Cancer or COVID-19? A Review of Recommendations for COVID-19 Vaccination in Cancer Patients.

OPINION STATEMENT: While emergency use is authorized for numerous COVID-19 vaccines and the high-risk population including cancer patients or those with immunosuppression due to disease or therapy is prioritized, data on this group's specific safety and efficacy of these vaccines remains limited. Safety data from clinical trials and population data may be extrapolated, and these vaccines may be used for cancer patients. However, concerns of efficacy due to the variable immune response in patients with active cancers undergoing active therapy and cancer survivors with chronic immunosuppression remain. The authors aim to discuss the current recommendations for use of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer.

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology.

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

The Unhappy Intersection of Cancer and COVID-19.

ONCOLOGY® co-editor-in-chief Howard S. Hochster, MD, reviews research on delays in oncology care as a results of the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 and oncological disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory tract infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2, initially emerged in China in late 2019. The rapid global spread of this novel virus led the World Health Organization declare a pandemic with > 30,000,000 confirmed cases, 946,000 deaths and > 21,000,000 recoveries reported as of 18 September 2020, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Initial reports from Asia suggested that elderly patients with multiple comorbidities, specifically diabetes, hypertension, and obesity were at an increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. As data on these risks have evolved, evidence has increasingly shown that patients with cancer are indeed a particularly vulnerable group. However, the effects of various confounding factors, including an older than average patient population who often have underlying comorbidities including a suppressed immune system and/ or a hypercoagulable state, have been difficult to separate from the effects of having cancer. Common presenting symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 including dyspnoea, cough, fever, fatigue, dysgeusia and, less commonly, diarrhoea and/ or a hyperinflammatory syndrome are equally confusing to clinicians as they all are common symptoms of both cancer and toxicity from anti-cancer therapy. Furthermore, the radiographic dilemma of distinguishing between immune-checkpoint inhibitor-induced pneumonitis from that caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection and conflicting data on the effects of certain therapies on patient outcomes has left clinicians with considerable angst on how to help patients with acute or worsening symptoms in an optimal way. Predicted increase in mortality follows not only from the delay in discovery and progress resulting from temporary closing of research laboratories at cancer centers but also from diversion of resources to patient care and temporary suspension of clinical trial enrolment both by companies and local institutions. The possibilities of travelling to specialized medical centers whose activities are essential for the delivery and improvement of patient care were reduced, too. Viral mutations might also occur during transmission and spread; this leads to a statement that SARS-CoV-2 will forever remain a looming threat to the oncological community. What is crucial to remember is that cancer itself is a pandemic with > 18,000,000 people dia-gnosed worldwide every year. Many societies, including the European Society for Medical Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, are providing clinical recommendations for the management of patients with cancer during this challenging time, recognizing that continuation in the precise treatment of our patients is critical for our role of physicians. PURPOSE: The aim of the presentation is to point out the contact or overlapping areas of both mentioned disease entities for the purpose of possible simplification of dia-gnostic and therapeutic management of a cancer patient with suspected or already proven  COVID-19 disease.

Pain Management Revisited.

Now that the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its variants have altered clinical oncology practice as we know it, let's return to a familiar focus from the Core Curriculum for Oncology Nursing-pain management. Much has happened during the past two years that influences the effective management of pain in patients with cancer-not the least of which is a clinical environment that has been changed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Colorectal Telephone Clinic: a new normal post-COVID-19?

INTRODUCTION: In light of the COVID-19 recommendations from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, we aimed to study patient and clinician satisfaction with a newly established telephone (TP) colorectal clinic service in lieu of traditional face-to-face (FTF) appointments. Comparative outcomes included patient versus clinician satisfaction; patient versus clinician desire to continue TP clinics postpandemic; and views of Specialty Trainee 3+ (ST3+)/Specialty Associate Specialist (SAS) doctors versus consultants on TP compared with FTF appointments. METHODS: We conducted a prospective service evaluation of patient and clinician satisfaction with colorectal surgery TP clinics between 1 June 2020 and 30 June 2020 in a British District General Hospital. RESULTS: Patients had higher satisfaction than clinicians with TP clinics: 91.5% versus 66.6% reported above-average experience [odds ratio (OR) = 5.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53 to 18.75, p = 0.01]. Clinicians had lower demand to continue TP clinics post-COVID-19 versus patients, with a trend towards significance (60% versus 82.9%, OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.97, p = 0.08). ST3+/SAS doctors were more likely than consultants to find TP clinics inferior to FTF consultation for patient assessment (48.3% versus 23.7%, OR = 3.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 7.71, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: While clinicians may be concerned that patient assessment suffers, patient satisfaction with TP clinics is high. There should be a place for TP clinics post-COVID-19 but there must be a robust process for patient selection as well as adequate training for current and future generations of clinicians.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care activities at a Uruguayan mastology unit.

PURPOSE: Health emergency due to COVID-19 started in Uruguay on March 13, 2020; our mastology unit tried to ensure adequate oncological care, and protect patients from the virus infection and complications. OBJECTIVE: To assess the health care activities in the "peak" of the pandemic during 3 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: we collected data from the electronic health record. RESULTS: There were a total of 293 medical appointments from 131 patients (221 face-to-face), that decreased by 16.7% compared to the same period in 2019 (352 appointments). The medical appointments were scheduled to evaluate the continuity of systemic treatment or modifications (95 patients; 72.5%), follow-up (17; 12.9%), first-time consultation (12; 9.1%), and assess paraclinical studies (7; 5.3%). The patients were on hormone therapy (81 patients; 74%), chemotherapy (CT) (21; 19%), and anti-HER2 therapies (9; 8%). New twenty treatments were initiated. Of the 14 patients that were on adjuvant/neoadjuvant CT, 9 (64.3%) continued with the same regimen with the addition of prophylactic granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), and 5 (35.7%), who were receiving weekly paclitaxel, continued the treatment with no changes. Of the seven patients that were on palliative CT, 2 (28.5%) continued the treatment with the addition of G-CSF, 3 (42.8%) continued with weekly capecitabine or paclitaxel with no treatment changes, and 2 (28.5%) changed their treatment regimen (a less myelosuppressive regimen was selected for one and due to progression of the disease in the other patient). The ninety patients who were receiving adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or palliative criteria hormone therapy and/or anti-HER2 therapies, continued the treatment with no changes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that, although medical appointments decreased by approximately 17%, we could maintain healthcare activities, continued most of the treatments while the most modified was CT with G-CSF to avoid myelosuppression.

Virtual visits among gynecologic oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic are accessible across the social vulnerability spectrum.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has quickly transformed healthcare systems with expansion of telemedicine. The past year has highlighted risks to immunosuppressed cancer patients and shown the need for health equity among vulnerable groups. In this study, we describe the utilization of virtual visits by patients with gynecologic malignancies and assess their social vulnerability. METHODS: Virtual visit data of 270 gynecology oncology patients at a single institution from March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 was obtained by querying a cohort discovery tool. Through geocoding, the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was utilized to assign social vulnerability indices to each patient and the results were analyzed for trends and statistical significance. RESULTS: African American patients were the most vulnerable with a median SVI of 0.71, Asian 0.60, Hispanic 0.41, and Caucasian 0.21. Eighty-seven percent of patients in this study were Caucasian, 8.9% African American, 3.3% Hispanic, and 1.1% Asian, which is comparable to the baseline institutional gynecologic cancer population. The mean census tract SVI variable when comparing patients to all census tracts in the United States was 0.31 (range 0.00 least vulnerable to 0.98 most vulnerable). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual visits were utilized by patients of all ages and gynecologic cancer types. African Americans were the most socially vulnerable patients of the cohort. Telemedicine is a useful platform for cancer care across the social vulnerability spectrum during the pandemic and beyond. To ensure continued access, further research and outreach efforts are needed.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Maintaining an Adult Hematology/Oncology Service at a Tertiary Care Center during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An Eight-Week-Experience with a Newly Implemented Procedural Plan.

Treatment of cancer patients has become challenging when large parts of hospital services need to be shut down as a consequence of a local COVID-19 outbreak that requires rapid containment measures, in conjunction with the shifting of priorities to vital services. Reports providing conceptual frameworks and first experiences on how to maintain a clinical hematology/oncology service during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic are scarce. Here, we report our first 8 weeks of experience after implementing a procedural plan at a hematology/oncology unit with its associated cancer center at a large academic teaching hospital in Germany. By strictly separating team workflows and implementing vigorous testing for SARS-CoV-2 infections for all patients and staff members irrespective of clinical symptoms, we were successful in maintaining a comprehensive hematology/oncology service to allow for the continuation of treatment for our patients. Notably, this was achieved without introducing or further transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infections within the unit and the entire center. Although challenging, our approach appears safe and feasible and may help others to set up or optimize their procedures for cancer treatment or for other exceedingly vulnerable patient cohorts.

Bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic: effect on current practices and strategies to reduce procedure-associated transmission.

Introduction: Bronchoscopy and related procedures have unambiguously been affected during the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Corona Virus-2 (SARS COV-2). Ordinary bronchoscopy practices and lung cancer services might have changed over this pandemic and for the years to come.Areas covered: This manuscript summarizes the utility of bronchoscopy in COVID-19 patients, and the impact of the pandemic in lung cancer diagnostic services, in view of possible viral spread during these We conducted a literature review of articles published in PubMed/Medline from inception to November 5th, 2020 using relevant terms.Expert opinion: Without doubt this pandemic has changed the way bronchoscopy and related procedures are being performed. Mandatory universal personal protective equipment, pre-bronchoscopy PCR tests, dedicated protective barriers and disposable bronchoscopes might be the safest and simpler way to perform even the most complicated procedures.

Protective measures for patients with advanced cancer during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic: Quo vadis?

Cancer patients represent a vulnerable cohort during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic. Oncological societies have generated a plethora of recommendations, but precise instructions about routine oncological procedures remain scarce. Here, we report on local COVID-19 protection measures established in an interdisciplinary approach at a tertiary care center during the first wave of the pandemia in Germany. Following these measures, no additional morbidity or mortality during oncological procedures was observed, and no nosocomial infections were registered. However, Validation of our measures is outstanding and regional SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was low. However, specific oncological measures might be important to ensure optimal oncological results, especially for advanced cancer stages during this and future pandemia. In the future, communication about these measures might be crucial to a cancer patient´s assigned network to reduce the danger of excess mortality within the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Guidelines for Cancer Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic in South Korea.

At the end of 2019, the cause of pneumonia outbreaks in Wuhan, China, was identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In February 2020, the World Health Organization named the disease cause by SARS-CoV-2 as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response to the pandemic, the Korean Cancer Association formed the COVID-19 task force to develop practice guidelines. This special article introduces the clinical practice guidelines for cancer patients which will help oncologists best manage cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Strategy for the Practice of Spine Oncological Surgery During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN: Case series. OBJECTIVE: For each of the most frequent clinical scenarios, the authors reached a consensus on how should be timing and indications be optimized to reduce risk while maintaining the expected outcomes under the Covid-19 pandemics. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The organization of health care has been changed by the Covid-19 pandemic with a direct impact on Spine Oncology Surgery. Emergency surgery is still a priority, but in case of spinal tumors it should be better defined which conditions require emergency treatment. METHODS: An expert panel with general spine surgeons, oncological spine surgeons, and radiation oncologists was formed to analyze the most frequent scenarios in spinal musculoskeletal oncology during Covid-19 pandemics. RESULTS: Spine metastases can be found incidentally during follow-up or can clinically occur by increasing pain, pathologic fracture, and/or neurological symptoms. Primary spine tumors are much more rare and very rarely present with acute onset. The first step is to suspect this rare condition, to avoid to treat a primary tumor as it were a metastasis. Most complex surgery, like en bloc resection, associated with high morbidity and mortality rate for the treatment of low grade malignancy like chordoma or chondrosarcomas, if intensive care unit availability is reduced, can be best delayed some weeks, as not impacting on prognosis, due to the slow growth rate of these conditions. The currently accepted protocols for Ewing sarcoma (ES) and osteogenic sarcoma must be performed for local and systemic disease control. For ES, after the first courses of chemotherapy, radiotherapy can be selected instead of surgery, during Covid-19, to the end of the full course of chemotherapy. In immunocompromised patients, (treated by chemotherapy), it is necessary to avoid contact with affected or exposed people. CONCLUSION: Even more than during normal times, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory to share the decision to modify a treatment strategy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Care: A Global Collaborative Study.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic affected health care systems globally and resulted in the interruption of usual care in many health care facilities, exposing vulnerable patients with cancer to significant risks. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of this pandemic on cancer care worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a validated web-based questionnaire of 51 items. The questionnaire obtained information on the capacity and services offered at these centers, magnitude of disruption of care, reasons for disruption, challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimation of patient harm during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 356 centers from 54 countries across six continents participated between April 21 and May 8, 2020. These centers serve 716,979 new patients with cancer a year. Most of them (88.2%) reported facing challenges in delivering care during the pandemic. Although 55.34% reduced services as part of a preemptive strategy, other common reasons included an overwhelmed system (19.94%), lack of personal protective equipment (19.10%), staff shortage (17.98%), and restricted access to medications (9.83%). Missing at least one cycle of therapy by > 10% of patients was reported in 46.31% of the centers. Participants reported patient exposure to harm from interruption of cancer-specific care (36.52%) and noncancer-related care (39.04%), with some centers estimating that up to 80% of their patients were exposed to harm. CONCLUSION: The detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care is widespread, with varying magnitude among centers worldwide. Additional research to assess this impact at the patient level is required.

Ambulatory Oncology: Infrastructure Development in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic generated challenges to the delivery of safe, efficient, and high-quality cancer care. In ambulatory oncology, where most cancer care is delivered, these challenges required the rapid development of infrastructure. OBJECTIVES: This article describes challenges to the design and implementation of ambulatory oncology infrastructures that support clinical oncology care during a pandemic. METHODS: This article reviews clinical experiences in interprofessional, multicenter, academic, and community settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cohesive and efficient services, collaborative processes, and workflows; patient triage and symptom management; technology and equipment; and communication strategies are discussed. National ambulatory care guidelines and practice recommendations are included as applicable and available. FINDINGS: Continued treatment delivery and support for patients with cancer, as well as infrastructure to minimize viral exposure to patients and oncology healthcare workers, are essential when caring for this high-risk population.

2021 update of the AGIHO guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in patients with cancer regarding diagnostics, viral shedding, vaccination and therapy.

The worldwide spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the associated infectious coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has posed a unique challenge to medical staff, patients and their families. Patients with cancer, particularly those with haematologic malignancies, have been identified to be at high risk to develop severe COVID-19. Since publication of our previous guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in patients with cancer, research efforts have continued and new relevant data has come to light, maybe most importantly in the field of vaccination studies. Therefore, an update of our guideline on several clinically important topics is warranted. Here, we provide a concise update of evidence-based recommendations for rapid diagnostics, viral shedding, vaccination and therapy of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. This guideline update was prepared by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology by critically reviewing the currently available data on these topics applying evidence-based medicine criteria.