the number of patients presenting for NAT without a clip in place. Future projects include exploring the financial costs or savings of increasing clip use.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: One in two Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. With a growing proportion of patients under the age of 60, it is estimated that upwards of 25% of cancer patients are managing the demands of childbearing and parenting alongside their diagnosis. There is a paucity of research detailing how parents with cancer balance their needs with the needs of their children. This study aims to more completely define the childcare needs and perspectives of cancer patients with dependent children. Materials and Methods: Between December 2020 and February 2021, cancer patients at one major Canadian Cancer Centre, who identified as primary caregiver to at least 1 dependent (<18 years of age) were invited to partake in a survey study. The survey was developed through consultation with a multidisciplinary team and best survey practices, and consisted of 34 closed and open-ended questions designed to assess childcare needs and the experiences of cancer patients with dependent children. Specific questions were also designed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on childcare needs. Eligible participants were identified by a research assistant and presented the opportunity to complete an electronic or paper-based survey. This study was approved by the local Research Ethics Board. Results: As of February 2021, 42 patients had been contacted and 29 had completed the survey in full (69%) Participants were an average age of 44.7 years ± 4.8 years and 97% female (28/29). Twenty-two participants (76%) reported diagnoses of breast cancer. Participants reported caring for two (18/29), one (10/29), or three (1/29) children. The average age of participants' children was 8.4 years, and ranged from 8 months to 18 years. Fourteen participants (48%) indicated having to reschedule appointments due to issues with childcare (nine of 14 rescheduling 1-3 appt.;4/14, 4-6 appt.;one of 14, 10+ appt.). Additionally, 11 participants (38%) reported bringing their child or children to their appointments as a solution for issues with childcare (seven of 11 for 1-3 appt.;three of 11, 4-6 appt.;one of 11, 10+ appt.). Fourteen of 26 respondents (54%) indicated that balancing childcare throughout their cancer journey has had a moderate (eight of 26) or extreme (six of 26) impact on their stress levels. Sixty-one percent (17/28) reported that the COVID-19 Pandemic has impacted their childcare needs and impacted their stress levels moderately (10/17) or extremely (three of 17). Seventy-eight percent (21/27) reported that a flexible childcare service would allow them to more regularly attend their appointments. The preferred delivery of such a program was onsite (hospital or cancer centre) (13/20, 65%), followed by in-home (seven of 20, 35%). Narrative analysis noted themes of increased stress and childcare responsibilities associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic and reduction of childcare resources and support. Conclusions: These preliminary results indicate that childcare issues are broadly impactful for parents battling cancer. The lack of supportive childcare negatively impacts the emotional psychological well-being of patients and their children, as well as impacts system efficiency and treatment compliance. Survey accrual is continuing and complete findings will aid in defining the childcare needs and perspectives of parents with cancer, as well as highlight potential solutions to support these individuals.