Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy and Metastatic Cancer Are Independent Mortality Risk Factors during Two UK Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic at University College London Hospital.

An increased mortality risk was observed in patients with cancer during the first wave of COVID-19. Here, we describe determinants of mortality in patients with solid cancer comparing the first and second waves of COVID-19. A retrospective analysis encompassing two waves of COVID-19 (March-May 2020; December 2020-February 2021) was performed. 207 patients with cancer were matched to 452 patients without cancer. Patient demographics and oncological variables such as cancer subtype, staging and anti-cancer treatment were evaluated for association with COVID-19 mortality. Overall mortality was lower in wave two compared to wave one, HR 0.41 (95% CI: 0.30-0.56). In patients with cancer, mortality was 43.6% in wave one and 15.9% in wave two. In hospitalized patients, after adjusting for age, ethnicity and co-morbidities, a history of cancer was associated with increased mortality in wave one but not wave two. In summary, the second UK wave of COVID-19 is associated with lower mortality in hospitalized patients. A history of solid cancer was not associated with increased mortality despite the dominance of the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant. In both waves, metastatic disease and systemic anti-cancer treatment appeared to be independent risk factors for death within the combined cancer cohort.

Specialist palliative and end-of-life care for patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection: a European perspective.

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care team (SPCT) involvement has been shown to improve symptom control and end-of-life care for patients with cancer, but little is known as to how these have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report SPCT involvement during the first wave of the pandemic and compare outcomes for patients with cancer who received and did not receive SPCT input from multiple European cancer centres. METHODS: From the OnCovid repository (N = 1318), we analysed cancer patients aged ⩾18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between 26 February and 22 June 2020 who had complete specialist palliative care team data (SPCT+ referred; SPCT- not referred). RESULTS: Of 555 eligible patients, 317 were male (57.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 20). At COVID-19 diagnosis, 44.7% were on anti-cancer therapy and 53.3% had ⩾1 co-morbidity. Two hundred and six patients received SPCT input for symptom control (80.1%), psychological support (54.4%) and/or advance care planning (51%). SPCT+ patients had more 'Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' orders completed prior to (12.6% versus 3.7%) and during admission (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001), with more SPCT+ patients deemed suitable for treatment escalation (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001). SPCT involvement was associated with higher discharge rates from hospital for end-of-life care (9.7% versus 0%, p < 0.001). End-of-life anticipatory prescribing was higher in SPCT+ patients, with opioids (96.3% versus 47.1%) and benzodiazepines (82.9% versus 41.2%) being used frequently for symptom control. CONCLUSION: SPCT referral facilitated symptom control, emergency care and discharge planning, as well as high rates of referral for psychological support than previously reported. Our study highlighted the critical need of SPCTs for patients with cancer during the pandemic and should inform service planning for this population.

9 Delivering good quality end of life care (EOLC) during a pandemic: the response of the transforming end of life care team (TEOLCT) to COVID-19 in an acute London NHS trust

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for high quality EOLC, unprecedented in scale and setting. We describe the initiatives led by the UCLH TEOLCT who played a key role in preparing and supporting staff to provide EOLC, as well as providing support for inpatients and their families.MethodsUtilising QI methodology, the TEOLCT rapidly implemented changes in six key areas of practice between 23/03/2020 and 25/08/2020. The multidisciplinary TEOLCT collaborated with Specialist Palliative Care and Clinical Psychology teams to achieve these outcomes.Results(i) Staff education: high demand for teaching, e.g. difficult conversations, EOLC and COVID-19 specific symptom control, for redeployed staff largely inexperienced in EOLC. 1037 clinical staff were trained utilising a combination of socially distanced lectures and video-conferencing/webinars. (ii) Staff support: drop-in sessions were facilitated for >200 staff members. (iii) Guidance and Standard Operating Procedures: for symptom control, non-invasive ventilation withdrawal and communicating with family were collaboratively written and disseminated with appropriate training. (iv) Clinical audit: quality of decision-making and documentation scrutinised by auditing treatment escalation plans and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation orders, identifying areas of practice improvement and training needs. (v) Clinical support: modifying the SWAN model of care for patients in last days of life, TEOLCT supported care of 107 patients during the pandemic peak (23/03 ‘‘ 15/05/2020), totalling 255 inpatient visits. (vi) Bereavement support: with restricted visiting and changes to after death care, TEOLCT oversaw formal bereavement support for bereaved families of 348/392 patients who died, plus appropriate sign-posting to community services.ConclusionsThe TEOLCT rapidly adapted to an unprecedented clinical challenge, identifying and responding to needs, working towards a common goal and leading a coordinated response to the demand for training and support. The key areas of development will inform future practice to ensure ongoing training and support in future surges.

Cancer History and Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy Independently Predict COVID-19 Mortality: A UK Tertiary Hospital Experience.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic remains a pressing concern to patients with cancer as countries enter the second peak of the pandemic and beyond. It remains unclear whether cancer and its treatment contribute an independent risk for mortality in COVID-19. METHODS: We included patients at a London tertiary hospital with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients with a history of solid cancer were included. Age- and sex-matched patients without cancer were randomly selected. Patients with hematological malignancies were excluded. RESULTS: We identified 94 patients with cancer, matched to 226 patients without cancer. After adjusting for age, ethnicity, and co-morbidities, patients with cancer had increased mortality following COVID-19 (HR 1.57, 95% CI:1.04-2.4, p = 0.03). Increasing age (HR 1.49 every 10 years, 95% CI:1.25-1.8, p < 0.001), South Asian ethnicity (HR 2.92, 95% CI:1.73-4.9, p < 0.001), and cerebrovascular disease (HR 1.93, 95% CI:1.18-3.2, p = 0.008) also predicted mortality. Within the cancer cohort, systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) within 60 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was an independent risk factor for mortality (HR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.16-4.6, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Along with known risk factors, cancer and SACT confer an independent risk for mortality following COVID-19. Further studies are needed to understand the socio-economic influences and pathophysiology of these associations.

Breaking Bad News Training in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.

COVID-19 has disrupted the status quo for healthcare education. As a result, redeployed doctors and nurses are caring for patients at the end of their lives and breaking bad news with little experience or training. This article aims to understand why redeployed doctors and nurses feel unprepared to break bad news through a content analysis of their training curricula. As digital learning has come to the forefront in health care education during this time, relevant digital resources for breaking bad news training are suggested.