ABSTRACT
Background: Older patients with cancer remain at high risk for negative outcomes from COVID-19 infection, particularly those who have multimorbidities and on immunosuppressive therapy. These patients have been excluded or underrepresented in pivotal COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials and there are ongoing concerns that they may not acquire the same level of protection from the available vaccines as the immunocompetent adults. Moreover, the level of protection wanes over time making them more susceptible to emerging COVID-19 novel variants of concern. Despite the implementation of global vaccination campaigns which have successfully reduced COVID-related hospitalisations and deaths in many parts of the world, there remains many unresolved issues and challenges to address as the pandemic ensues. With aging, concerns for age-related dysregulation and immune dysfunctions called immunosenescence may lead to potentially lower immunogenicity to vaccines. Despite receiving the primary vaccination, real-world evidence showed that both patients aged > 65 years and those with cancer have a higher risk of developing breakthrough COVID-19 infections and related complications. Subsequent booster doses are found to be effective at improving immune response, particularly against the novel variants, and the vulnerable population should be given the priority in booster campaigns. Method(s): Since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, The International Society of Geriatric Oncology set up a COVID-19 Working Group comprised of multidisciplinary specialists by developing recommendations, advocacy, and action plans based on expert opinion and evidence related to older adults with cancer. Result(s): The table below summarises the updated recommendations from the SIOG COVID-19 Working Group. Conclusion(s): The SIOG COVID-19 Working Group supports ongoing public health interventions, continued mass immunisations, and booster campaigns targeting the most vulnerable members of the society, including older adults with cancer (Table Presented).
ABSTRACT
The increasing burden of cancer represents a substantial problem for Latin America and the Caribbean. Two Lancet Oncology Commissions in 2013 and 2015 highlighted potential interventions that could advance cancer care in the region by overcoming existing challenges. Areas requiring improvement included insufficient investment in cancer control, non-universal health coverage, fragmented health systems, inequitable concentration of cancer services, inadequate registries, delays in diagnosis or treatment initiation, and insufficient palliative services. Progress has been made in key areas but remains uneven across the region. An unforeseen challenge, the COVID-19 pandemic, strained all resources, and its negative effect on cancer control is expected to continue for years. In this Series paper, we summarise progress in several aspects of cancer control since 2015, and identify persistent barriers requiring commitment of additional resources to reduce the cancer burden in Latin America and the Caribbean.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine services have been increasingly used to facilitate post-treatment cancer survivorship care, including improving access; monitoring health status, health behaviors, and symptom management; enhancing information exchange; and mitigating the costs of care delivery, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. To inform guidance for the use of telemedicine in the post-COVID era, the aim of this overview of systematic reviews (SRs) was to evaluate the efficacy of, and survivor engagement in, telemedicine interventions in the post-treatment survivorship phase, and to consider implementation barriers and facilitators. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched. SRs that examined the use of telemedicine in the post-treatment phase of cancer survivorship, published between January 2010 and April 2021, were included. Efficacy data were synthesized narratively. Implementation barriers and facilitators were synthesized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Twenty-nine SRs were included. A substantive body of evidence found telemedicine to benefit the management of psychosocial and physical effects, particularly for improving fatigue and cognitive function. There was a lack of evidence on the use of telemedicine in the prevention and surveillance for recurrences and new cancers as well as management of chronic medical conditions. This overview highlights a range of diverse barriers and facilitators at the patient, health service, and system levels. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the benefits of telemedicine in addressing psychosocial and physical effects, but not in other areas of post-treatment cancer survivorship care. This large review provides practical guidance for use of telemedicine in post-treatment survivorship care.