Monitoring the impact of COVID-19 in France on cancer care: a differentiated impact.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial and lasting impact on care provision, particularly in the field of cancer care. National steering has helped monitor the health situation and adapt the provision and organisation of care. Based on data from the French administrative healthcare database (SNDS) on the entire French population (67 million people), screening, diagnostic and therapeutic activity was monitored and compared 2019 on a monthly basis. A noteworthy decline in all activities (with the exception of chemotherapy) was observed during the first lockdown in France. Over the months that followed, this activity returned to normal but did not make up for the shortfall from the first lockdown. Finally, during the lockdown in late 2020, cancer care activity was conserved. In brief, in 2020, the number of mammograms decreased by 10% (- 492,500 procedures), digestive endoscopies by 19% (- 648,500), and cancer-related excision by 6% (- 23,000 surgical procedures). Hospital radiotherapy activity was down 3.8% (- 4400 patients) and that in private practice was down 1.4% (- 1600 patients). Chemotherapy activity increased by 2.2% (7200 patients), however. To summarize, COVID-19 had a very substantial impact during the first lockdown. Safeguarding cancer care activity helped limit this impact over the months that followed, but the situation remains uncertain. Further studies on the medium- and long-term impact on individuals (survival, recurrence, after-effects) will be conducted.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Oncology in Europe: Results of a European Survey.

BACKGROUND: The first COVID-19 pandemic wave hit most of the health-care systems worldwide. The present survey aimed to provide a European overview on the COVID-19 impact on surgical oncology. METHODS: This anonymous online survey was accessible from April 24 to May 11, 2020, for surgeons (n = 298) who were contacted by the surgical society European Digestive Surgery. The survey was completed by 88 surgeons (29.2%) from 69 different departments. The responses per department were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the departments, 88.4% (n = 61/69) reported a lower volume of patients in the outpatient clinic; 69.1% (n = 47/68) and 75.0% (n = 51/68) reported a reduction in hospital bed and the operating room capacity, respectively. As a result, the participants reported an average reduction of 29.3% for all types of oncological resections surveyed in this questionnaire. The strongest reduction was observed for oncological resections of hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) cancers. Of the interviewed surgeons, 68.7% (n = 46/67) agreed that survival outcomes will be negatively impacted by the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The first COVID-19 pandemic wave had a significant impact on surgical oncology in Europe. The surveyed surgeons expect an increase in the number of unresectable cancers as well as poorer survival outcomes due to cancellations of follow-ups and postponements of surgeries.

A virtual multi-disciplinary meeting is a cost-effective method of triaging referrals to a regional musculoskeletal oncology service.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In 2010, a virtual sarcoma referral model was implemented, which aims to provide a centralised multidisciplinary team (MDT) to provide rapid advice, avoiding unnecessary appointments and providing a streamlined service. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of this screening tool in reducing the service burden and expediting patient journey. METHODS AND RESULTS: All referrals made to a single tertiary referral sarcoma unit from January 2010 to December 2018 were extracted from a prospective database. Only 26.0% events discussed required review directly. 30.3% were discharged back to referrer. 16.5% required further investigations. 22.5% required a biopsy prior to review. There was a reduction in the rate of patients reviewed at the sarcoma clinic, and a higher discharge rate from the MDT in 2018 versus 2010 (p < 0.001). This gives a potential cost saving of 670,700 GBP over the 9 year period. CONCLUSION: An MDT meeting which triages referrals is cost-effective at reducing unnecessary referrals. This can limit unnecessary exposure of patients who may have an underlying diagnosis of cancer to a high-risk environment, and reduces burden on services as it copes with increasing demands during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Immunoglobin G/total antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2: A prospective cohort study of ambulatory patients and health care workers in two Belgian oncology units comparing three commercial tests.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is interfering heavily with the screening, diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients. Better knowledge of the seroprevalence and immune response after Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in this population is important to manage them safely during the pandemic. METHODS: 922 cancer patients, 100 non-cancer patients and 94 health care workers (HCW) attending the Multidisciplinary Oncology Unit of Antwerp University Hospital from 24th of March 2020 till 31st of May 2020, and the Oncology Unit of AZ Maria Middelares Hospital, Ghent, from 13th of April 2020 till 31st of May 2020 participated in the study. The Alinity® (A; Abbott) and Liaison® (D; DiaSorin) commercially available assays were used to measure SARS-CoV-2 IgG, while total SARS-CoV-2 Ig was measured by Elecsys® (R; Roche). RESULTS: In the overall study population IgG/total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were found in respectively 32/998 (3.2%), 68/1020 (6.7%), 37/1010 (3.7%) and of individuals using the A, D or R test. Forty-six out of 618 (7.4%) persons had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Seroprevalence in cancer patients (A:2.2%, D:6.2%, R:3.0%), did not significantly differ from that in non-cancer patients (A:1.1%, D:5.6%, R:0.0%), but was lower than the HCW (A:13%, D:12%, R:12%; respectively Fisher's exact test p = 0.00001, p = 0.046, p = 0.0004). A positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR was found in 6.8% of the cancer patients, 2.3% of the non-cancer patients and 28.1% of the HCW (Fisher's exact test p = 0.0004). Correlation between absolute values of the different Ig tests was poor in the cancer population. Dichotomising a positive versus negative test result, the A and R test correlated well (kappa 0.82 p McNemar test = 0.344), while A and D and R and D did not (respectively kappa 0.49 and 0.57; result significantly different p McNemar test = <0.0001 for both). The rate of seroconversion (>75%) and median absolute antibody levels (A: 7.0 versus 4.7; D 74.0 versus 26.6, R: 16.34 versus 7.32; all >P Mann Whitney U test = 0.28) in cancer patients and HCW with a positive RT-PCR at least 7 days earlier did not show any differences. However, none (N = 0/4) of the patients with hematological tumours had seroconversion and absolute antibody levels remained much lower compared to patients with solid tumours (R: 0.1 versus 37.6, p 0.003; D 4.1 versus 158, p 0.008) or HCW (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: HCW were at high risk of being infected by SARS-CoV-2 during the first wave of the pandemic. Seroprevalence in cancer patients was low in the study period. Although Ig immune response in cancer patients with solid tumours does not differ from healthy volunteers, patients with hematological tumours have a very poor humoral immune response. This has to be taken into account in future vaccination programmes in this population. SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests have divergent results and seem to have little added value in the management of cancer patients.

Management of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: The Italian perspective on the second wave.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been an overwhelming challenge for worldwide health systems. Since the beginning of year 2020, COVID-19 has represented a potential harm for cancer patients and has often hindered oncology care. The Collegio Italiano dei Primari Oncologi Medici (CIPOMO) is an Italian association of head physicians in oncology departments, which promotes working and research activities in oncology on a national basis. During the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic, the CIPOMO promoted a national survey aiming to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on oncologists' clinical activity and what changes have been made compared with the Italian situation during the first wave of the pandemic. Overall, 138 heads of medical oncology departments participated in this survey: 75 (54%) from the North, 24 (17%) from the Centre and 39 (28%) from the South of Italy and islands. This survey provides an overview of Italian oncologists facing the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic. The lesson learned during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic has led to a better organisation of clinical activities, and regular testing among healthcare practitioners, with better chances to grant patients' protection. However, the lack of standardised informatic platforms results in serious challenges in replacing frontal visits, often making a concrete reduction of patients' hospital accesses unfeasible. Oncologists need to keep preserving the continuum of care of patients. Standardisation of safety measures, together with the implementation of informatic platforms, can significantly improve oncology pathways during this second wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on Provided Healthcare. Evidence From the Emergency Phase in Italy.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic led to an emergency scenario within all aspects of health care, determining reduction in resources for the treatment of other diseases. A literature review was conducted to identify published evidence, from 1 March to 1 June 2020, regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the care provided to patients affected by other diseases. The research is limited to the Italian NHS. The aim is to provide a snapshot of the COVID-19 impact on the NHS and collect useful elements to improve Italian response models. Data available for oncology and cardiology are reported. National surveys, retrospective analyses, and single-hospital evidence are available. We summarized evidence, keeping in mind the entire clinical pathway, from clinical need to access to care to outcomes. Since the beginning, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduced access to inpatient (-48% for IMA) and outpatient services, with a lower volume of elective surgical procedures (in oncology, from 3.8 to 2.6 median number of procedures/week). Telehealth may plays a key role in this, particularly in oncology. While, for cardiology, evidence on health outcome is already available, in terms of increased fatality rates (for STEMI: 13.7 vs. 4.1%). To better understand the impact of COVID-19 on the health of the population, a broader perspective should be taken. Reasons for reduced access to care must be investigated. Patients fears, misleading communication campaigns, re-arranged clinical pathways could had played a role. In addition, impact on other the status of other patients should be mitigated.

Maintaining surgical care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative cohort study at a tertiary gynecological cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the cornerstone of gynecological cancer management, but inpatient treatment may expose both patients and healthcare staff to COVID-19 infections. Plans to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been implemented widely, but few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these plans in maintaining safe surgical care delivery. AIM: To evaluate the effects of mitigating plans implemented on the delivery of gynecological cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A comparative cohort study of patients treated in a high-volume tertiary gyneoncological centre in the United Kingdom. Prospectively-recorded consecutive operations performed and early peri-operative outcomes during the same calendar periods (January-August) in 2019 and 2020 were compared. RESULTS: In total, 585 operations were performed (296 in 2019; 289 in 2020). There was no significant difference in patient demographics. Types of surgery performed were different (p = 0.034), with fewer cytoreductive surgeries for ovarian cancer and laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.002) in 2020. There was no difference in intra-operative complication rates, critical care admission rates or length of stay. One patient had confirmed COVID-19 infection (0.4%). The 30-day post-operative complication rates were significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019 (58 [20.1%] versus 32 [10.8%]; p = 0.002) for both minor and major complications. This increase, primarily from March 2020 onwards, coincided with the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining surgical throughput with meticulous and timely planning is feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic but this was associated with an increase in post-operative complications due to a multitude of reasons.

How COVID-19 pandemic affected cancer progression: Three different scenarios evidenced by PET imaging.

COVID-19 pandemic is having a strong impact on healthcare providers around the world, by refocusing and reducing non-essential medical activities. Nuclear medicine departments among others, have been reorganizing and reprioritizing diagnostic and theragnostic procedures. This reorganizing had a negative impact on the supply of positron emission tomography (PET) services to oncologic patients, whose health was affected. We herein present the PET findings in three different cancer scenarios in which disease course was dramatically affected by the COVID-19 outbreak.

Back to (new) normality-A CODRAL/AIRO-L survey on cancer radiotherapy in Lombardy during Italian COVID-19 phase 2.

BACKGROUND: Italy experienced one of the world's severest COVID-19 outbreak, with Lombardy being the most afflicted region. However, the imposed safety measures allowed to flatten the epidemic curve and hence to ease the restrictions and inaugurate, on the 4th of May 2020, the Italian phase (P) 2 of the pandemic. The present survey study, endorsed by CODRAL and AIRO-L, aimed to assess how radiotherapy (RT) departments in Lombardy have dealt with the recovery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire dealing with the management of pandemic was developed online and sent to all CODRAL Directors on the 10th of June 2020. Answers were collected in full anonymity one week after. RESULTS: All the 33 contacted RT facilities (100%) responded to the survey. Despite the scale of the pandemic, during P1 14 (42.4%) centres managed to safely continue the activity (≤ 10% reduction). During P2, 10 (30.3%) centres fully recovered and 14 (42.4%) reported an increase. Nonetheless, 6 (18.2%) declared no changes and, interestingly, 3 (9.1%) reduced activities. Overall, 21 centres (63.6%) reported suspected or positive cases within healthcare workforce since the beginning of the pandemic. Staff units were quarantined in 19 (57.6%) and 6 (18.2%) centres throughout P1 and P2, respectively. In the two phases, about two thirds centres registered positive or suspected cases amongst patients. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a particular attention to anti-contagion measures and a return to normal or even higher clinical workload in most RT centres in Lombardy, necessary to carry out current and previously deferred treatments.

A cohort study of 30 day mortality after NON-EMERGENCY surgery in a COVID-19 cold site.

BACKGROUND: Two million non-emergency surgeries are being cancelled globally every week due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which will have a major impact on patients and healthcare systems. METHODS: During the peak of the pandemic in the United Kingdom, we set up a multicentre cancer network amongst 14 National Health Service institutions, performing urological, thoracic, gynaecological and general surgical urgent and cancer operations at a central COVID-19 cold site. This is a cohort study of 500 consecutive patients undergoing surgery in this network. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality from COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and post-operative complications at 30-days. RESULTS: 500 patients underwent surgery with median age 62.5 (IQR 51-71). 65% were male, 60% had a known diagnosis of cancer and 61% of surgeries were considered complex or major. No patient died from COVID-19 at 30-days. 30-day all-cause mortality was 3/500 (1%). 10 (2%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, 4 (1%) with confirmed laboratory diagnosis and 6 (1%) with probable COVID-19. 33/500 (7%) of patients developed Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complications, with 1/33 (3%) occurring in a patient with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: It is safe to continue cancer and urgent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate service reconfiguration.

Response of an oncology unit in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused an emergency in health systems worldwide. Apart from its apparent morbidity and mortality, COVID-19 has also imposed unique challenges in the management of cancer patients. We report here measures taken by a major oncology Unit in Greece to continue operation of the department while ensuring safety of the patients and health care professionals. The efficacy of these measures could serve as guidance for Oncology departments in view of a second wave of COVID-19 cases.

Applying Lessons Learned From Low-Resource Settings to Prioritize Cancer Care in a Pandemic.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced oncology clinicians and administrators in the United States to set priorities for cancer care owing to resource constraints. As oncology practices adapt to a contracted health care system, expertise gained from partnerships in low-resource settings can be used for guidance. This article provides a primer on priority setting in oncology and ethical guidance based on lessons learned from experience with cancer care priority setting in low-resource settings. Observations: Lessons learned from real-world experiences are myriad. First, in the setting of limited resources, a utilitarian approach to maximizing survival benefit should guide decision-making. Second, conflicting principles will often arise among stakeholders and decision makers. Third, fair decision-making procedures should be established to ensure moral legitimacy and accountability. Fourth, proactive safeguards must be implemented to protect vulnerable individuals, or disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes will only widen further. Fifth, communication with patients and families about priority setting decisions should be intentional and standardized. Sixth, moral distress among clinicians must be addressed to avoid burnout during a time when resilience is critical. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the need to triage cancer care may be new to those who underwent training and now practice oncology in high-resource settings, it is familiar for those who practice in low- and middle-income countries. Oncologists in the United States facing unprecedented decisions about prioritization can draw on ethical frameworks and lessons learned from real-world cancer care priority setting in resource-constrained environments.

Covid-19 in patients with hematological and solid cancers at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are considered a high-risk group for viral pneumonia, with an increased probability of fatal outcome. Here, we investigated the clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with solid and hematological cancers and concomitant Covid-19 at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in a Covid-19 hotspot area in Germany. METHODS: We performed a retrospective single center cohort study of 39 patients with hematological and solid cancers who were hospitalized at the University Hospital Freiburg for Covid-19. Using univariate and multivariate Cox regression models we compared time to severe events and overall survival to an age-matched control cohort of 39 patients with confirmed Covid-19 without a cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: In the cancer cohort 29 patients had a diagnosis of a solid tumor, and 10 had a hematological malignancy. In total, eight patients (21%) in the cancer and 14 patients (36%) from the noncancer cohort died during the observation period. Presence of a malignancy was not significantly associated with survival or time to occurrence of severe events. Major influences on mortality were high IL-6 levels at Covid-19 diagnosis (HR = 6.95, P = .0121) and age ≥ 65 years (HR = 6.22, P = .0156). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to an age-matched noncancer cohort, we did not observe an association between a cancer diagnosis and a more severe disease course or higher fatality rate in patients with Covid-19. Patients with a hematological malignancy showed a trend towards a longer duration until clinical improvement and longer hospitalization time compared to patients with a solid cancer. Cancer per se does not seem to be a confounder for dismal outcome in Covid-19.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in oncology healthcare professionals and patients with cancer at a tertiary care centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 outbreak, healthcare professionals (HCP) are at the frontline of clinical management and at increased risk for infection. The SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of oncological HCP and their patients has significant implications for oncological care. METHODS: HCP and patients with cancer at the Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna were included between 21 March and 4 June and tested for total antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 employing the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Reactive samples were confirmed or disproved by the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG test. Additionally, a structured questionnaire regarding basic demographic parameters, travel history and COVID-19-associated symptoms had to be completed by HCP. RESULTS: 146 subjects (62 HCP and 84 patients with cancer) were enrolled. In the oncological HCP cohort, 20 (32.3%) subjects were medical oncologists, 28 (45.2%) nurses at our ward and 14 (22.6%) fulfil other functions such as study coordinators. In the patient cohort, most individuals are on active anticancer treatment (96.4%). 26% of the HCP and 6% of the patients had symptoms potentially associated with COVID-19 since the end of February 2020. However, only in 2 (3.2%) HCP and in 3 (3.6%) patients, anti-SARS-Cov-2 total antibodies were detected. The second assay for anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG antibodies confirmed the positive result in all HCP and in 2 (2.4%) patients, suggesting an initial assay's unspecific reaction in one case. In individuals with a confirmed test result, an active COVID-19 infection was documented by a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR test. CONCLUSION: Specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were found solely in persons after a documented SARS-CoV-2 viral infection, thus supporting the test methods' high sensitivity and specificity. The low prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in our cohorts indicates a lack of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. It highlights the need for continued strict safety measures to prevent uncontrolled viral spread among oncological HCPs and patients with cancer.

Timing and delay of radical prostatectomy do not lead to adverse oncologic outcomes: results from a large European cohort at the times of COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The current COVID-19 pandemic is transforming our urologic practice and most urologic societies recommend to defer any surgical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) patients. It is unclear whether a delay between diagnosis and surgical management (i.e., surgical delay) may have a detrimental effect on oncologic outcomes of PCa patients. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of surgical delay on oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Data of 926 men undergoing radical prostatectomy across Europe for intermediate and high-risk PCa according to EAU classification were identified. Multivariable analysis using binary logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard model tested association between surgical delay and upgrading on final pathology, lymph-node invasion (LNI), pathological locally advanced disease (pT3-4 and/or pN1), need for adjuvant therapy, and biochemical recurrence. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate BCR-free survival after surgery as a function of surgical delay using a 3 month cut-off. RESULTS: Median follow-up and surgical delay were 26 months (IQR 10-40) and 3 months (IQR 2-5), respectively. We did not find any significant association between surgical delay and oncologic outcomes when adjusted to pre- and post-operative variables. The lack of such association was observed across EAU risk categories. CONCLUSION: Delay of several months did not appear to adversely impact oncologic results for intermediate and high-risk PCa, and support an attitude of deferring surgery in line with the current recommendation of urologic societies.

How Is Morocco Reacting to COVID-19 Crisis in Anticancer Centers?

The world is facing the pandemic linked to COVID-19 virus infection that has rapidly spread worldwide, and severe complications have been reported to occur in around a third of patients. To date, there is no approved vaccine or specific therapy against COVID-19, but many trials are ongoing with some of them showing promising results. It has been shown recently that patients with cancer are at high risk of infection and they are more susceptible to develop severe events such as the necessity of invasive ventilation and death. Therefore, this crisis presents a real challenge for health systems especially in low- and middle-income countries where the health systems are already fragile such as African countries. In this article, we describe the epidemiological situation of the infection in Morocco and the different challenges in cancer centers in the era of COVID-19, in addition to various strategies that have been implemented to prevent and control the infection spread in oncological units in order to ensure the continuation of adequate cancer care.