Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
ESMO Open ; 6(3): 100131, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242977


BACKGROUND: European Society for Medical Oncology Women for Oncology (ESMO W4O) research has previously shown under-representation of female oncologists in leadership roles. As early reports suggested disproportionate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women, the ESMO W4O Committee initiated a study on the impact of the pandemic on the lives of female and male oncologists. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to ESMO members and put on the ESMO website between 8 June 2020 and 2 July 2020. Questions focused on the working (hospital tasks, laboratory tasks, science) and home (household management, childcare, parent care, personal care) lives of oncologists during and after COVID-19-related lockdowns. RESULTS: Of 649 respondents, 541 completed the questionnaire. Of these, 58% reported that COVID-19 had affected their professional career, 83% of whom said this was in a negative way (85% of women versus 76% of men). Approximately 86% reported that COVID-19 had changed their personal life and 82% their family life. Women were again significantly more affected than men: personal life (89% versus 78%; P = 0.001); family life (84% versus 77%; P = 0.037). During lockdowns, women reported increased time spent on hospital and laboratory tasks compared with men (53% versus 46% and 33% versus 26%, respectively) and a significantly higher proportion of women than men spent less time on science (39% versus 25%) and personal care (58% versus 39%). After confinement, this trend remained for science (42% versus 23%) and personal care (55% versus 36%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected the professional and home lives of oncologists, especially women. Reduced research time for female oncologists may have long-lasting career consequences, especially for those at key stages in their career. The gender gap for promotion to leadership positions may widen further as a result of the pandemic.

COVID-19 , Adult , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Oncology , Middle Aged , Oncologists , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
Annals of Oncology ; 31:S1000, 2020.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-804169


Background: Cancer patients have been reported to be at increased for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe course of COVID-19. Methods: Patients routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by nasal swab and Real-Time qPCR (RT-qPCR) between March 21st and May 4th 2020 were included. The results of this “cancer cohort“ were statistically compared to the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the Austrian population (“control cohort“) as determined by a nation-wide random sample study to define the prevalence of SARS-CoV 2 infections. Results: 1688 SARS-CoV-2 tests were performed in 1016 consecutive cancer patients. 830/1016 (81.6%) patients were undergoing active anti-cancer treatment in a neoadjuvant/adjuvant or palliative setting. 53/1016 (5·2%) patients self-reported symptoms potentially associated with COVID-19. SARS-Cov-2 was detected in 4/1016 (0·4%) patients. At the time of testing, all four SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were asymptomatic. 2/4 (50%) of the positive tested patients had recovered from symptomatic COVID-19. Viral clearance was achieved so far only in one of the four patients 14 days after testing positive. The three remaining patients have not achieved viral clearance after > 25 days of follow up. The estimated odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence between the cancer cohort and the control cohort was 1·009 (95% CI 0·209-4·272;p=1). Conclusions: Our data indicate that continuation of active anti-cancer treatment at a large department of Medical Oncology are feasible after implementation of strict population-wide and institutional safety measures. Routine SARS-CoV-2 testing of cancer patients seems advisable to detect asymptomatic virus carriers and avoid uncontrolled viral spread. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: A.S. Berghoff: Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Daiichi Sankyo;Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AbbVie. A. Starzer: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: PharmaMar. M. Preusser: Advisory/Consultancy: Bayer;Novartis;Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG);CMC Contrast;Mundipharma;BMJ Journals;MedMedia;Astra Zeneca;Lilly;Medahead;Sanofi;Tocagen;Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb;GlaxoSmithKline;Roche;AbbVie;Daiichi Sankyo;Merck Sharp & Dome;Research grant/Funding (institution): Novocure;Böhringer-Ingelheim. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.