Multicenter evaluation of breast cancer patients' satisfaction and experience with oncology telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, teleconsultation was implemented in clinical practice to limit patient exposure to COVID-19 while monitoring their treatment and follow-up. We sought to examine the satisfaction of patients with breast cancer (BC) who underwent teleconsultations during this period.

METHODS

Eighteen centres in France and Italy invited patients with BC who had at least one teleconsultation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to participate in a web-based survey that evaluated their satisfaction (EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire [TSQ] scores) with teleconsultation.

RESULTS

Among the 1299 participants eligible for this analysis, 53% of participants were undergoing standard post-treatment follow-up while 22 and 17% were currently receiving active anticancer therapy for metastatic and localised cancers, respectively. The mean satisfaction scores were 77.4 and 73.3 for the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and TSQ scores, respectively. In all, 52.6% of participants had low/no anxiety. Multivariable analysis showed that the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 score correlated to age, anxiety score and teleconsultation modality. The TSQ score correlated to disease status and anxiety score.

CONCLUSION

Patients with BC were satisfied with oncology teleconsultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teleconsultation may be an acceptable alternative follow-up modality in specific circumstances.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions

IMPORTANCE

Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders.

RESULTS

Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Clinical Outcomes of Molecular Tumor Boards: A Systematic Review

We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with molecular tumor board (MTB) review in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes in patients with cancer who were reviewed by an MTB. To be included, studies had to report clinical outcomes, including clinical benefit, response, progression-free survival, or overall survival. Two reviewers independently selected studies and assessed quality with the Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group or the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies depending on the type of study being reviewed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included with a total of 3,328 patients with cancer. All studies included patients without standard-of-care treatment options and usually with multiple prior lines of therapy. In studies reporting response rates, patients receiving MTB-recommended therapy had overall response rates ranging from 0% to 67%. In the only trial powered on clinical outcome and including a control group, the group receiving MTB-recommended therapy had significantly improved rate of progression-free survival compared with those receiving conventional therapy.

CONCLUSION

Although data quality is limited by a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials, MTBs appear to improve clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Future research should concentrate on prospective trials and standardization of approach and outcomes.

Trends and geographic variation in women's representation as principal investigators (PI) in phase 3 gynecologic oncology clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the representation of women as principal investigators (PI) in phase 3, gynecologic oncology clinical trials.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for all phase 3 clinical trials with start dates between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020 using the search terms: "ovarian cancer", "endometrial cancer", and "cervical cancer". Trial characteristics were abstracted from the website. Gender of the PI was assessed by name, image on institutional website or by querying the trial coordinator. Trials were considered to have women's representation if women were the sole PI or among multiple co-PIs. Chi-square tests and relative risks were used to compare proportions across groups. Linear regression was used to assess trends over time.

RESULTS

200 unique clinical trials were included in this analysis, of which women were represented as PI in 76 (38%). Women were more likely to be a PI of trials funded by multiple sites than a single entity (RR = 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25, 2.61, p = 0.01), registered outside of Asia than those in Asia (RR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.11, 2.88, p = 0.02), and trials with multiple co-PIs than with one PI (RR = 1.78 (95% CI 1.18, 2.67), p = 0.01). Overall, women's representation as a PI increased by 3% annually (by year of registration, R² = 0.61, p = 0.01). This increase was most evident in trials registered in multiple continents and Europe (both 4% annually).

CONCLUSIONS

Women's representation as PIs in clinical trials has increased in the last decade. Trials funded by multiple sources outside of Asia have the highest proportion of PIs who are women. These trends may represent ongoing leadership and mentorship opportunities for women gynecologic oncologists.

The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward

The COVID-19 pandemic and the simultaneous increased focus on structural racism and racial/ethnic disparities across the United States have shed light on glaring inequities in U.S. health care, both in oncology and more generally. In this article, we describe how, through the lens of fundamental ethical principles, an ethical imperative exists for the oncology community to overcome these inequities in cancer care, research, and the oncology workforce. We first explain why this is an ethical imperative, centering the discussion on lessons learned during 2020. We continue by describing ongoing equity-focused efforts by ASCO and other related professional medical organizations. We end with a call to action-all members of the oncology community have an ethical responsibility to take steps to address inequities in their clinical and academic work-and with guidance to practicing oncologists looking to optimize equity in their research and clinical practice.

[Place of coordination of complex pathways in oncology by coordinating private nurses]

BACKGROUND

The complexity of the hospital-city care pathway is a real challenge because of the lack of coordination and communication between many stakeholders. As part of a call for projects from the General Directorate of Healthcare Provision, an experiment involving private oncology coordinating nurses was developed to address this issue. To our knowledge, there is no evaluation so far of such a protocol .

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study focused on data from the ONC'IDEC program between 2015 and 2018, where 28 private nurses provided a 24/7 hotline. The objective was to qualitatively assess the coordination of this system. The nature and number of calls, patient satisfaction and medico-economic parameters were assessed.

RESULTS

More than a hundred patients (n=114) were included in this device (mean age: 72 ± 12 years). The most frequent reasons for calls concerned the patient's general condition (35 %) and home treatment follow-ups (13 %) but also referrals to the primary doctor (4 %), which helped avoiding hospitalizations. The patients were satisfied with the experiment (overall score of 8.4/10).

DISCUSSION

Thanks to the ONC'IDEC program, patients were able to benefit from more appropriate care through a privileged interlocutor by making their care pathway more fluid and avoiding hospitalizations. It would be interesting to confirm these results by means of a study with a higher level of evidence, by comparing this protocol to conventional hospital coordination.

The Cervical Cancer Research Network (Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup) roadmap to expand research in low- and middle-income countries

Cervical cancer is a global health problem which disproportionally affects women in low- and middle- income countries. The World Health Organization recently launched its global strategy to eliminate this disease in the next two decades. For those women diagnosed today with cervical cancer better strategies are needed to improve outcome and reduce treatment-related morbidity. Clinical trials are critical to shaping future treatment, and much has been achieved already. However, such opportunities are limited in low resource settings, and the Cervical Cancer Research Network is dedicated to expanding access to new technologies in surgery, radiation, and medical oncology. In this article we review the status of the trials portfolio and outline future objectives, including the launch of a number of research grants for aspiring or established researchers in low- and middle-income settings.

Global Perspectives on Palliative Care for Cancer Patients: Not All Countries Are the Same

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The integration of cancer-related palliative care is essential to holistic, quality cancer care. While some similarities exist between countries, this manuscript will focus on five differences that impact palliative care for cancer patients including the epidemiology of cancer and related symptoms, cancer-specific integration into care, palliative care education, economic development of the country, and cultural and religious differences.

RECENT FINDINGS

The epidemiology of cancer varies around the world resulting in variable symptoms and the need for individualized approaches to palliative care. While palliative care is integrated in some countries, it is lacking in over half of the world, and specific integration into cancer care is virtually absent. Education and training are the key to expansion, and yet oncology-focused palliative care education is lacking or is not well-reported in the literature. To complicate this global lens even further are the economic disparities that exist. Low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) are resource poor and have the fewest resources and least amount of integration, and yet patients with advanced cancer are over-represented in these countries. Essential to cancer-related palliative care is a tailored approach that addresses cultural and religious differences around the globe. Palliative care is developing around the globe and yet palliative care specific for cancer patients is in its infancy. Cancer care professionals should (1) understand the epidemiologic differences that exist globally and the impact this has on palliative care, (2) integrate palliative care into the cancer care arena, (3) provide cancer-specific palliative education focused on the cancer trajectory from diagnosis through survivorship and end of life, (4) advocate for LMICs, which suffer from a lack of resources and services, and (5) understand cultural and religious differences that exist to provide holistic and sensitive cancer-related palliative care.

Otolaryngology activity in two hospitals in northern and central Italy differently affected by COVID-19 pandemic

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic had a significant impact on the Italian healthcare system, although geographical differences were present; regions in northern Italy have been the most severely affected while regions in the south of the country were relatively spared. Otolaryngologists were actively involved in the management of the pandemic. In this work, we analyzed and compared the otolaryngology surgical activity performed during the pandemic in two large public hospitals located in different Italian regions. In northern Italy, otolaryngologists were mainly involved in performing surgical tracheotomies in COVID-19 positive patients and contributed to the management of these patients in intensive care units. In central Italy, where the burden of the infection was significantly lower, otolaryngologists focused on diagnosis and treatment of emergency and oncology patients. This analysis confirms the important role of the otolaryngology specialists during the pandemic, but also highlights specific differences between two large hospitals in different Italian regions.

The Question-prompt list (QPL): Why it is needed in the Indian oncology setting?

BACKGROUND

In India, caregivers are an integral part of the illness experience, especially in cancer, to the extent that they can become proxy decision-makers for the patient. Further, owing to acute resource constraints in the Indian healthcare system, it may be difficult for oncologists to assess and elicit questions from each patient/caregiver. Consequently, there is a need to address these unique aspects of oncology care in India to improve patient outcomes and understanding of their illness and treatment. This can be achieved through a Question Prompt List (QPL), a checklist used by care recipients during medical consultations.

RECENT FINDINGS

This narrative review will first introduce research on the development and effectiveness of the QPL, and then it will highlight current gaps in oncology care in India and explore how the QPL may aid in closing these gaps. A literature search of the empirical research focused on the development, feasibility and acceptability of the QPL in oncology settings was conducted. The final review included 40 articles pertaining to QPL research. Additionally, psycho-oncology research in India centered on information needs and experiences was reviewed. Current Indian psycho-oncology research reports patients' want to be actively involved in their cancer care and a need for more illness information. However, a high demand on physicians' resources and the family caregivers' interference can be barriers to meeting patients' information/communication needs. International research demonstrates that a QPL helps structure and decrease consultation time, improves patient satisfaction with care, and improves the quality of communication during medical encounters.

CONCLUSION

QPLs for Indian patients and caregivers may focus on the scope of medical consultations to address patient needs while influencing the course and content of the patient-caregiver-physician interactions. Further, it can address the resource constraints in Indian oncology care settings, thus reducing the physician's burden.

Factors Associated With Job Satisfaction in Medical Oncology Practices: Results From a Multisite Survey

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the factors influencing job satisfaction of nurses, physicians, and advanced practice providers in ambulatory oncology settings.

BACKGROUND

Job satisfaction is essential to clinician well-being and quality of care.

METHODS

In 2017, clinicians from 29 ambulatory medical oncology practices completed anonymous paper questionnaires that examined job satisfaction, clinician-to-clinician communication, and perceptions of patient safety. Linear regression, adjusted for clustered observations, examined the relationship between job satisfaction, clinician communication, and patient safety perceptions.

RESULTS

Of 280 respondents (response rate of 68%), 85% reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their current position. Patient safety and accuracy of clinician communication were positively and significantly associated with job satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most surveyed clinicians were satisfied, 15% were dissatisfied and reported communication and safety concerns. Leadership efforts to strengthen clinician communication actions and develop positive safety cultures are promising strategies to promote clinician well-being and high-quality cancer care.

A retrospective study comparing interventions by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists in outpatient chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The differences in the clinical pharmacy services (CPS) provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists have not been sufficiently explained.

AIM

This study aimed to demonstrate the differences in direct CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for patients and physicians, and to assess the potential impact of these services on medical costs.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for outpatients who underwent chemotherapy between January and December 2016.

RESULTS

In total, 1177 and 1050 CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists, respectively, were investigated. The rates of interventions performed by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for physicians-determined treatment were 18.5% and 11.3%, respectively (p < .001). The rates of oncology and non-oncology pharmacist interventions accepted by physicians were 84.6 and 78.8%, respectively (p = .12). Level 4 and Level 5 interventions accounted for 64.6% of all oncology pharmacist interventions and 53.0% of all non-oncology pharmacist interventions (p = .03). The rates of improvement in symptoms from adverse drug reactions among patients resulting from interventions by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists were 89.4 and 72.1%, respectively (p = .02). Conservative assessments of medical cost impact showed that a single intervention by an oncology and by a non-oncology pharmacist saved ¥6355 and ¥3604, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study suggested that CPS by oncology pharmacists enable safer and more effective therapy for patients with cancer and indirectly contribute to reducing health care fees.

Blueprint for cancer research: Critical gaps and opportunities

We are experiencing a revolution in cancer. Advances in screening, targeted and immune therapies, big data, computational methodologies, and significant new knowledge of cancer biology are transforming the ways in which we prevent, detect, diagnose, treat, and survive cancer. These advances are enabling durable progress in the goal to achieve personalized cancer care. Despite these gains, more work is needed to develop better tools and strategies to limit cancer as a major health concern. One persistent gap is the inconsistent coordination among researchers and caregivers to implement evidence-based programs that rely on a fuller understanding of the molecular, cellular, and systems biology mechanisms underpinning different types of cancer. Here, the authors integrate conversations with over 90 leading cancer experts to highlight current challenges, encourage a robust and diverse national research portfolio, and capture timely opportunities to advance evidence-based approaches for all patients with cancer and for all communities.

Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?

Cancer treatment is associated with financial hardship for many patients and families. Screening for financial hardship and referrals to appropriate resources for mitigation are not currently part of most clinical practices. In fact, discussions regarding the cost of treatment occur infrequently in clinical practice. As the cost of cancer treatment continues to rise, the need to mitigate adverse consequences of financial hardship grows more urgent. The introduction of quality measurement and reporting has been successful in establishing standards of care, reducing disparities in receipt of care, and improving other aspects of cancer care outcomes within and across providers. The authors propose the development and adoption of financial hardship screening and management as an additional quality metric for oncology practices. They suggest relevant stakeholders, conveners, and approaches for developing, testing, and implementing a screening and management tool and advocate for endorsement by organizations such as the National Quality Forum and professional societies for oncology care clinicians. The confluence of increasingly high-cost care and widening disparities in ability to pay because of underinsurance and lack of health insurance coverage makes a strong argument to take steps to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer.

Continuity of Cancer Care and Collaboration Between Family Physicians and Oncologists: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Collaboration between family physicians (FPs) and oncologists can be challenging. We present the results of a randomized clinical trial of an intervention designed to improve continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration, as perceived by patients with lung cancer and their FPs.

METHODS

The intervention included (1) supplying FPs with standardized summaries related to each patient, (2) recommending that patients see their FP after receiving the cancer diagnosis, (3) supplying the oncology team with patient information resulting from FP visits, and (4) providing patients with priority access to FPs as needed. A total of 206 patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 104) or control group (n = 102), and 86.4% of involved FPs participated. Perceptions of continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration were assessed every 3 months for patients and at baseline and at the end of the study for FPs. Patient distress and health service utilization were also assessed.

RESULTS

Patients and FPs in the intervention group perceived better interprofessional collaboration (patients: P <.0001; FPs: P = .0006) than those in the control group. Patients reported better informational continuity (P = .001) and management continuity (P = .05) compared to the control group, but no differences were found for FPs (information: P = .22; management: P = .13). No effect was found with regard to patient distress or health service utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention improved patient and FP perception of interprofessional collaboration, but its effectiveness on continuity of care was less clear for FPs than for patients. Additional strategies should be considered to sustainably improve continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration.

Clinician Perspectives of COVID-19-Related Cancer Drug Funding Measures in Ontario

The COVID-19 pandemic has a significant impact on cancer patients and the delivery of cancer care. To allow clinicians to adapt treatment plans for patients, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) issued a series of interim funding measures for the province’s New Drug Funding Program (NDFP), which covers the cost of most hospital-delivered cancer drugs. To assess the utility of the measures and the need for their continuation, we conducted an online survey of Ontario oncology clinicians. The survey was open 3–25 September 2020 and generated 105 responses. Between April and June 2020, 46% of respondents changed treatment plans for more than 25% of their cancer patients due to the pandemic. Clinicians report broad use of interim funding measures. The most frequently reported strategies used were treatment breaks for stable patients (62%), extending dosing intervals (59%), and deferring routine imaging (56%). Most clinicians anticipate continuing to use these interim funding measures in the coming months. The survey showed that adapting cancer drug funding policies has supported clinical care in Ontario during the pandemic.

WORLD CANCER RESEARCH DAY: A Call to Action for a Coordinated International Research Effort to Prevent, Diagnose, and Treat Cancer

Cancer is a major public health problem and the second leading cause of death worldwide. The burden of cancer continues to grow and is projected to double by 2040. This situation calls for coordinated action and emphasizes the need to join efforts on worldwide initiatives, including World Cancer Research Day (WCRD), which aims to create and consolidate a yearly momentum to raise awareness and commitment for research on cancer. Cancer research is a key driver of advances in prevention and therapeutic strategies that will benefit tomorrow's cancer patients. In 2016, 10 international organizations partnered to launch the WCRD initiative. Five years later, a total of 89 organizations and more than half a million people have joined this global movement that helps raise awareness of the importance of cancer research, demonstrating that a collaborative research culture is essential to address current challenges and create opportunities to accelerate impactful cancer research for a better future.

Rural disparities in surgical care from gynecologic oncologists among Midwestern ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Up to one-third of women with ovarian cancer in the United States do not receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist despite guideline recommendations. We aim to investigate the impact of rurality on receiving surgical care from a specialist, referral to a specialist, and specialist surgery after referral, and the consequences of specialist care.

METHODS

We utilized a retrospective cohort created through an extension of standard cancer surveillance in three Midwestern states. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression was utilized to assess gynecologic oncologist treatment of women 18-89 years old, who were diagnosed with primary, histologically confirmed, malignant ovarian cancer in 2010-2012 in Kansas, Missouri and Iowa by rurality.

RESULTS

Rural women were significantly less likely to receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.58) and referral to a specialist (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59) compared to urban women. There was no significant difference in specialist surgery after a referral (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Rural women treated surgically by a gynecologic oncologist versus non-specialist were more likely to receive cytoreduction and more complete tumor removal to ≤1 cm.

CONCLUSION

There is a large rural-urban difference in receipt of ovarian cancer surgery from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (versus a non-specialist). Disparities in referral rates contribute to the rural-urban difference. Further research will help define the causes of referral disparities, as well as promising strategies to address them.

Epidemiology and treatment patterns for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a systematic literature review and gap analysis

BACKGROUND: Several immuno-oncology (IO) agents targeting programmed death-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) are approved second-line therapy options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy or first-line options in patients ineligible for cisplatin whose tumors express PD-L1 or for any platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 expression levels. However, literature on the epidemiology of la/mUC is limited, and real-world treatment patterns are not well established, especially with respect to therapies used following IO. OBJECTIVES: To (a) report the epidemiology of urothelial carcinoma (UC) and la/mUC; (b) identify and summarize the published literature on la/mUC treatment patterns, including IO and post-IO treatment; and (c) identify evidence gaps. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using Cochrane dual-reviewer methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Literature databases and selected congress abstracts (2017-2018) were searched for retrospective studies published January 2013-August 2018 in English reporting epidemiological and treatment data (all lines of therapy) for adult patients with la/mUC. RESULTS: Among 6,584 database references and 1,832 congress abstracts screened, 45 publications (29 manuscripts, 1 poster, 15 abstracts; reporting 37 unique studies) were retained. All studies related to treatment patterns, and the majority were from the United States (n = 17), Japan (n = 8), and the United Kingdom (n = 5). Epidemiological data were not identified among the searches thus online registries were leveraged. Among the identified publications, 21 (20 unique) reported on cisplatin versus non-cisplatin regimens, 14 (8 unique) on IO, and 9 (7 unique) on vinflunine. Cisplatin use varied both within and among countries (ranging from 18.4% in 1 U.S. study to 87.9% in 1 Japanese study). The use of IO was higher in later lines of therapy, ranging from 1.4% to 7.9% as first-line therapy to 57.8% as second-line and 64.4% as third-line therapy. Among studies reporting IO discontinuation rates, 41.4%-71% of patients were reported to discontinue IO across the studies, and the median time to discontinuation ranged from 2.7 to 5.8 months. Only 25%-35.5% of patients received subsequent therapy following IO discontinuation; post-IO treatments varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: Additional published data on the country-specific epidemiology of UC and la/mUC are needed, including rates of progression from early-stage disease to la/mUC. There was large variation in treatment rates, particularly cisplatin use, within and across countries. The few published real-world IO studies reported high levels of discontinuation with only a small percentage of patients receiving subsequent therapy. As IO therapies continue to be granted regulatory approval in countries outside the United States and novel therapies gain approval in the post-IO setting, the treatment paradigm for patients with la/mUC is shifting, and future studies with more recent data will be required. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Astellas/Seagen. Hepp is an employee of and owns stock in Seagen. Shah was a contractor for Astellas Pharma at the time of the study and owns stock in Pfizer. Smoyer is an employee and shareholder of Envision Pharma Group, paid consultants to Seagen. Vadagam was an employee of Envision Pharma Group, paid consultants to Seagen, at the time of the study. Parts of these data have been presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2019 Annual Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, LA.

How uro-oncology has been affected by COVID-19 emergency? Data from Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta Oncological Network, Italy

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically hit all Europe and Northern Italy in particular. The reallocation of medical resources has caused a sharp reduction in the activity of many medical disciplines, including urology. The restricted availability of resources is expected to cause a delay in the treatment of urological cancers and to negatively influence the clinical history of many cancer patients. In this study, we describe COVID-19 impact on uro-oncological management in Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, estimating its future impact.

METHODS

We performed an online survey in 12 urological centers, belonging to the Oncological Network of Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, to estimate the impact of COVID-19 emergency on their practice. On this basis, we then estimated the medical working capacity needed to absorb all postponed uro-oncological procedures.

RESULTS

Most centers (77%) declared to be "much"/"very much" affected by COVID-19 emergency. If uro-oncological consultations for newly diagnosed cancers were often maintained, follow-up consultations were more than halved or even suspended in around two out of three centers. In-office and day-hospital procedures were generally only mildly reduced, whereas major uro-oncological procedures were more than halved or even suspended in 60% of centers. To clear waiting list backlog, the urological working capacity should dramatically increase in the next months; delays greater than 1 month are expected for more than 50% of uro-oncological procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 emergency has dramatically slowed down uro-oncological activity in Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta. Ideally, uro-oncological patients should be referred to COVID-19-free tertiary urological centers to ensure a timely management.

Congress Approves Increase in Cancer Funding

The federal spending bill enacted by the U.S. Congress in December for fiscal year 2021 totals $1.4 trillion, plus another $900 billion in emergency COVID-19 relief funding. The $1.4 trillion includes budget increases for the NIH, NCI, and FDA that help the agencies keep pace with inflation. Research advocates say more than $10 billion in emergency supplemental funds for the NIH is urgently needed to support medical research affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Virtual Oncology Appointments during the Initial Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International Survey of Patient Perspectives

There has been rapid implementation of virtual oncology appointments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in its first wave. Our objective was to assess patterns and perspectives towards virtual oncology appointments during the pandemic among patients with cancer undergoing active treatment. We conducted an international Internet-based cross-sectional survey. Participants were eligible if they (1) were ≥18 years of age; (2) had been diagnosed with cancer (3) were currently undergoing cancer treatment, and (4) spoke English or French. Between 23 April 2020 and 9 June 2020, 381 individuals accessed the survey, with 212 actively undergoing treatment for cancer, including 27% with colorectal, 21% with breast, 7% with prostate and 7% with lung cancer. A total of 52% of respondents were from Canada and 35% were from the United States. Many participants (129, 62%) indicated having had a virtual oncology appointment during the COVID-19 pandemic and most were satisfied with their experience (83%). We found older participants (≥50 years; adjusted OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.85 compared to <50 years) and those with shortest duration of treatment (≤3 months; adjusted OR 0.06; 95% CI 0 to 0.69 compared to >12 months) were less likely to be satisfied with virtual oncology appointments. Virtual health platforms used differed across countries with higher telephone use in Canada (87%) and other countries (86%) as compared to the United States (54%; p-value < 0.05), where there was higher use of video conferencing. Altogether, our findings demonstrate favorable patient perspectives towards virtual oncology appointments experienced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.