Use of Digital Health Technology Among Older Adults With Cancer in the United States: Findings From a National Longitudinal Cohort Study (2015-2021).

BACKGROUND: Despite the benefits of digital health technology use, older adults with cancer (ie, aged 65 years) have reported challenges to technology adoption. However, there has been a lack of a good understanding of their digital health technology use patterns and the associated influential factors in the past few years. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the trends in and factors associated with digital health technology use among older adults with cancer. METHODS: The National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) data set is a national longitudinal cohort study with annual survey waves of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older. Participants were community-dwelling older adults who self-reported previous or current cancer diagnoses in each round. The study sample size of each round ranged from 1996 (2015) to 1131 (2021). Digital health technology use was defined as using the internet or online in the last month to order or refill prescriptions, contact medical providers, handle Medicare or other insurance matters, or get information about their health conditions. The association of sociodemographics, clinical factors (self-rated health, chronic conditions, difficulties in activities of daily living, dementia, anxiety, and depression), and physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery and grip strength) with digital health technology use was examined using design-based logistic regression. All statistical analyses accounted for the complex sample design. RESULTS: The prevalence of any digital health technology use increased from 36% in 2015 to 45% in 2019. In 2020-2021, which was amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it ranged from 51% to 52%. In terms of each digital health technology use behavior, in 2015, overall, 28% of older cancer survivors used digital health technology to obtain health information, followed by contacting clinicians (19%), filling prescriptions (14%), and handling insurance (11%). Greater use of digital health technology was associated with younger age, being White, having a college or higher education, having a higher income, having more comorbidities, nondementia, and having a higher gait speed. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health technology use in older adults with cancer has gradually increased, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, socioeconomic and racial disparities have remained in older cancer survivors. Additionally, older adults with cancer may have some unique features associated with digital health technology use; for example, their use of digital health may be increased by their comorbidities (ie, health care needs) and reduced by their frailty.

Early COVID-19 Hospitalizations Among New York State Residents with a History of Invasive Cancer.

Background: Individuals with a history of cancer may be more susceptible to severe COVID-19 due to immunosuppression, comorbidities, or ongoing treatment. We linked inpatient claims data on COVID-19 hospitalizations to cancer diagnoses from the New York State Cancer Registry (NYSCR) to examine associations between prior cancer diagnoses and hospitalizations for COVID-19, and factors associated with death at discharge after COVID-19 hospitalization. Methods: New York State (NYS) residents diagnosed with invasive cancer before July 1, 2021, who were alive on January 1, 2020, were identified from NYSCR data. We obtained claims data for discharge year 2020 and the first half of 2021 from NYS's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), and we linked inpatient records with COVID-19 as the primary diagnosis to cancer data from the NYSCR using deterministic matching methods. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses to examine associations of cancer case characteristics with COVID-19 hospitalization and with vital status at discharge among patients with a history of cancer. All analyses were conducted in SAS 9.4. Results: Our analysis included 1,257,377 individuals with a history of cancer, 10,210 of whom had a subsequent primary COVID-19 hospitalization. Individuals with a history of cancer were 16% more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19, compared to the general population of NYS, after adjusting for age and sex (95% CI, 14%-19%). Factors independently associated with COVID-19 hospitalization among cancer patients included older age, male sex, non-Hispanic Black race or Hispanic ethnicity, diagnosis with late-stage cancer or with multiple tumors, more recent cancer diagnosis, and New York City (NYC) residency at the time of cancer diagnosis. Factors independently associated with death at discharge among individuals with COVID-19 hospitalization and a prior cancer diagnosis included older age, male sex, non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander race or Hispanic ethnicity, residence in NYC at the time of COVID-19 hospitalization, and an active cancer diagnosis claim code at the time of COVID-19 hospitalization. Conclusion: This claims-based study identified higher risks of COVID-19 hospitalization and death at discharge among individuals with a history of cancer, and particularly those in certain demographic and diagnostic groups.

The Case of the Missing 2020 Cancers: Using Claims Data to Investigate a Deficit in Incident Cancer Case Reports to the New York State Cancer Registry in 2020.

Background: As the February 2022 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Call for Data deadlines approached, the New York State Cancer Registry had received reports for approximately 10% fewer consolidated incident cases for 2020 than expected. We used claims data to examine changes in the volume of cancer claim records during the COVID-19 pandemic and possible contributors to the deficit in cancer reports. Methods: The New York State (NYS) Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) requires reporting of all patient encounters from licensed ambulatory surgery, emergency department, and hospital inpatient and outpatient providers. Each record includes patient demographics and up to 17 diagnosis codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). For this project, we extracted 6,725,416 SPARCS records with any malignant neoplasm code for 2018 through June 2021 for NYS residents. Using SAS 9.4, we focused on comparing the cancer-related records for 2020 to the records from 2019. Results: Overall, there were 5% more cancer-related records in 2019 than in 2018 (2,009,600 vs 1,914,364), but 8.2% fewer records in 2020 (1,844,054 total) than in 2019. Looking by month and year, the number of claims in the first 2 months of 2020 exceeded the numbers from 2019 by 5%. However, a decrease in the number of claims started in March 2020, with the biggest drop in April 2020, where there was a deficit of 38.8% for cancer-related encounter reports relative to the same month the previous year. Although the numbers rose after April, the number of claims for the last half of 2020 was still 4% lower than the same time frame in 2019. There were substantial decreases in the number of records in 2020 for all encounter types and across levels of each covariate examined, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, and facility region of NYS. In analyses of all reporting facilities, facilities in New York City had a more pronounced and more prolonged drop in reporting in 2020 than facilities in the rest of the state. Conclusion: Although SPARCS data do not provide definitive evidence of decreases in incident cancer diagnoses, these data suggest that there were fewer cancers diagnosed among NYS residents in 2020. Additional analyses are needed to assess the impacts of COVID-19-related delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment on stage at diagnosis and outcomes.

Determinants of COVID-19 Disease Severity-Lessons from Primary and Secondary Immune Disorders including Cancer.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with primary and secondary immune disorders-including patients suffering from cancer-were generally regarded as a high-risk population in terms of COVID-19 disease severity and mortality. By now, scientific evidence indicates that there is substantial heterogeneity regarding the vulnerability towards COVID-19 in patients with immune disorders. In this review, we aimed to summarize the current knowledge about the effect of coexistent immune disorders on COVID-19 disease severity and vaccination response. In this context, we also regarded cancer as a secondary immune disorder. While patients with hematological malignancies displayed lower seroconversion rates after vaccination in some studies, a majority of cancer patients' risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease were either inherent (such as metastatic or progressive disease) or comparable to the general population (age, male gender and comorbidities such as kidney or liver disease). A deeper understanding is needed to better define patient subgroups at a higher risk for severe COVID-19 disease courses. At the same time, immune disorders as functional disease models offer further insights into the role of specific immune cells and cytokines when orchestrating the immune response towards SARS-CoV-2 infection. Longitudinal serological studies are urgently needed to determine the extent and the duration of SARS-CoV-2 immunity in the general population, as well as immune-compromised and oncological patients.

Patient-reported distress at a cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are conducted by health systems to improve patient-centered care. Studies have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic poses unique stressors for patients with cancer. This study investigates change in self-reported global health scores in patients with cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this single-institution retrospective cohort study, patients who completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) at a comprehensive cancer center before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified. Surveys were analyzed to assess change in the global mental health (GMH) and global physical health (GPH) scores at different time periods (pre-COVID: 3/1/5/2019-3/15/2020, surge1: 6/17/2020-9/7/2020, valley1: 9/8/2020-11/16/2020, surge2: 11/17/2020-3/2/2021, and valley2: 3/3/2021-6/15/2021). A total of 25,192 surveys among 7209 patients were included in the study. Mean GMH score for patients before the COVID-19 pandemic (50.57) was similar to those during various periods during the pandemic: surge1 (48.82), valley1 (48.93), surge2 (48.68), valley2 (49.19). Mean GPH score was significantly higher pre-COVID (42.46) than during surge1 (36.88), valley1 (36.90), surge2 (37.33) and valley2 (37.14). During the pandemic, mean GMH (49.00) and GPH (37.37) scores obtained through in-person were similar to mean GMH (48.53) and GPH (36.94) scores obtained through telehealth. At this comprehensive cancer center, patients with cancer reported stable mental health and deteriorating physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic as indicated by the PROMIS survey. Modality of the survey (in-person versus telehealth) did not affect scores.

One-Year Follow-Up of Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Anxiety among Health Workers of a French Cancer Center: The PRO-SERO-COV Study.

Infection of SARS-CoV-2 among health workers (HWs) in contact with cancer patients has been a major issue since the beginning of the pandemic. We aimed to assess the serological immune status of SARS-CoV-2 infection among these HWs. A prospective cohort study was initiated in the comprehensive cancer center of the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region (NA, France). Volunteer HWs working on March 2020 without active infection or symptoms of COVID-19 completed a self-questionnaire and had a blood test at inclusion, at 3 and 12 months. Positive serological status of SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined by anti-nucleocapsid antibodies and/or IgG anti-spike antibodies, except at 12 months due to vaccine. Half of the HWs were included (N = 517) and 89% were followed for three months (N = 500) and one year (N = 462). Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 3.5% (95% CI: 1.9-5.1), 6.2% (95% CI: 4.1-8.3), and 10% (95% CI: 7.2-12.7) on June-September 2020, September 2020-January 2021, and June-October 2021, respectively. At 12 months, 93.3% had detectable antibodies with 80% vaccinated in the first three months of vaccine availability. The COVID-19-free policy of the institution, respect for barrier gestures, high and early vaccination of HWs, and low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in NA may explain the low rate of seropositivity among the HWs of the Institut Bergonié.

Patient-Reported Outcomes, Digital Health, and the Quest to Improve Health Equity.

The theme of the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting is Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research. As we aim to partner with patients to improve their health care, digital tools have the potential to enhance patient-centered cancer care and make clinical research more accessible and generalizable. Using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) to collect patients' reports of symptoms, functioning, and well-being facilitates patient-clinician communication and improves care and outcomes. Early studies suggest that racial and ethnic minority populations, older patients, and patients with less education may benefit even more from ePRO implementation. Clinical practices looking to implement ePROs can refer to the resources of the PROTEUS Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users & Stakeholders). Beyond ePROs, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer practices have rapidly adopted other digital tools (eg, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring). As implementation grows, we must be aware of the limitations of these tools and implement them in ways to promote optimal function, access, and ease of use. Infrastructure, patient, provider, and system-level barriers need to be addressed. Partnerships across all levels can inform development and implementation of digital tools to meet the needs of diverse groups. In this article, we describe how we use ePROs and other digital health tools in cancer care, how digital tools can expand access to and generalizability of oncology care and research, and prospects for broader implementation and use.

The impact of COVID-19 on the interpretation of psycho-oncological support trial results: a quasi-experimental approach using the data from the new form of care "Integrated cross-sectoral psycho-oncology (nFC-isPO)".

OBJECTIVE: In addition to the common difficulties of ongoing trials, the COVID-19 pandemic posed several challenges to scientists worldwide and created an additional burden for vulnerable patient groups. In the nFC-isPO of individualised treatment for anxiety and depression in newly diagnosed patients with cancer caregivers (e.g. psycho-oncologists) reported elevated HADS scores in newly enrolled patients after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the question arises whether the pandemic affected HADS scores. Therefore, stratified analyses by the time of enrolment (T1) were performed for patients with 12 months of care (T3). METHODS: Patients with 12 months of care (N = 1,140) were analysed. A comparison within the regression discontinuity design according to the time points at which patients completed the baseline (T1) HADS questionnaire was conducted to examine differences between patients recruited before Q2/2020 (pre-pandemic) and after the coronavirus outbreak. Furthermore, mean HADS scores at T1 and T3 for all quarters during the study were compared. RESULTS: Mean T1 and T3 HADS scores of patients with cancer during the pandemic are only slightly higher than those of the pre-pandemic group. No significant treatment effect was observed in either the pre-pandemic (p = 0.5495, Late = 1.7711) or the post-pandemic group (p = 0.9098, LATE=-0.2933). In contrast, the average local treatment effect in the post-pandemic group suggests a minimal decrease in HADS score in the predefined range and thus a positive treatment effect for isPO. Comparison of mean HADS scores at T1 and T3 did not show a large increase by pandemic-related timepoints, however, a decrease of approximately 2-3 points over each quarter at 12 months compared to baseline is observed. CONCLUSION: The existing nFC-isPO care is resilient to crisis and may counteract external influences such as the Corona pandemic. Accordingly, the pandemic had little influence on the fears of patients with cancer in the nFC-isPO. This emphasises that psycho-oncology is vital for the reduction of stress, anxiety and depression in patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Registry on 30 October 2018 under the ID "DRKS00015326".

Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection as a marker of undiagnosed cancer: a population-based study.

No study has yet investigated if a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection represents a marker of an undiagnosed cancer. This population-based study, using the SNDS database, identified from 02/15/2020 to 08/31/2021, 41,302 individuals hospitalized in intensive care unit due to SARS-CoV-2 (ICU-gr) and 713,670 control individuals not hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 (C-gr). Individuals were matched according to year of birth, sex and French department. The cancer incidence was compared in the two groups during the follow-up period (index date-12/31/2021), using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted on matching variables, socioeconomic characteristics and comorbidities. In the ICU-gr, 2.2% (n = 897) was diagnosed with a cancer in the following months, compared to 1.5% (n = 10,944) in the C-gr. The ICU-gr had a 1.31 higher risk of being diagnosed with a cancer following hospital discharge compared to the C-gr (aHR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22-1.41). A global similar trend was found when competing risk of death was taken into account (aHR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16-1.34). A significant higher risk was found concerning renal (aHR 3.16, 95% CI 2.33-4.27), hematological (aHR 2.54, 95% CI 2.07-3.12), colon (aHR 1.72, 95% CI 1.34-2.21), and lung (aHR 1.70, 95% CI 1.39-2.08) cancers. This suggests that a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection may represent a marker of an undiagnosed cancer.

Estimating Overall and Cause-Specific Excess Mortality during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Methodological Approaches Compared.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, excess mortality has been reported worldwide, but its magnitude has varied depending on methodological differences that hinder between-study comparability. Our aim was to estimate variability attributable to different methods, focusing on specific causes of death with different pre-pandemic trends. Monthly mortality figures observed in 2020 in the Veneto Region (Italy) were compared with those forecasted using: (1) 2018-2019 monthly average number of deaths; (2) 2015-2019 monthly average age-standardized mortality rates; (3) Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) models; (4) Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) models. We analyzed deaths due to all-causes, circulatory diseases, cancer, and neurologic/mental disorders. Excess all-cause mortality estimates in 2020 across the four approaches were: +17.2% (2018-2019 average number of deaths), +9.5% (five-year average age-standardized rates), +15.2% (SARIMA), and +15.7% (GEE). For circulatory diseases (strong pre-pandemic decreasing trend), estimates were +7.1%, -4.4%, +8.4%, and +7.2%, respectively. Cancer mortality showed no relevant variations (ranging from -1.6% to -0.1%), except for the simple comparison of age-standardized mortality rates (-5.5%). The neurologic/mental disorders (with a pre-pandemic growing trend) estimated excess corresponded to +4.0%/+5.1% based on the first two approaches, while no major change could be detected based on the SARIMA and GEE models (-1.3%/+0.3%). The magnitude of excess mortality varied largely based on the methods applied to forecast mortality figures. The comparison with average age-standardized mortality rates in the previous five years diverged from the other approaches due to the lack of control over pre-existing trends. Differences across other methods were more limited, with GEE models probably representing the most versatile option.

Journal of Registry Management Continuing Education Quiz-WINTER 2022: The Case of the Missing 2020 Cancers: Using Claims Data to Investigate A Deficit in Incident Cancer Case Reports to the New York State Cancer Registry.

After reading the educational posters and completing the quiz, participants will be able to: Describe how changes in access to medical care due to COVID-19 likely affect cancer incidence ratesUnderstand how state-specific patient claims databases can be leveraged to get an early picture of the impact of COVID-19 on cancer rates.

Outcomes of Cancer Patients with COVID-19: The Virginia Commonwealth University Experience.

PURPOSE: The cancer population is significantly impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to inherent risks of infection imposed by malignancy and therapeutic agents. Evaluating risk factors in this group will lead to improved guidelines for the treatment of malignancy in the setting of a COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed 295 inpatient cancer patients positive for COVID-19 between February 2020 and December 2021 to determine specific risk factors of mortality and associated complications. Various patient characteristics were collected to evaluate outcomes in patient death, oxygen requirement, ventilatory support, and increased length of stay. RESULTS: 31 (10.5%) of 295 patients died due to COVID-19. Of those that died, the majority had hematologic cancer (48.4%). There was no difference in the odds of death among the cancer groups. Those vaccinated had a reduced risk of death (OR 0.04, CI 0-0.23). Patients with lung cancer (OR 3.69, CI 1.13-12.31), obesity (OR 3.27, CI 1.18-9.27), CHF (OR 2.68, CI 1.07-6.89) were more likely to require ventilation. Those treated with hormonal therapy had higher odds of having a prolonged admission (OR 5.04, CI 1.17-2.53). Otherwise, cancer therapy had no significant difference in any outcome. CONCLUSION: The mortality rate of cancer patients was 10.5%, lower than in other studies. Vaccinations had mortality benefits, but no effect on hypoxia, ventilator use, or LOS. Delaying cancer therapy during peak infection is likely not necessary based on the results of this study. With improved knowledge in the risks of infection and the utility of personalized precautions, both providers and patients can better prepare for another potential wave of COVID-19.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Patients.

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Severe complications have been reported to occur in 33% of patients with COVID-19 and include acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute renal failure, acute respiratory injury, septic shock, and severe pneumonia. Currently, there is no specific treatment or approved vaccine against COVID-19 and many clinical trials are currently investigating potential medications to treat COVID-19. The immunosuppressed status of some cancer patients (whether caused by the disease itself or the treatment) increases their risk of infection compared with the general population. This short review aims to focus on the impact of COVID-19 on a cancer patient and discuss management options and recommendation in addition to highlighting the currently available clinical guidelines and resources.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients in western Pennsylvania: rural-urban disparities.

PURPOSE: Disparities in cancer care persist between patients living in rural versus urban areas. The COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted concerns related to care and personal health differently in rural cancer patients. Using survey data collected from cancer patients in western Pennsylvania, we examined pandemic-related distress, concerns related to cancer care, impact on personal health, and the extent to which these differed by urban-rural residence. METHODS: Patients filled out an initial survey in August-December 2020; a second survey was completed in March 2021. The following patient concerns related to the pandemic were evaluated: threat of COVID-19 to their health, pandemic-related distress, perceptions of cancer care, and vaccine hesitancy. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine relationships between these outcomes and urban-rural residence as well as patient-related factors, including anxiety symptoms and social support. RESULTS: The study sample included 1,980 patients, 17% resided in rural areas. COVID-19 represented a major or catastrophic threat to personal health for 39.7% of rural and 49.0% of urban patients (p = 0.0017). Patients with high general anxiety were 10-times more likely to experience pandemic-related distress (p < 0.001). In the follow-up survey (n = 983), vaccine hesitancy was twice as prevalent among rural patients compared to urban (p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which perceptions of the threat of COVD-19 to personal health and vaccine hesitancy exacerbates rural-urban disparities in cancer care and prognosis warrants further study. Cancer patients may be vulnerable to heightened anxiety and distress triggered by the pandemic.

"Did I get into the twilight zone somehow?": sexual and gender minority cancer caregiver experiences during COVID.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic created new challenges for cancer patients and caregivers. Little is known about the confluence of the pandemic and people with multiple marginalized identities, such as those in the Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) community. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods pilot study using semi-structured interviews to elicit experiences of cancer among a diverse population of SGM patients and caregivers and a matched set of cisgender heterosexual (cishet) individuals. Here, we present qualitative findings focused on caregiver experiences as ascertained from the broader study. RESULTS: We discovered differences between SGM and cishet caregiving experiences, with SGM caregivers reporting less comfort in the cancer center environment; dissatisfaction with patient-provider communication; feeling excluded from their loved ones' care; and increased social isolation resulting from the caregiver experience. SGM and cishet caregivers described the detrimental impact of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest SGM caregivers experience additional burdens to cancer caregiving when compared to cishet peers. Although SGM and cishet caregivers reported challenges stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, challenges appeared greater and more acute for SGM caregivers. Pandemic-related findings point to overall gaps in SGM cancer caregiver supports that may be remedied by additional research and targeted intervention development.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on the health care utilization of cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has impacted both society and medical care. While Germany entered the first lockdown in spring 2020, the PIKKO study (Patient information, communication and competence empowerment in oncology) was still active. The intervention modules, patient navigator (PN), services of the Saarland Cancer Society (SCS), psycho-social counseling and different courses, and online knowledge database (ODB) continued to be offered, but in an adapted form. It was the aim of this supplementary survey to identify the restrictions and burdens of the pandemic containment strategies on the PIKKO patients and thus on the PIKKO study itself. Furthermore, this work shows how the PIKKO modules were used during the lockdown. METHODS: All patients in the PIKKO intervention group (IG) were invited to complete a questionnaire, n = 503. Furthermore, utilization of the SCS and log files of the ODB were analyzed. For socio-demographic data and contacts with the PN, data from the regular PIKKO surveys were used. In addition to descriptive statistics, chi²-tests, F-tests and linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: 356 patients participated in this supplemental survey. 37.6% reported restrictions. "Restrictions on accompanying persons", "ban on visits to the wards" and "protective mouth-nose-mask" were reported as the greatest burdens. 39.0% expressed fears that the restrictions would have an impact on the course of their disease. Linear regression analyses showed differences in feelings of burden among age groups (more among < 60-year-olds), gender (more among women), children in the household (more with children), and preexisting financial stress (more with financial worries). In April 2020, there was more patient contact with PNs by phone, more SCS psycho-social counseling by phone, adapted SCS course offering, but with significantly fewer participants, and high activity on the ODB. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients in the IG reported restrictions from the pandemic containment strategies and feared an impact on their recovery. However, whether a burden is perceived as heavy depends more on gender, age, or pre-existing burdens than on whether the lockdown affects PIKKO or not. The utilization of counseling, courses or the ODB despite lockdown shows the need for such services, especially in times of crisis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trial Register under DRKS00016703 (21 Feb 2019, retrospectively registered). https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00016703 .

"I Have Constant Fear": A National Qualitative Study on the Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Care and Potential Solutions to Improve the Cancer Care Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected cancer care delivery for patients, including cancellation or delays in surveillance imaging, clinic visits, and treatments. Yet, gaps remain in understanding the extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer and potential ways to overcome these impacts. METHODS: We conducted semistructured, in-depth, one-on-one qualitative interviews among adults with a past or current history of cancer in the United States. Participants from a parent quantitative survey were purposively sampled to participate in a qualitative interview. Interview questions addressed (1) experiences with cancer care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) unmet concerns regarding care and other impacts; and (3) approaches to improve patient experiences. We conducted inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-seven interviews were conducted. Four themes emerged: (1) concern regarding the risk of COVID-19 infection among patients with cancer and their families; (2) disruptions in care increased patients' anxiety about poor cancer outcomes and death from cancer; (3) significant social and economic impacts; and (4) increased social isolation and anxiety about the future. Suggestions for current clinical practice include (1) clear communication on patients' health risks; (2) increased attention to mental health needs and access to mental health services; and (3) routine use of telemedicine as frequently as possible when clinically appropriate. CONCLUSION: These rich findings reveal the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer and potential approaches to mitigate the impact from the patient perspective. The findings not only inform current cancer care delivery but also health system responses to future public health or environmental crises that may pose a unique health risk for patients with cancer or disrupt their care.