Evaluation of the medically necessary, time sensitive triage score during and beyond the local COVID-19 pandemic in the Gynaecologic Oncology Unit of a tertiary hospital in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the Medically Necessary Time Sensitive (MeNTS) scoring system in triaging gynaecologic oncologic surgery during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study including 209 patients who either had surgery (151) or surgery postponed (58) between the 26th March and 30th September 2020 in an academic hospital in South Africa. The MeNTS score was used to independently score each patient three times by two observers. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 46.6 ± 15 years and the cumulative mean MeNTS score was 51.0 ± 5.1. Over two-thirds of the cases had surgery. There was no significant difference between the first and second observers' cumulative scores, 51.0 vs 51.1 (p 0.77). The cumulative score among those who had surgery was significantly lower than that for those whose surgeries were postponed, 49.8 vs 54.1 (p <0.0001). The intra-observer and inter-observer reliability were 0.78 and 0.74 respectively. After adjusting for confounding variables, those with low cumulative MeNTS scores were about 5 times more likely to have surgery than those with high scores (Adj. OR = 4.67, 95% CI: 1.92-11.4, p <0.001. Patients with malignant diagnosis were also 5 times more likely to be operated than those with benign diagnosis (Adj. OR = 5.03, 95% CI: 1.73-14.6, p <0.001. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.85 suggesting an excellent discriminatory power between those who were operated and those who were postponed. CONCLUSION: The study provided some insight into the potential usefulness of MeNTS score in prioritizing patients for surgery in gynaecologic oncologic sub-specialty. The score performed well across a range of gynaecologic conditions and procedures with good intra-observer and inter-observer consistency and reliability. This is a prioritization tool that is dynamically adaptable to accommodate changes in resources availability and operating theatre capacity.

Perception of Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Survivors of Gynecologic Cancer.

Our objective was to assess gynecologic cancer survivor preferences for telehealth cancer care. Gynecologic cancer survivors participating in a prospective cohort study were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey regarding their experience with and preferences for telehealth. Of 188 participants, 48.9% had undergone a telehealth visit since March 2020, and 53.7% reported a preference for exclusively in-person visits for their cancer care and surveillance. Furthermore, 80.5% of participants were satisfied with the telehealth care they received and 54.8% would recommend telehealth services to patients with similar conditions. Most participants thought a physical examination was critical to detecting recurrence, and concern that their provider may miss something during telehealth visits was greater among those who preferred in-person visits. With many gynecologic cancer survivors preferring in-person care, building a future care model that includes telehealth elements will require adaptations, careful evaluation of patient concerns, as well as patient education on telehealth.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Diagnosis and Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis.

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted health systems worldwide, particularly cancer care. Because the actual implications of these changes on gynecological oncology healthcare are still unclear, we aim to evaluate the impact of this pandemic on the diagnosis and management of gynecological cancer. Materials and Methods: This is a single-center retrospective observational study, including patients diagnosed with gynecological malignancies between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were included into three groups based on the timing of cancer diagnosis: pre-pandemic (2019), pandemic with high restrictions (2020) and pandemic recovery (2021). Results: Overall, 234 patients were diagnosed with gynecological cancer during the period of study. A decrease in the number of newly diagnosed cervical cancers and other rare tumors (leiomyosarcoma, invasive hydatidiform mole) was apparent in 2020. Some aggressive histological types of endometrial and ovarian cancer were more commonly diagnosed in the pandemic recovery group (p < 0.05), although no differences were demonstrated concerning tumor staging in all gynecological cancers. The median time between the first multidisciplinary team meeting and the treatment initiation was higher after the COVID-19 pandemic in endometrial cancer (23.0 vs. 34.0 vs. 36.0 days, p < 0.05). Patients with ovarian cancer were more frequently proposed for neoadjuvant therapy in 2020 compared to the other periods (33.3% vs. 55.0% vs. 10.0% p < 0.05). A significant reduction in the laparoscopic approach was observed during 2020 in endometrial cancer (32.1% vs. 14.3% vs. 36.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were registered regarding median hospitalization days or intra- and post-operative complications between these periods. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the diagnosis and management of most gynecological malignancies, namely, on time to first treatment, chosen oncological therapies and surgical approaches. These results suggest important clinical and healthcare implications that should be addressed in future prospective studies.

Gender imbalance in gynecologic oncology authorship and impact of COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Despite increased participation of women in academic medicine in recent decades, gender disparities persist. The gender gap in authorship and editorial boards in gynecologic oncology, and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, have not been recently evaluated. We examined gender representation and the impact of COVID-19 on authorship and editorial boards of two major peer-reviewed gynecologic oncology journals. METHODS: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of original articles published in Gynecologic Oncology and the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, comparing the most contemporary 5-year period (2016-2020) to single years in the two prior decades (1996, 2006). To assess the early impact of COVID-19, we compared publications from May 2020-April 2021 to 2019. Editorial boards were analyzed for gender composition. First names, pronouns, and institutional photographs were used to determine gender. RESULTS: There were 3022 original articles published between 2016 and 2020, 763 in 2006, and 203 in 1996. Gender was identified for 91.3% of first authors (3641 articles) and 95.6% of senior authors (3813 articles). Men comprised the majority of the editorial boards in 2021 at 57% and 61% for Gynecologic Oncology and the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, respectively. Men were overrepresented as senior authors across all study periods: 93% in 1996, 77% in 2006, and 58% in 2016-2020. Over time, representation of women as first and senior authors increased (7% in 1996, 42% in 2016-2020, p<0.00001). There was no immediate impact of the early pandemic on gender distribution of authorship. CONCLUSIONS: Despite greater representation of women over time as authors in gynecologic oncology journals, there remains gender disparity in senior authorship and editorial board representation. This presents an opportunity for the academic publishing community to advocate for deliberate strategies to achieve gender parity. Although no impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic was found, this requires ongoing surveillance.

Obesity and gynecological cancers: A toxic relationship.

Despite the evidence supporting the relevance of obesity and obesity-associated disorders in the development, management, and prognosis of various cancers, obesity rates continue to increase worldwide. Growing evidence supports the involvement of obesity in the development of gynecologic malignancies. This article explores the molecular basis governing the alteration of hallmarks of cancer in the development of obesity-related gynecologic malignancies encompassing cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. We highlight specific examples of how development, management, and prognosis are affected for each cancer, incorporate current knowledge on complementary approaches including lifestyle interventions to improve patient outcomes, and highlight how new technologies are helping us better understand the biology underlying this neglected pandemic.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society recommendations for women with gynecological cancer who received non-standard care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressures on clinical services required adaptation to how care was prioritised and delivered for women with gynecological cancer. This document discusses potential 'salvage' measures when treatment has deviated from the usual standard of care. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society convened a multidisciplinary working group to develop recommendations for the onward management and follow-up of women with gynecological cancer who have been impacted by a change in treatment during the pandemic. These recommendations are presented for each tumor type and for healthcare systems, and the impact on gynecological services are discussed. It will be important that patient concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on their cancer pathway are acknowledged and addressed for their ongoing care.

Looking at cancer health disparities in gynecologic oncology in 2020.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the most recent evidence on gynecologic cancer disparities and to describe studies investigating the social determinants of health and receipt of evidence-based care and potential interventions to address inequities in care. RECENT FINDINGS: Significant disparities in disease-specific survival by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and payer status have persisted in women with gynecologic cancers. Compared with white women, black women have an increased likelihood of disease-specific mortality for endometrial cancer and are less likely to receive guideline-adherent care for ovarian cancer. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought significant attention to the structural barriers that contribute to persistent health disparities and how community-based partnerships with a focus on policy interventions are needed for equitable gynecologic cancer outcomes. SUMMARY: In this review, we discuss structural barriers contributing to racial inequities, the role of Medicaid payer status and receipt of quality cancer care, gender, and racial workforce diversity, and community-based partnerships to create evidence-based interventions to address disparities.

Indirect effects of COVID-19 in referring women to gynecologic oncology, perinatology and gynecology clinics in Iran.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 has captured the world. We hypothesized that this pandemic reduced referral of other non-COVID-19 patients to the hospitals or clinics, including gynecological and perinatological referrals. Women can be at risk in limited use of health services. METHODS: In this retrospective study, referrals from gynecologic oncology, perinatology, and gynecology clinics in a large teaching hospital of Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) were compared from February 20 to May 20, 2020, with the same period in 2019. Finally, referral trends in 2020 were compared with the COVID-19 admission pattern. RESULTS: Total admissions to all three clinics declined 63% in 2020 compared to 2019. There was a significant relationship between the number of visits to three clinics during these2  years (p < 0.001). The reduction in referrals to the gynecology clinic was more than gynecologic oncology and perinatology. The COVID-19 referral pattern was conversely linked to gynecology-related admissions. CONCLUSION: As the pandemic situation makes patients hesitant to go to the hospitals or not, health policymakers should consider other non-COVID issues, including maternal and fetal concerns. Providing safe places for other patients to visit is a goal that can be achieved through developing guidelines for nosocomial hygiene and training informed healthcare staff. Moreover, non-urgent visits should be avoided or postponed. This issue calls for new strategies, including telemedicine in situations similar to the current pandemic to both identify and manage such conditions.

The impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic on the surgical management of gynecological cancers: Analysis of the multicenter database of the French SCGP and the FRANCOGYN group.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on the French healthcare system. Almost all hospital departments have had to profoundly modify their activity to cope with the crisis. In this context, the surgical management of cancers has been a topic of debate as care strategies were tailored to avoid any delay in treatment that could be detrimental to patient wellbeing while being careful not to overload intensive care units. The primary objective of this study was to observe changes in the surgical management of pelvic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic in France. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study analyzed data from the prospective multi-center cohort study conducted by the French Society for Pelvic and Gynecological Surgery (SCGP) with methodological support from the French (FRANCOGYN) Group. All members of the SCGP received by e-mail a link allowing them to include patients who were scheduled to undergo gynecological carcinologic surgery between March 16th 2020 and May 11th 2020. Demographic data, the characteristics of cancers and the impact of the crisis in terms of changes to the usual recommended coarse of care were collected. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients with a median age 63 years were included in the cohort. In total, 31 patients had cervical cancer, 76 patients had endometrial cancer, 52 patients had ovarian or tubal cancer, 5 patients had a borderline tumor of the ovary, and 17 patients had vulvar cancer. During the study period, the care strategy was changed for 49 (27%) patients with postponed for 35 (19.3%) patients, and canceled for 7 (3.9%) patients. Surgical treatment was maintained for 139 (76.8%) patients. Management with neoadjuvant chemotherapy was offered to 19 (10,5%) patients and a change in surgical choice was made for 5 (2,8%) patients. In total, 8 (4,4%) patients tested positive for COVID-19. Data also shows a greater number of therapeutic changes in cases of ovarian cancer as well as a cancelation of a lumbo-aortic lymphadenectomy in one patient with cervical cancer. Hospital consultants estimated a direct detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for 39 patients, representing 22% of gynecological cancers. CONCLUSION: This study provided observational data of the impact of the COVID-19 health crisis on the surgical management of gynecological cancers.

[Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on breast and gynecologic cancers management. Experience of the Surgery Department in the Nice Anticancer Center]. / Impact de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les prises en charge pour cancer du sein et gynécologique.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the containment measures and the recommendations of several societies in oncology may have impacted the request for initial care for cancers. METHODS: In this monocentric retrospective study, the number and the characteristics of patients received for a first consultation for a breast or gynecologic tumor were compared between the containment period and a control period. The times from diagnosis to treatment and the type of initial care were compared too. RESULTS: During the outbreak, 91 patients were seen for a new request, versus 159 during the control period, a decrease of 43.5 %. Patients were older (62.9 versus 60.9 years old) but this difference was not significant. Tumor stage was not modified. Concerning senology, the time from the biopsy to the first consultation was 5.5 days longer during the outbreak (difference statistically insignificant). Among the 51 patients requiring a surgical treatment during the outbreak, 16 (31.48 %) were postponed after the end of the containment measures. After all, the average time from the consultation to the treatment was not modified. No modification of type of treatment was observed. DISCUSSION: At the height of the pandemic, benefits and risks of the cancer treatment had to be daily balanced against the risk of exposition to the COVID-19. The evaluation of practices for cancer care is essential to understand the real impact of COVID-19 outbreak on global cancer management, so as to get prepared to further crises.

Decrease in gynecological cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic: an Austrian perspective.

BACKGROUND: On March 16, 2020, the federal government of Austria declared a nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the lockdown, screening examinations and routine checkups have been restricted to prevent the spread of the virus and to increase the hospitals' bed capacity across the country. This resulted in a severe decline of patient referrals to the hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of newly diagnosed gynecological and breast cancers in Austria. METHODS: Data of 2077 patients from 18 centers in Austria with newly diagnosed gynecological or breast cancer between January and May 2019 and January and May 2020 were collected. Clinical parameters, including symptoms, performance status, co-morbidities, and referral status, were compared between the time before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. RESULTS: Our results showed a slight increase of newly diagnosed cancers in January and February 2020 as compared with 2019 (+2 and +35%, respectively) and a strong decline in newly diagnosed tumors since the lockdown: -24% in March 2020 versus March 2019, -49% in April 2020 versus April 2019, -49% in May 2020 versus May 2019. Two-thirds of patients diagnosed during the pandemic presented with tumor-specific symptoms compared with less than 50% before the pandemic (p<0.001). Moreover, almost 50% of patients in 2020 had no co-morbidities compared with 35% in 2019 (p<0.001). Patients, who already had a malignant disease, were rarely diagnosed with a new cancer in 2020 as compared with 2019 (11% vs 6%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The lockdown led to a decreased number of newly diagnosed gynecological and breast cancers. The decreased accessibility of the medical services and postponed diagnosis of potentially curable cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic may be a step backwards in our healthcare system and might impair cancer treatment outcomes. Therefore, new strategies to manage early cancer detection are needed to optimize cancer care in a time of pandemic in the future.

Gynecologic cancer surveillance in the era of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the management of patients with gynecologic cancers. Many centers have reduced access to routine visits to avoid crowded waiting areas and specially to reduce the infection risk for oncologic patients. The goal of this review is to propose a surveillance algorithm for patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic based on existing evidence and established guidelines. It is time to consider strategies based on telemedicine and to adapt protocols in this new era. We hereby propose a strategy for routine surveillance both during and beyond the pandemic.

[Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on the management of patients with gynecological cancers]. / Impact de la pandémie de Covid-19 sur les modifications thérapeutiques des patientes atteintes de cancers gynécologiques.

OBJECTIVE: The exceptional health situation related to the SARS-Cov2 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) required a deep and very quickly adaptation of management practices in gynecological cancer. The main objective is to estimate the proportion of patients with treatment modifications. METHOD: This is a multicenter prospective study conducted in 3 university gynecological cancer departments (HCLyon, France) during the period of confinement (March 16 to May 11, 2020). All patients with non-metastatic breast cancer or gynecological cancer were included. The planned treatment, postponement, delay and organizational modifications (RCP, teleconsultations) were studied. RESULTS: Two hundred and five consecutive patients were included, average age 60.5±1.0. 7 patients (3.4%) had SARS-Cov-2 infection, 2 patients died. One hundred and twenty-two patients (59.5%) had a treatment maintained, 72 patients (35.1%) postponed, 11 patients (5.4%) cancelled. Of the 115 (56.1%) planned surgeries, 40 (34.8%) postponed, 7 cancelled (6.1%). 9 patients (7.8%) had a surgical modification. Of the 59 (28.8%) radiotherapy treatments scheduled, 24 (40.7%) postponed and 2 (3.4%) cancelled. Of the 56 (27.3%) chemotherapy treatment planned, 8 (14.3%) postponed and 2 (3.6%) cancelled. One hundred and forty-five patients (70.7%) have been discussed in multidisciplinary meeting. One hundred and fifty-eight patients (77%) had a teleconsultation system. CONCLUSION: Our study assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on therapeutic management of patients with gynecological cancer during the period of confinement. This will probably improve our management of an eventual epidemic rebound or future health crisis.

COVID-19 outcomes of patients with gynecologic cancer in New York City.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) is the epicenter of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) in the United States. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of vulnerable populations, such as those with gynecologic cancer who develop COVID-19 infections, is limited. METHODS: Patients from 6 NYC-area hospital systems with known gynecologic cancer and a COVID-19 diagnosis were identified. Demographic and clinical outcome data were abstracted through a review of electronic medical records. RESULTS: Records for 121 patients with gynecologic cancer and COVID-19 were abstracted; the median age at the COVID-19 diagnosis was 64.0 years (interquartile range, 51.0-73.0 years). Sixty-six of the 121 patients (54.5%) required hospitalization; among the hospitalized patients, 45 (68.2%) required respiratory intervention, 20 (30.3%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 9 (13.6%) underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. Seventeen patients (14.0%) died of COVID-19 complications. No patient requiring mechanical ventilation survived. On multivariable analysis, hospitalization was associated with an age ≥64 years (risk ratio [RR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.51), African American race (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15), and 3 or more comorbidities (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.98). Only recent immunotherapy use (RR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.08-11.27) was associated with death due to COVID-19 on multivariable analysis; chemotherapy treatment and recent major surgery were not predictive of COVID-19 severity or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The case fatality rate among gynecologic oncology patients with a COVID-19 infection is 14.0%. Recent immunotherapy use is associated with an increased risk of mortality related to COVID-19 infection. LAY SUMMARY: The case fatality rate among gynecologic oncology patients with a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is 14.0%; there is no association between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cancer-directed surgery and COVID-19 severity or death. As such, patients can be counseled regarding the safety of continued anticancer treatments during the pandemic. This is important because the ability to continue cancer therapies for cancer control and cure is critical.

ESMO management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: gynaecological malignancies.

The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and its related disease (COVID-19) has required an immediate and coordinate healthcare response to face the worldwide emergency and define strategies to maintain the continuum of care for the non-COVID-19 diseases while protecting patients and healthcare providers. The dimension of the COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented risk especially for the more vulnerable populations. To manage patients with cancer adequately, maintaining the highest quality of care, a definition of value-based priorities is necessary to define which interventions can be safely postponed without affecting patients' outcome. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has endorsed a tiered approach across three different levels of priority (high, medium, low) incorporating information on the value-based prioritisation and clinical cogency of the interventions that can be applied for different disease sites. Patients with gynaecological cancer are at particular risk of COVID-19 complications because of their age and prevalence of comorbidities. The definition of priority level should be based on tumour stage and histology, cancer-related symptoms or complications, aim (curative vs palliative) and magnitude of benefit of the oncological intervention, patients' general condition and preferences. The decision-making process always needs to consider the disease-specific national and international guidelines and the local healthcare system and social resources, and a changing situation in relation to COVID-19 infection. These recommendations aim to provide guidance for the definition of deferrable and undeferrable interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic for ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancers within the context of the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Cancer patients affected by COVID-19: Experience from Milan, Lombardy.

OBJECTIVE: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is continuing to spread. There are growing concerns on the impact of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Several papers reporting recommendations and guidelines are published. But few data on cancer patients affected by COVID-19 are available. METHODS: This is a retrospective study including all consecutive patients affected by gynecological cancer who developed COVID-19. All patients were treated in an academic setting (in Milan, Lombardy, Italy) between February and March 2020. RESULTS: Overall, 355 patients had active treatment during the study period due to newly diagnosed or recurrent gynecological disease. Among those, 19 (5.3%) patients affected developed COVID-19. All patients were asymptomatic at the time of COVID-19 detection. Six patients were diagnosed before starting planned treatments; while the remaining 13 were diagnosed for COVID-19 after their started their treatments. Considering the first group of six patients, one patient died due to COVID-19 3 days after the diagnosis; while the other patients recovered from COVID-19 after a median of three weeks. The latter group of 13 patients (treatments started) included five patients who underwent surgery and eight patients who underwent chemotherapy. Focusing on five patients who were diagnosed after surgery, we observed that two patients died during postoperative course, while in other two cases prolonged hospitalization was needed. One patient had no issues. Chemotherapy was delayed for the remaining patents without sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: Our report highlights that COVID-19 impacts the quality of treatments for cancer patients. Mortality rate is high, especially after surgery. More important, patients under active treatment for cancer are at high risk of developing severe evolution of COVID-19. Prioritizing patients journey during COVID-19 is of paramount importance.