The Negative Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Care at an Academic Cancer Referral Center.

Objectives: COVID-19 created unexpected delays in oncologic treatment. This study sought to assess the volume of missed cancer-related services due to the pandemic. Methods: This case-controlled trial evaluated more than 345,000 oncologic clinic, lab, and radiation appointments from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2020, and surgery appointments from January 1, 2019, through October 31, 2020. All patients at the Seidman Cancer Center with a cancer diagnosis based on a comprehensive list of 2178 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes were included in the analysis. Subgroup analyses based on age, race, and sex were also performed. Results: Clinic, lab, and surgical visit cancellations increased by 4.20% (P <.001), 4.84% (P <.001), and 5.22% (P <.001), respectively. In the first 10 months of 2020, there were 703 (9.2%) fewer surgeries compared with the same time period in 2019. The following cancellation rates peaked in March 2020: clinic visits (26.53%), labs (43.66%), surgery (34.00%). Radiation oncology (12.53%) cancellations peaked in April 2020. Prior to the emergence of COVID-19, the group aged 0 to 39 years had the highest clinic cancellation rate (17.85%) compared with patients aged 40 to 64 years (15.95%) and 65 years and older (14.52%; P <.001). Men cancelled (15.63%) significantly more often than women (14.93%; P <.001) in 2019. This reversed during the pandemic: Women (19.56%) cancelled more frequently than men (19.20%; P <.036). Conclusions: There was a large increase in cancelled oncologic care in 2020, which has implications for delayed diagnosis and treatment. This was especially true for patients older than 65 years and for women. These delays could result in patients presenting with more advanced disease, complicating morbidities, and ultimately worse long-term outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in India: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted health-care systems, leading to concerns about its subsequent impact on non-COVID disease conditions. The diagnosis and management of cancer is time sensitive and is likely to be substantially affected by these disruptions. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care in India. METHODS: We did an ambidirectional cohort study at 41 cancer centres across India that were members of the National Cancer Grid of India to compare provision of oncology services between March 1 and May 31, 2020, with the same time period in 2019. We collected data on new patient registrations, number of patients visiting outpatient clinics, hospital admissions, day care admissions for chemotherapy, minor and major surgeries, patients accessing radiotherapy, diagnostic tests done (pathology reports, CT scans, MRI scans), and palliative care referrals. We also obtained estimates from participating centres on cancer screening, research, and educational activities (teaching of postgraduate students and trainees). We calculated proportional reductions in the provision of oncology services in 2020, compared with 2019. FINDINGS: Between March 1 and May 31, 2020, the number of new patients registered decreased from 112 270 to 51 760 (54% reduction), patients who had follow-up visits decreased from 634 745 to 340 984 (46% reduction), hospital admissions decreased from 88 801 to 56 885 (36% reduction), outpatient chemotherapy decreased from 173634 to 109 107 (37% reduction), the number of major surgeries decreased from 17 120 to 8677 (49% reduction), minor surgeries from 18 004 to 8630 (52% reduction), patients accessing radiotherapy from 51 142 to 39 365 (23% reduction), pathological diagnostic tests from 398 373 to 246 616 (38% reduction), number of radiological diagnostic tests from 93 449 to 53 560 (43% reduction), and palliative care referrals from 19 474 to 13 890 (29% reduction). These reductions were even more marked between April and May, 2020. Cancer screening was stopped completely or was functioning at less than 25% of usual capacity at more than 70% of centres during these months. Reductions in the provision of oncology services were higher for centres in tier 1 cities (larger cities) than tier 2 and 3 cities (smaller cities). INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had considerable impact on the delivery of oncology services in India. The long-term impact of cessation of cancer screening and delayed hospital visits on cancer stage migration and outcomes are likely to be substantial. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATION: For the Hindi translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Social Distancing and Economic Crisis During COVID-19 Pandemic Reduced Cancer Control in Latin America and Will Result in Increased Late-Stage Diagnoses and Expense.

Since December 2019, the world has been mired in an infectious pandemic that has displaced other health priorities for 21st century populations. Concerned about this situation, Latin American experts on cancer decided to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on cancer control in the region. The analysis was based on information obtained from public sources and scientific publications and included the characteristics of the health care and cancer control prior to the pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic and measures implemented by the governments of the region, and the regional impact of the pandemic on cancer control together with the costs of cancer care and possible impact of the pandemic on cancer expense. We compared 2019 and 2020 data corresponding to the period March 16-June 30 and found a significant reduction in the number of first-time visits to oncology services (variable depending on the country between -28% and -38%) and a corresponding reduction in pathology (between -6% and -50%), cancer surgery (between -28% and -70%), and chemotherapy (between -2% and -54%). Furthermore, a significant reduction in cancer screening tests was found (PAP smear test studies: between -46% and -100%, mammography: between -32% and -100%, and fecal occult blood test: -73%). If this situation becomes a trend, the health and economic impact will be compounded in the postpandemic period, with an overload of demand on health services to ensure diagnostic tests and consequent treatments. On the basis of this information, a set of prevention and mitigation measures to be immediately implemented and also actions to progressively strengthen health systems are proposed.

Cardio-oncology Training in the COVID-19 Era.

OPINION STATEMENT: Cardio-oncology is a field dedicated to the prevention, diagnosis, and management of cardiovascular disease in cancer patients before, during, and after cancer therapy. It is an emerging field with limited opportunities for structured education and training. In the year 2021, we cannot define the requirements of cardio-oncology training without acknowledging the impact of the global coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. While this pandemic poses significant health risks to patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease as well as the providers who care for them, it also allows novel opportunities for the nascent field of cardio-oncology to readily adapt. In this article, we detail how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of cardio-oncology training, how programs and trainees can adapt to these challenges, and how lessons learned from the COVID-19 era can continue to positively impact cardio-oncology training for the foreseeable future.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Clinical Research in Latin America (LACOG 0420).

PURPOSE: COVID-19 has affected cancer care worldwide. Clinical trials are an important alternative for the treatment of oncologic patients, especially in Latin America, where trials can be the only opportunity for some of them to access novel and, sometimes, standard treatments. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study, in which a 22-question survey regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology clinical trials was sent to 350 representatives of research programs in selected Latin American institutions, members of the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group. RESULTS: There were 90 research centers participating in the survey, with 70 of them from Brazil. The majority were partly private or fully private (n = 77; 85.6%) and had confirmed COVID-19 cases at the institution (n = 57; 63.3%). Accruals were suspended at least for some studies in 80% (n = 72) of the responses, mostly because of sponsors' decision. Clinical trials' routine was affected by medical visits cancelation, reduction of patients' attendance, reduction of other specialties' availability, and/or alterations on follow-up processes. Formal COVID-19 mitigation policies were adopted in 96.7% of the centers, including remote monitoring and remote site initiation visits, telemedicine visits, reduction of research team workdays or home office, special consent procedures, shipment of oral drugs directly to patients' home, and increase in outpatient diagnostic studies. Importantly, some of these changes were suggested to be part of future oncology clinical trials' routine, particularly the ones regarding remote methods, such as telemedicine. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this was the first survey to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on Latin American oncology clinical trials. The results are consistent with surveys from other world regions. These findings may endorse improvements in clinical trials' processes and management in the postpandemic period.

Revamping the ever-changing landscape of drug development processes in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic.

Oncology is the frontline of drug development. The current pharmaceutical pipeline is disproportional focused on oncology, where about 1/3 of all phases of development is in this therapeutic area. The emphasis brings about substantial breakthroughs and has made positive impact on the quality of life. However, oncology remains a threat to human existence. To facilitate this process, a comprehensive list of novel/first molecularly targeted oncology drug approvals by the FDA from 2017 to 2020 is assessed. Here, we focus on molecularly targeted oncology drugs and not cytotoxic ones, although the latter remain important. To achieve this purpose, besides their sponsors, years of approval, drug classes, and cancer indications, clinical significance is included. The results show that approved molecularly targeted drugs span across diverse classes, including small molecule receptor inhibitors, and biologics such as monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, check-point inhibitors (i.e., PD1, PDL1, CTLA4) and CAR-T cell therapies. Although complete cure of cancer remains limited, we have made substantial inroads and more is yet to come. Moreover, many of these new knowledge can be extrapolated to other therapeutic areas, especially to those of currently unmet medical needs such as in neurology and other chronic diseases.

Models of Integration of Specialized Palliative Care with Oncology.

OPINION STATEMENT: Evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that early integration of specialized palliative care improves symptoms and quality of life for patients with advanced cancer. There are various models of early integration, which may be classified based on setting of care and method of palliative care referral. Most successful randomized controlled trials of early palliative care have used a model of specialized teams providing in-person palliative care in free-standing or embedded outpatient clinics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has become a prominent model for palliative care delivery. This model of care has been well received by patients and palliative care providers, although evidence to date is limited. Despite evidence from trials that routine early integration of palliative care into oncology care improves patient outcomes, referral to palliative care still occurs mostly according to the judgment of individual oncologists. This hinders equitable access to palliative care and to its known benefits for patients and their caregivers. Automated referral based on triggering criteria is being actively explored as an alternative. In particular, routine technology-assisted symptom screening, combined with targeted needs-based automatic referral to outpatient palliative care, may improve integration and ultimately increase quality of life.

Assessing the Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on the Attitudes and Practice of Italian Oncologists Toward Breast Cancer Care and Related Research Activities.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists toward breast cancer care and related research activities. METHODS: A 29-question anonymous online survey was sent by e-mail to members of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology and the Italian Breast Cancer Study Group on April 3, 2020. Only medical oncologists (both those in training and specialists) were invited to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: Out of 165 responding oncologists, 121 (73.3.%) worked in breast units. In the (neo)adjuvant setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted weekly paclitaxel (68.5% v 93.9%) and a dose-dense schedule for anthracycline-based chemotherapy (43% v 58.8%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. In the metastatic setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted first-line weekly paclitaxel for HER2-positive disease (41.8% v 53.9%) or CDK4/6 inhibitors for luminal tumors with less-aggressive characteristics (55.8% v 80.0%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. A significant change was also observed in delaying the timing for monitoring therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors, assessing treatment response with imaging tests, and flushing central venous devices. Clinical research and scientific activities were reduced in 80.3% and 80.1% of respondents previously implicated in these activities, respectively. CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists face many challenges in providing cancer care during the COVID-19 outbreak. Although most of the changes in their attitudes and practice were reasonable responses to the current health care emergency without expected major negative impact on patient outcomes, some potentially alarming signals of undertreatment were observed.

Impact of Strategies for Mitigating Delays and Disruptions in Cancer Care Due to COVID-19: Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Delays and disruptions in health systems because of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified by a previous systematic review from our group. For improving the knowledge about the pandemic consequences for cancer care, this article aims to identify the effects of mitigation strategies developed to reduce the impact of such delays and disruptions. METHODS: Systematic review with a comprehensive search including formal databases, cancer and COVID-19 data sources, gray literature, and manual search. We considered clinical trials, observational longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, case series, and case studies. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by specific tools. The mitigation strategies identified were described in detail and their effects were summarized narratively. RESULTS: Of 6,692 references reviewed, 28 were deemed eligible, and 9 studies with low to moderate methodological quality were included. Five multiple strategies and four single strategies were reported, and the possible effects of mitigating delays and disruptions in cancer care because of COVID-19 are inconsistent. The only comparative study reported a 48.7% reduction observed in the number of outpatient visits to the hospital accompanied by a small reduction in imaging and an improvement in radiation treatments after the implementation of a multiple organizational strategy. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the infrequency of measuring and reporting mitigation strategies that specifically address patients' outcomes and thus a scarcity of high-quality evidence to inform program development. This review reinforces the need of adopting standardized measurement methods to monitor the impact of the mitigation strategies proposed to reduce the effects of delays and disruptions in cancer health care because of COVID-19.

Providing Oncology Pharmacy Services During the Coronavirus Pandemic: French Society for Oncology Pharmacy (Société Francaise de Pharmacie Oncologique [SFPO]) Guidelines.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at higher risk for contracting the COVID-19 infection and are more likely to have higher morbidity and mortality. This is a big challenge for oncology teams that have to treat patients to avoid contamination by SARS-CoV-2. The aim of the current work is to present oncology pharmacy practice guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic to secure the pharmaceutical care of patients with cancer. METHODS: The bureau of the French Society for Oncology Pharmacy proposed these recommendations according to the French High Authority of Health following the Guidelines of Good Practice, slightly modified according to the pandemic crisis situation. These guidelines were developed by a working group of 7 experts in oncology pharmacy practice. Furthermore, the guidelines were assessed by 31 independent reviewers. RESULTS: One hundred percent of reviewers approved the guidelines and 90% of them suggested some improvements. The final version incorporates the best comments and consists of 26 recommendations organized in 8 different sections. CONCLUSION: These guidelines allow secure pharmaceutical management of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Major impact of COVID-19 national containment on activities in the French northern comprehensive cancer center.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has significantly impacted cancer patient management. National and local recommendations to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission have been applied in a comprehensive cancer center located in Northern France. We prospectively measured key indicators for three successive eight-week periods: directly before, during, and right after the containment (from 16 March to 10 May 2020). Overall, the number of newly diagnosed and referred cancer patients in our hospital steadily increased (1027; 1135 and then 1704; +11% during containment and +50% just after). To reduce patient transportation, teleconsultations were implemented. Teleconsulting activity steadily increased during the three periods (5, 2025, and 2351). However, a marked decrease in the number of surgical procedures was observed (448; 330 and 288; -26% during containment and -13% just after). We observed a slight decrease in the number of radiation therapy sessions (7761; 7328 and 7075; -6% during containment and -3% just after) and in day-hospital cycles of IV systemic treatment (2891; 2736 and 2717; -5% during containment and -1% just after). We observed an increase in the number of patients admitted to palliative care and a dramatic reduction in clinical trial enrollment. During this 24-week period, organizational changes were mainly characterized by an increase in newly diagnosed cancer patient referral and the implementation of protective measures, such as teleconsultations. Activities in cancer surgery have decreased while radiotherapy and chemotherapy activities were stable.