Older cancer patients and COVID-19 outbreak: Practical considerations and recommendations

Drivers and barriers of patients' acceptance of video consultation in cancer care

Background

Due to digitization in the medical sector, many healthcare interactions are switched to online services. This study assessed the acceptance of video consultations (VCs) in cancer care, and determined drivers and barriers of acceptance.

Methods

A cross-sectional online-based survey study was conducted in Germany from February 2022 to February 2023. Recruitment took place at oncology outpatient clinics, general practitioners, oncology practices and via cancer-related social media channels. Inclusion criteria were a cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment and internet access. Sociodemographic, medical data, eHealth-related data were acquired via an online assessment. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model was used to determine the acceptance of VC and its predictors.

Results

Of N = 350 cancer patients, 56.0% (n = 196) reported high acceptance of VC, 28.0% (n = 98) stated moderate acceptance and 16.0% (n = 56) indicated low acceptance. Factors influencing acceptance were younger age (β = -.28, p < .001), female gender (β = .35, p = .005), stage of disease (β = .11, p = .032), high digital confidence (β = .14, p = .010), low internet anxiety (β = -.21, p = .001), high digital overload (β = -.12, p = .022), high eHealth literacy (β = .14, p = .028), personal trust (β = -.25, p < .001), internet use (β = .17, p = .002), and the UTAUT predictors: performance expectancy (β = .24, p < .001), effort expectancy (β = .26, p < .001), and social influence (β = .34, p < .001).

Conclusions

Patients' acceptance of VC in cancer care is high. Drivers and barriers to acceptance identified should be considered for personalized applications. Considering the growing demand for cancer care establishing digital healthcare solutions is justified.

Impact of COVID-19 on older adults with cancer and their caregivers' cancer treatment experiences study: The ICE-OLD study

The COVID-19 pandemic and health services impacts related to physical distancing posed many challenges for older adults with cancer. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of the pandemic on cancer treatment plans and cancer treatment experiences of older adults (ie, aged 65 years and older) and their caregiver' experiences of caring for older adults during the pandemic to highlight gaps in care experienced. In this multi-centre qualitative study guided by an interpretive descriptive research approach we interviewed older adults diagnosed with cancer and caregivers caring for them. Participants were recruited via cancer treatment centres in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario (Vancouver and Toronto), Canada, and through an online ad sent out through patient advocacy organization newsletters. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data were analyzed using an interpretive thematic analysis approach. A total of 27 individuals (17 older adults, 52.9% female; 10 caregivers, 90% female) participated in interviews lasting on average 45 minutes. Older adults with cancer described many impacts and pressures created by the pandemic on their cancer experiences, though they generally felt that the pandemic did not impact treatment decisions made and access to care. We grouped our findings into two main themes with their accompanying sub-themes, related to: (1) alterations in the individual and dyadic cancer experience; and (2) navigating health and cancer systems during the pandemic. The additional stressors the pandemic placed on older adults during their treatment and decision-making process and their caregivers expose the need to create or avail additional supports for future disruptions in care.

Factors Associated with Online Patient-Provider Communications Among Cancer Survivors in the United States during COVID: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Online Patient-Provider Communication (OPPC) is crucial in enhancing access to health information, self-care, and related health outcomes among cancer survivors. The necessity of OPPC increased during SARS/COVID-19 (COVID), yet investigations in vulnerable subgroups have been limited.

OBJECTIVE

Thus, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of OPPC and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with OPPC among cancer survivors and adults without a history of cancer during COVID vs. pre-COVID.

METHODS

Nationally representative cross-sectional survey data (Health Information National Trends Survey, HINTS 5 2017-2020) was used among cancer survivors (n= 1,900) and adults without a history of cancer (n= 13, 292). COVID included data from February to June 2020. We calculated the prevalence of three types of OPPC, defined as using email/internet, tablet/smartphone, or Electronic Health Records (EHR) for patient-provider communication, in the past 12 months. To investigate the associations of sociodemographic and clinical factors with OPPC, multivariable-adjusted weighted logistic regression was performed to obtain odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

The average prevalence of OPPC increased from pre-COVID to COVID among cancer survivors (39.7% vs. 49.7%, email/internet; 32.2% vs. 37.9%, tablet/smartphone; 19.0% vs. 30.0%, EHR). Cancer survivors (OR=1.32, 95% CI 1.06-1.63) were slightly more likely to use email/internet communications than adults without a history of cancer prior to COVID. Among cancer survivors, email/internet (OR=1.61, 1.08-2.40) and EHR (OR=1.92, 1.22-3.02) were more likely to be used during COVID than pre-COVID. During COVID, subgroups of cancer survivors, including Hispanics (OR=0.26, 0.09-0.71 vs. non-Hispanic Whites), or those with the lowest income (OR=6.14, 1.99-18.92 $50,000 to <$75,000; OR=0.42, 1.56-11.28 ≥ $75,000 vs. <$20,000), with no usual source of care (OR=6.17, 2.12-17.99), or reporting depression (OR=0.33, 0.14-0.78) were less likely to use email/internet and those who were the oldest (OR=9.33, 2.18-40.01 age 35-49; OR=3.58, 1.20-10.70 age 50-64; OR=3.09, 1.09-8.76 age 65-74 vs. ≥75), unmarried (OR=2.26, 1.06-4.86) or had public/no health insurance (ORs=0.19-0.21 Medicare, Medicaid, or Other, vs. private) were less likely to use tablet/smartphone to communicate with providers. Cancer survivors with a usual source of care (OR=6.23, 1.66-23.39) or healthcare office visits within a year (ORs=7.55-8.25) were significantly more likely to use EHR to communicate. While not observed in cancer survivors, lower education level was associated with lower OPPC among adults without a history of cancer during COVID.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings identified vulnerable subgroups of cancer survivors who were left behind in online patient-provider communications which are becoming an increasing part of healthcare. Those vulnerable subgroups of cancer survivors with lower OPPC should be helped through multidimensional interventions to prevent further inequities.

CLINICALTRIAL

Not applicable.

Teleoncology: A Solution for Everyone? A Single-Center Experience with Telemedicine during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telehealth was rapidly implemented without previous evidence. The ONCOTELEMD study aimed to evaluate the opinion of patients attended via telemedicine during this period and to study factors that condition patient preferences on its use. Included patients had a confirmed cancer diagnosis and were contacted by telephone between 13 March and 30 April 2020, in the Medical Oncology Service of Hospital Parc Taulí, Sabadell. A 12-question survey was presented to them between 4 February and 19 April 2021. Statistical analysis was carried out using chi-square and multivariable logistic regression tests. Six hundred forty-six patients were included; 487 responded to the survey. The median age was 68 years (27-90), 55.2% were female. Most patients had a surveillance visit (65.3%) and were diagnosed with colorectal or breast cancer (43% and 26.5%, respectively); 91.8% of patients were satisfied, and 60% would accept the use of telemedicine beyond the pandemic. Patients aged more than 50 years (OR 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81; p = 0.01) and diagnosed with breast cancer (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.69; p < 0.001) were less predisposed to adopt telehealth in the future. Patients agreed to be informed via telehealth of scan or lab results (62% and 84%, respectively) but not of new oral or endovenous treatments (52% and 33.5%, respectively). Additionally, 75% of patients had a medium or low-null technologic ability, and 51.3% would only use the telephone or video call to contact health professionals. However, differences were found according to age groups (p < 0.0001). In total, patients surveyed were satisfied with telemedicine and believed telehealth could have a role following the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, our results remark on the importance of individualizing the use of telehealth, showing relevant data on patient preferences and digital literacy.

Determinants of telemedicine adoption among financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a nationwide study

PURPOSE

Telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic among financially distressed patients with cancer, with respect to the determinants of adoption and patterns of utilization, has yet to be delineated. We sought to systematically characterize telemedicine utilization in financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationwide survey data assessing telemedicine use in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic collected by Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) in December 2020. Patients were characterized as financially distressed by self-reporting limited financial resources to manage out-of-pocket costs, psychological distress, and/or adaptive coping behaviors. Primary study outcome was telemedicine utilization during the pandemic. Secondary outcomes were telemedicine utilization volume and modality preferences. Multivariable and Poisson regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with telemedicine use.

RESULTS

A convenience sample of 627 patients with cancer responded to the PAF survey. Telemedicine adoption during the pandemic was reported by 67% of patients, with most (63%) preferring video visits. Younger age (19-35 age compared to ≥ 75 age) (OR, 6.07; 95% CI, 1.47-25.1) and more comorbidities (≥ 3 comorbidities compared to cancer only) (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.65) were factors associated with telemedicine adoption. Younger age (19-35 years) (incidence rate ratios [IRR], 1.78; 95% CI, 24-115%) and higher comorbidities (≥ 3) (IRR; 1.36; 95% CI, 20-55%) were factors associated with higher utilization volume. As area deprivation index increased by 10 units, the number of visits decreased by 3% (IRR 1.03, 95% CI, 1.03-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The rapid adoption of telemedicine may exacerbate existing inequities, particularly among vulnerable financially distressed patients with cancer. Policy-level interventions are needed for the equitable and efficient provision of this service.

The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Oncology Patient Management

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way cancer patients should be managed. Using published literature on best practices on oncology patient management, we developed checklists to establish which recommendations were followed and differences between healthcare staff and institutions in a local health unit (overseeing two regional hospitals and 14 primary Healthcare Centers) in an interior region in Portugal. Checklists were delivered and completed by 15 physicians, 18 nurses and 5 pharmacists working at the Hospitals, and 29 physicians and 46 nurses from primary healthcare centers. Hospital staff do not show statistically significant differences regarding most proposed recommendations for the oncology clinical pathway, human resources, treatments, patient management and service management. Primary healthcare centers seem to follow a similar trend. As a local health unit, general recommendations for Oncology Patient Management show statistically significantly different values on education of suspected cases, identification, isolation procedures and samples collection; extension of work schedules; and education on cancer patient and COVID-19 positive referral procedures. All the checklists indicated good-to-high internal consistency. Our analysis showed cohesive work between groups regarding control and prevention of sources of infection; therefore, it is considered the highest priority to ensure that all other services, including oncology, continue functioning. Patient management measures such as adjustments in treatments, analysis, patient care, referrals and emergencies were not ranked higher by responders.

Game changer in cancer treatment in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

It is time for a game-changer in the cancer pathway in Switzerland and around the world. COVID-19 has made this more evident than ever. The prevalence, complexity, and cost of cancer care are increasing in Switzerland. Losses in efficiency, resources, and inappropriate attribution hinder health outcomes. This study examined opportunities for improvement across the cancer path, with a focus on patient-provider communication, effective policies and approaches to strengthen interprofessional collaboration.

METHODS

A qualitative study was undertaken. Key stakeholders, selected on the basis of their expertise in different areas of the cancer pathway, were assessed through interviews. The need to develop and implement innovative strategies to prevent and treat cancer was investigated, and key recommendations were identified for discussion with politicians and policy makers. Inductive content analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

There is a prominent need for collaboration and cross-sectoral action in cancer, encompassing clinical disciplines, communication strategies, and professional attitudes. The need and demand for collaboration responds to a highly fragmented cancer landscape in Switzerland, with a hierarchical organization of medical care entities and much competition. COVID-19 made these gaps more visible and highlighted the need to develop a new systematic approach and contingency plan to protect the most vulnerable.

CONCLUSION

Pressing developments are occurring in the health care system given the increasing prevalence of some cancers, the demographics of the Swiss population, the growing number of cancer survivors, and the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

POLICY SUMMARY

More fundamental solutions and policies should be developed and implemented to meet patient needs and increase health outcomes: are providers and patients taking responsibility for change? Will business interests and the power play boycott policy development? Change must start now, with policymakers, patients, providers and insurers joining forces.

The association between Memorial Sloan Kettering Frailty Index with 30-day survival among patients aged ≥ 75 with cancer and COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Advanced age and multiple comorbidities have been established as a risk factor for more severe disease and increased mortality among patients with COVID-19, yet the impact of frailty in patients with cancer 75 years and older who are admitted, remains unclear.

METHODS

To better understand the clinical presentation and course of illness for this population, we conducted a chart review of patients with cancer age 75 and older who were admitted to a comprehensive cancer center within 72 h of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis over a three-month period (March 1, 2020-May 31, 2020). Frequency and proportion of characteristics were reported. We additionally assessed the association between frailty and 30-day mortality using univariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Our cohort consisted of 70 patients. We found evidence that increased frailty based on MSK-FI was associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.00, 1.87; p-value = 0.051), though this did not meet conventional levels of significance.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed evidence of some association between degree of frailty and 30-day survival among older patients with cancer aged ≥75 who were admitted with COVID-19 infection. This finding illustrates the importance of frailty screening in the care management of older patients with cancer and COVID-19.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on care delivery and quality of life in lung cancer surgery

Background

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) (COVID‐19) pandemic and associated restrictions have altered the delivery of surgical care. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of COVID‐19 on care delivery and quality of life (QOL) from the perspectives of lung cancer surgery patients, family caregivers (FCGs), and thoracic surgery teams.

Methods

Patients/FCGs enrolled in a randomized trial of a self‐management intervention for lung cancer surgery preparation/recovery were invited to participate in this qualitative study. Patients/FCGs data were collected separately 1‐month postdischarge. Interviews were also conducted with thoracic surgery team members. Content analysis approaches were used to develop themes.

Results

Forty‐one respondents including 19 patients, 18 FCGs, three thoracic surgeons, and one nurse practitioner participated in the study. Patient themes included isolation, psychological distress, delayed/impacted care, and financial impact. FCGs themes included caregiving challenges, worry about COVID‐19, financial hardship, isolation, and physical activity limitations. Surgical team themes included witnessing patient/FCG's distress, challenges with telehealth, communication/educational challenges, and delays in treatment.

Conclusions

COVID‐19 had a varied impact on care delivery and QOL for lung cancer surgery dyads. Some dyads reported minimal impact, while others experienced added psychological distress, isolation, and caregiving challenges. Surgical teams also experienced challenges in the approach used to provide care.

Vaccine Efficacy Denial: A Growing Concern Affecting Modern Science, and Impacting Public Health

BACKGROUND

The discovery of the vaccination technique has been revealed by Edward Jenner in 1796: undoubtedly, it represents the first scientific attempt to control an infectious disease by vaccines, followed by other important studies carried out by Pasteur and Koch, and Sabin, who developed the first technique to attenuate the virus. In recent decades, numerous scholars have begun to create dangerous theories against the effectiveness of vaccines through scientifically invalid or fraudulent studies.

AIM

This critical review of the literature aims to analyse the main factors that have undermined the credibility of vaccines in the general population, to disprove false information and, on the other hand, emphasize the benefits of vaccines over the last 200 years.

DISCUSSIONS

Unfortunately, several studies have been carried out without the proper scientific rigour. The most impacting example is the study published by Andrew Wakefield in the Lancet journal that tried to correlate vaccines with the development of autism: this publication was withdrawn from the journal a few years after its publication, but the impact of incorrect scientific studies, fake news, and ambiguous healthcare policies has led to an adverse general opinion about the effectiveness of vaccines.

CONCLUSION

The excess of uncontrolled information is a serious concerning in the Coronavirus pandemic. The modern science must tackle this problem with a better willingness to communicate even the clinical studies to those people not able to understand the medical information autonomously. Nevertheless, a reliable science must also limit the dissemination of studies that do not meet the basic criteria of a methodological rigor and certainty of results, in order not to feed confusion in the scientific community.

OUP accepted manuscript

CoronaVirus disease-2019 has changed the delivery of health care worldwide and the pandemic has challenged oncologists to reorganize cancer care. Recently, progress has been made in the field of precision medicine to provide to patients with cancer the best therapeutic choice for their individual needs. In this context, the Foundation Medicine (FMI)-Liquid@Home project has emerged as a key weapon to deal with the new pandemic situation. FoundationOne Liquid Assay (F1L) is a next-generation sequences-based liquid biopsy service, able to detect 324 molecular alterations and genomic signatures, from May 2020 available at patients’ home (FMI-Liquid@Home). We analyzed time and costs saving for patients with cancer, their caregivers and National Healthcare System (NHS) with FMI-Liquid@Home versus F1L performed at our Department. Different variables have been evaluated. Between May 2020 and August 2021, 218 FMI-Liquid@Home were performed for patients with cancer in Italy. Among these, our Department performed 153 FMI-Liquid@Home with the success rate of 98% (vs. 95% for F1L in the hospital). Time saving for patients and their caregivers was 494.86 and 427.36 hours, respectively, and costs saving was 13 548.70€. Moreover, for working people these savings were 1084.71 hours and 31 239.65€, respectively. In addition, the total gain for the hospital was 163.5 hours and 6785€, whereas for NHS was 1084.71 hours and 51 573.60€, respectively. FMI-Liquid@Home service appears to be useful and convenient allowing time and costs saving for patients, caregivers, and NHS. Born during the COVID-19 pandemic, it could be integrated in oncological daily routine in the future. Therefore, additional studies are needed to better understand the overall gain and how to integrate this service in different countries.

Cancer Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) Regarding the Policies Implemented to Contain the Spread of Sars-CoV-2 and Vaccination Campaign at Veneto Institute of Oncology

PURPOSE

The SARS-CoV-2 spread has impacted Healthcare systems. COVID-19 pandemic has had consequences for patients with cancer, being associated with delays in diagnosis, in treatment And follow-up care, increase in overall infection rates and higher mortality. A survey on COVID-19 and a vaccination-questionnaire were developed at different times of the outbreak, to evaluate cancer patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) on the policies implemented to reduce the infection from SARS-CoV-2 and on the timing and methods of COVID-19 vaccination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The survey was distributed to all patients accessing the Institute during the "first-wave" Of the pandemic, evaluating patients' concerns about the pandemic, the pandemics' consequences on their cancer care, and their perception Of the measures adopted to limit the infection spread. The vaccination-questionnaire was proposed to 10% of the first 5297 cancer patients vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTechCOVID-19 vaccine. This questionnaire aimed at assessing the degree Of satisfaction with the Institutional vaccination campaign and vaccination-related adverse events.

RESULTS

From May 18th 2020 to June 15th 2020 the survey was completed by 3238 patients. Most of the responders expressed concern on the pandemic yet acknowledging their oncological disease as a priority. Measures implemented were appreciated by patients. Telemedicine was positively evaluated and the absence of the caregiver during the visit did not determine discomfort for two thirds of patients. From March 6th 2021 to May 8th 2021 the vaccination-questionnaire was completed by 357 patients. The 98.8% were satisfied with the vaccination campaign. No serious vaccination-correlated adverse events were reported. No patient had to delay/discontinue chemotherapy due to vaccination.

CONCLUSION

PREMs during COVID-19 pandemic and related vaccination can provide important information to help reorganization of the health care systems for cancer care. Patients' feedback on the organizational changes implemented in the emergency period are essential for healthcare improvement and to help informed choices that are consistent with patients' needs.

Older cancer patients and COVID-19 outbreak: Practical considerations and recommendations

Since the COVID-19 outbreak started, it has been affecting mainly older individuals. Among the most vulnerable older individuals are those with cancer. Many published guidelines and consensus papers deal with prioritizing cancer care. Given the lack of high-quality evidence for management of cancer in older patients also in normal times, it is even more stringent to provide some resources on how to avoid both undertreatment and overtreatment in this population, who as of now is twice challenged to death, due to both a greater risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as well as from cancer not adequately addressed and treated. We hereby discuss some general recommendations (implement triage procedures; perform geriatric assessment; carefully assess comorbidity; promote early integration of palliative care in oncology; acknowledge the role of caregivers; maintain active take in charge to avoid feeling of abandonment; mandate seasonal flu vaccination) and discuss practical suggestions for specific disease settings (early-stage and advanced-stage disease for solid tumors, and hematological malignancies). The manuscript provides resources on how to avoid both undertreatment and overtreatment in older patients with cancer, who as of now is twice challenged to death, due to both a greater risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as well as from cancer not adequately addressed and treated.