Patient perspectives on chemotherapy de-escalation in breast cancer

Putting Patients First: Pragmatic Trials in Gynecologic Oncology

In November 2024, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada hosted a 2-day, interdisciplinary Pragmatic Clinical Trials (PCTs) Workshop with the goal of launching an initiative to develop and promote PCTs within the Canadian gynecologic oncology research environment. The programme brought together multiple stakeholders, including patients with ovarian cancer, patient advocates, experts in PCTs, gynecologic oncologists, medical oncologists and clinical fellows. Foundational elements of pragmatism were emphasized in the context of the primary goal of PCTs, showing the real-world effectiveness of interventions in broad patient groups. Examples of how PCT outcomes can inform and influence clinical decision making and health policy were presented in the context of those outcomes that matter most to patients with cancer. The patients and patient advocates had the essential role of helping clinical investigators co-design PCT protocols to answer common, important, and practical questions that focus on outcomes that matter to patients. These endpoints included overall survival, quality of life and promotion of informed patient decision making. Tangible workshop outcomes included the development of several new proposals for PCTs inspirited and directed by the patient voice. Further educational initiatives to engage clinical gynecologic oncology investigators at all stages in their career are being planned.

Challenges and opportunities to address the emerging burden of targeted therapies in ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer (OC) poses a significant socio-economic burden globally with the greatest impact observed in low-and-middle income countries (LMIC). Despite the survival benefit from targeted therapies such as bevacizumab and poly (ADP- ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, they are associated with high costs to patients and payers which widens the disparities between high and low-income countries. OC treatments may also cause significant morbidity from cytoreductive surgery through to the use of targeted therapies reducing quality of life (QoL). Innovative approaches are necessary to address the increasing burden from the cost and morbidity of OC treatment especially in LMIC. De-escalation of treatment without compromising oncological outcomes could be a strategy to reduce financial cost and morbidity. Moreover, de-escalation techniques integrating the knowledge of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics for dose reduction should be incorporated into clinical trials to identify the minimum effective dose rather than the maximum tolerated with the goal of reducing clinical and financial toxicity. This review summarises the health and economic burden of ovarian cancer with particular reference to LMIC and proposes de-escalation of targeted therapy as a clinical and economic strategy in increasing accessibility and affordability with consideration of patient preferences.

Patient and Family Caregiver Perspectives on Therapy De-Escalation in Cancer: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Cancer therapy de-escalation aims to reduce treatment intensity, minimizing the burden of short- and long-term toxicities on patients and family caregivers while maintaining current survival rates. While this approach holds potential benefits, it comes at a risk of worse patient health outcomes or treatment failure. An understanding of patient and family caregiver perspectives regarding cancer therapy de-escalation is required to design successful patient-and-caregiver-informed clinical trials, and optimally provide related patient-centered care.

AIM

To identify and synthesize the literature about patient and family caregiver perspectives of cancer therapy de-escalation to guide clinical care, research, decision-support resources, and education.

METHODS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, a systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies involving patients of all ages and cancer diagnoses and their family caregivers that focused on perceptions of cancer therapy de-escalation. Extracted data were organized according to the Framework for De-implementation in Cancer Care Delivery. Study quality was appraised.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included. De-escalation perspectives varied between patients and family caregivers, with factors including clinician trust and desire to improve quality of life noted as influential in de-escalation decisions. The decision-making process could be better supported through the provision of timely patient and family caregiver information and clinician communication training.

CONCLUSION

Cancer therapy de-escalation decisions are complex and multifactorial. Future research exploring which factors influence patient and family decision-making may offer insight into the design of optimal informational and supportive interventions.

Telaglenastat as an alternative to cisplatin as a radiosensitizer in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

The efficacy of radiation treatment (RT) of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is limited by radioresistance and the toxicity of FDA approved radiosensitizers. In extension to our previous research where we demonstrated that telaglenastat (CB839) increased efficacy of RT in in vitro and in vivo HNSCC models, here, we examine the radiosensitizing effects of telaglenastat in comparison to cisplatin's, as cisplatin is currently the standard of care for concurrent therapy. Combination of telaglenastat with RT reduced tumor volume in a HNSCC patient derived xenograft mouse model. The efficacy of telaglenastat with RT in reducing cell survival and increasing apoptosis was similar if not greater than that of cisplatin with RT in Cal27 and HN5 HNSCC cells. The addition of telaglenastat increased reactive oxygen species and reduced the antioxidant glutathione in both Cal27 and HN5 cells. Reverse Phase Protein Array analyses revealed alterations in cell death and DNA damage response proteins. This study provides the scientific underpinnings for the use of telaglenastat as a radiosensitizer in the treatment of HNSCC either as an alternative to cisplatin or in cisplatin-ineligible patients.

Optimizing Postneoadjuvant Treatment in Patients With Early Breast Cancer Achieving Pathologic Complete Response

pCR should be integrated with other prognostic factors to optimize postneoadjuvant treatments in BC.

Elements of successful patient involvement in clinical cancer trials: a review of the literature

Patient involvement in clinical cancer research has gained much ground in the past few years and studies demonstrated positive outcomes of such involvement. Yet, they also indicated a lack of evidence around best methods and practices to achieve successful patient involvement. The aim of this literature review was to provide a synthesis of elements contributing to successful and meaningful ways of involving patients in oncology trials across different stages of research. This synthesis can offer practical support to researchers in their patient involvement journey. A PubMed literature search for original articles published between 2012 and early 2023 was carried out. In total, 3132 articles were identified, among which 152 were fully assessed for eligibility. Thirty-three articles met the predefined inclusion criteria and were subjected to a quality checklist. Patient involvement occurred most often in the development stage of cancer trials (85%) and was continuous and integrated throughout the entire lifecycle of research (67%). In total, 58 elements of successful patient involvement were identified, such as clearly defined roles and responsibilities of patient partners, input of multiple patients to ensure diversity, and regular touchpoints in the project. All these elements can be applied in future studies from the planning stage to the dissemination of study results. This review provides a set of practical recommendations that can be used by the cancer research community when planning to involve or already involving patients in their clinical trial activities.

The REthinking Clinical Trials Program Retreat 2023: Creating Partnerships to Optimize Quality Cancer Care

Patients, families, healthcare providers and funders face multiple comparable treatment options without knowing which provides the best quality of care. As a step towards improving this, the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) pragmatic trials program started in 2014 to break down many of the traditional barriers to performing clinical trials. However, until other innovative methodologies become widely used, the impact of this program will remain limited. These innovations include the incorporation of near equivalence analyses and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical trial design. Near equivalence analyses allow for the comparison of different treatments (drug and non-drug) using quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data. AI offers unique opportunities to maximize the information gleaned from clinical trials, reduces sample size estimates, and can potentially "rescue" poorly accruing trials. On 2 May 2023, the first REaCT international symposium took place to connect clinicians and scientists, set goals and identify future avenues for investigator-led clinical trials. Here, we summarize the topics presented at this meeting to promote sharing and support other similarly motivated groups to learn and share their experiences.

A conceptual framework for cautious escalation of anticancer treatment: How to optimize overall benefit and obviate the need for de-escalation trials

BACKGROUND

The developmental workflow of the currently performed phase 1, 2 and 3 cancer trial stages lacks essential information required for the determination of the optimal efficacy threshold of new anticancer regimens. Due to this there is a serious risk of overdosing and/or treating for an unnecessary long time, leading to excess toxicity and a higher financial burden for society. But often post-approval de-escalation trials for dose-optimization and treatment de-intensification are not performed due to failing resources and time. Therefore, the developmental workflow needs to be restructured toward cautious systemic cancer treatment escalation, in order to guarantee optimal efficacy and sustainability.

METHODS

In this manuscript we discuss opportunities to produce the information needed for cautious escalation, based on models of cancer growth and cancer kill kinetics as well as exploratory biomarkers, for the purpose of designing the optimal phase 3 superiority trial. Subsequently, we compare the sample size needed for a phase 3 superiority trial, followed by a necessary de-escalation trial with the sample size needed for a multi-arm phase 3 trial with intervention arms of differing intensity. All essential items are structured within a Framework for Cautious Escalation (FCE). The discussion uses illustrations from the breast cancer setting, but aims to be applicable for all cancers.

RESULTS

The FCE is a promising model of clinical development in oncology to prevent overtreatment and associated issues, especially with regard to the number of repetitive treatment cycles. It will hopefully increase the relevance and success rate of clinical trials, to deliver improved patient-centric outcomes.

Physicians' Hierarchy of Tumor Biomarkers for Optimizing Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Care

BACKGROUND

Tumor biomarkers are regularly used to guide breast cancer treatment and clinical trial enrollment. However, there remains a lack of knowledge regarding physicians' perspectives towards biomarkers and their role in treatment optimization, where treatment intensity is reduced to minimize toxicity.

METHODS

Thirty-nine academic and community oncologists participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews, providing perspectives on optimization approaches to chemotherapy treatment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by 2 independent coders utilizing a constant comparative method in NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. A framework outlining physicians' conception of biomarkers, and their comfortability with their use in treatment optimization, was developed.

RESULTS

In the hierarchal model of biomarkers, level 1 is comprised of standard-of-care (SoC) biomarkers, defined by a strong level of evidence, alignment with national guidelines, and widespread utilization. Level 2 includes SoC biomarkers used in alternative contexts, in which physicians expressed confidence, yet less certainty, due to a lack of data in certain subgroups. Level 3, or experimental, biomarkers created the most diverse concerns related to quality and quantity of evidence, with several additional modulators.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that physicians conceptualize the use of biomarkers for treatment optimization in successive levels. This hierarchy can be used to guide trialists in the development of novel biomarkers and design of future trials.

"Clinical trials are space travel": Factors of psychological response to recurrence among oncologists enrolling patients in treatment optimization trials

BACKGROUND

Cancer recurrence after treatment is a concern for patients and oncologists alike. The movement towards treatment optimization, with trials testing less than the current standard of care (SoC), complicates this experience. Our objective was to assess oncologists' psychological response to patient recurrence on optimization-focused trials and identify factors that influence those experiences.

METHODS

Clinical oncologists participated in a semi-structured interview regarding patient enrollment in treatment optimization trials. We identified factors that influence the degree of psychological response that the oncologist may feel after patient recurrence. Residual agreement analysis was used to identify whether differences in reported psychological response was associated with alternative emphases on identified factors.

RESULTS

Thirty-six oncologists identified 20 factors spanning five major themes that affected their psychological response to patient recurrence. All oncologists expressed willingness to enroll patients in treatment optimization clinical trials; however, half indicated that they were more likely to experience a negative psychological response after a treatment optimization trial than after a traditional intensification trial, and a quarter reported that patient recurrence on an optimization trial would impact their recommendations for future trial enrollment. Oncologists who reported more negative psychological responses to patient recurrence after participation in an optimization trial were more likely to emphasize introspective factors, while those who reported no difference in response emphasized patient- and process-focused factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most oncologists recognize the importance of treatment optimization trials, a significant proportion indicated a greater potential for psychological distress following patient recurrence in such trials and offered insight into how trial design and the process of patient enrollment can be improved to minimize those negative psychological responses.

Survival Outcome and Predictors of Survival in Elderly Breast Cancer Patients following Curative Treatment

Anoop TMObjectives  The lack of data on management of elderly breast cancer patients' population makes most oncologists reluctant to treat them with the standard treatment protocols as advised for the younger patients. This study was done to identify the survival outcome and predictors of survival in elderly breast cancer patients treated with curative intent. Materials and Methods  Newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer aged more than 65 years who received treatment with curative intent were included. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Survival curves were compared using log-rank test. Cox regression analysis was done to find out the predictors of DFS. Results  This study included 112 elderly breast cancer patients. In our patient population, 79 (70.5%) were less than or equal to 70 years of age and 33 (29.5%) were more than or equal to 70 years. Median age was 68 years. Charlson comorbidity index score was six and above in 31 (28.1) patients. Median DFS in our study was 46 months. Median DFS was not reached in patients less than or equal to 70 years of age, whereas it was 50 months (47-53) among patients more than or equal to 70 years of age, p -value-0.009. In univariate analysis, age more than or equal to 70 years and locally advanced breast cancer were the predictors of DFS with hazard ratio (HR) of 2.8 (1.2-6.69), p -value 0.013 and 2.9 (1.12-7.6), and 0.027, respectively. In multivariate analysis, age more than or equal to 70 years was the only significant predictors of DFS with HR of 2.8 (1.2-6.5) and p -value of 0.015. Conclusion  Standard curative intent treatment was well tolerable among elderly patents. Elderly age more than 70 years was a unique predictor of DFS. We need to incorporate tools to assess life expectancy and functional status that will help us predict toxicity of treatment and survival advantage more precisely.

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Enrolling Patients in Optimization Trials That Test Less Intense Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

As outcomes improve in early-stage breast cancer, clinical trials are undergoing a paradigm shift from intensification trials (more therapy) to improve survival to optimization trials, which assess the potential for using less toxic therapy while preserving survival outcomes. However, little is known about physician perspectives in community and academic settings about possible barriers and facilitators that could affect accrual to optimization clinical trials and the generalizability of future findings.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of medical oncologists from different academic and community practices to assess their perspectives on optimization trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Three independent coders used a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

All 39 physicians reported that they would enroll patients in optimization clinical trials. Oncologists highlighted specific reasons to consider optimization trials. These included quality-of-life improvement by reducing toxicity, reduction in financial toxicity, fertility preservation, ability to avoid chemotherapy, minimization of overtreatment in patients with comorbid conditions, personalized treatment, opportunities to test novel therapies, and leveraging the availability of targeted therapies. Oncologists also identified accrual barriers, such as tumor-specific biology, individual (host) factors, prognostic markers of risk, access to therapies, provider experience, and system constraints. They voiced recommendations regarding preliminary data, trial design, and tools to support enrollment in optimization trials.

CONCLUSION

Although oncologists are generally willing to enroll patients on optimization clinical trials, barriers affect their acceptance. A scientific focus on overcoming these barriers is needed to support future enrollment on trials tailoring therapy on the basis of risk and potential benefit to allow true personalization of treatment.

Treatment discontinuation, patient-reported toxicities and quality-of-life by age following trastuzumab emtansine or paclitaxel/trastuzumab (ATEMPT)

In the ATEMPT trial, adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) compared to paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) for stage I HER2-positive breast cancer improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs), while maintaining excellent disease outcomes. We report treatment discontinuation and use multivariable models to compare, patient-reported toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) by age (≤50, >50) and treatment arm at 18 months post-enrollment among 366 eligible participants randomized in a 3:1 ratio to T-DM1 or TH. T-DM1 discontinuation was higher among women >50 vs. ≤50 (23% vs. 9%, p = 0.003, Fisher's Exact test) with 4%, 8%, and 17% of older patients discontinuing treatment by 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. Superior QOL with T-DM1 vs. TH was observed among women ≤50 with estimated mean difference of 6.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-12.46) and driven by better social/family well-being and breast cancer-specific sub-scores. Among women >50, T-DM1 was associated with superior physical well-being and less activity impairment, with no differences in global QOL. Older women had decreased neuropathy with T-DM1 vs. TH. De-escalated treatment regimens for HER2 positive breast cancer may have age-varying impact on treatment tolerance, toxicities and subsequent QOL, which should be considered when selecting therapy options.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01853748.

Physician Perspectives on Reducing Curative Cancer Treatment Intensity for Populations Underrepresented in Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Historically, clinical trials involved adding novel agents to standard of care to improve survival. There has been a shift to an individualized approach with testing less intense treatment, particularly in breast cancer where risk of recurrence is low. Little is known about physician perspectives on delivering less intense treatment for patients who are not well represented in clinical trials.

METHODS

Open-ended, individual qualitative interviews with medical oncologists explored their perspectives on trials that test less intense treatment for patients with cancer, with a focus on breast cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

Of the 39 participating physicians, 61.5% felt comfortable extrapolating, 30.8% were hesitant, and 7.7% would not feel comfortable extrapolating trial outcomes to underrepresented populations. Facilitators of comfort included the sentiment that "biology is biology" (such that the cancer characteristics were what mattered), the strength of the evidence, inclusion of subset analysis on underrepresented populations, and prior experience making decisions with limited data. Barriers to extrapolation included potential harm over the patient's lifetime, concerns about groups that had minimal participants, application to younger patients, and extending findings to diverse populations. Universally, broader inclusion in trials testing lowering chemotherapy was desired.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority (92%) of physicians reported that they would de-implement treatment for patients poorly represented in clinical trials testing less treatment, while expressing concerns about applicability to specific subpopulations. Further work is needed to increase clinical trial representation of diverse populations to safely and effectively optimize treatment for patients with cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03248258.

A prospective trial of treatment de-escalation following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer

De-escalating adjuvant therapy following pathologic complete response (pCR) to an abbreviated neoadjuvant regimen in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer is the focus of international research efforts. However, the feasibility of this approach and its appeal to patients and providers had not been formally investigated. We aimed to assess adherence to de-escalated adjuvant antibody doublet therapy (trastuzumab and pertuzumab [HP], without chemotherapy) among patients with pCR following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/HP (THP). In this single-arm prospective trial, patients with treatment-naïve stage II-III HER2+ breast cancer received neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel ×12 and HP every 3 weeks ×4. The primary endpoint was receipt of adjuvant non-HER2-directed cytotoxic chemotherapy. Ninety-eight patients received ≥1 dose of THP on study. Patients had median age of 50 years, 86% had stage II tumors, and 34% were hormone receptor-negative. Five patients had incomplete clinical response following THP and received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide before surgery; they were classified as non-pCR and censored from further analyses. The overall pCR rate was 56.7%. Among patients with pCR, the adherence rate to de-escalated antibody-only therapy (HP) was 98.2% (95% CI 90.3–100.0%), and the primary feasibility endpoint was reached. The majority of patients felt positive or neutral about their adjuvant treatment plans. With brief follow-up (median 19.1 months), there were no breast cancer recurrences. De-escalation of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients who experience pCR in early-stage HER2+ breast cancer is a practicable approach for both patients and physicians. Planned and ongoing prospective trials will determine the long-term efficacy of this approach.

Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03716180, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03716180.

Risk-adapted modulation through de-intensification of cancer treatments: an ESMO classification

BACKGROUND

The landscape of clinical trials testing risk-adapted modulations of cancer treatments is complex. Multiple trial designs, endpoints, and thresholds for non-inferiority have been used; however, no consensus or convention has ever been agreed to categorise biomarkers useful to inform the treatment intensity modulation of cancer treatments.

METHODS

An expert subgroup under the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group shaped an international collaborative project to develop a classification system for biomarkers used in the cancer treatment de-intensification, based on a tiered approach. A group of disease-oriented clinical, translational, methodology and public health experts, and patients' representatives provided an analysis of the status quo, and scanned the horizon of ongoing clinical trials. The classification was developed through multiple rounds of expert revisions and inputs.

RESULTS

The working group agreed on a univocal definition of treatment de-intensification. Evidence of reduction in the dose-density, intensity, or cumulative dose, including intermittent schedules or shorter treatment duration or deletion of segment(s) of the standard regimens, compound(s), or treatment modality must be demonstrated, to define a treatment de-intensification. De-intensified regimens must also portend a positive impact on toxicity, quality of life, health system burden, or financial toxicity. ESMO classification categorises the biomarkers for treatment modulation in three tiers, based on the level of evidence. Tier A includes biomarkers validated in prospective, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trials. The working group agreed that in non-inferiority clinical trials, boundaries are highly dependent upon the disease scenario and endpoint being studied and that the absolute differences in the outcomes are the most relevant measures, rather than relative differences. Biomarkers tested in single-arm studies with a threshold of non-inferiority are classified as Tier B. Tier C is when the validation occurs in prospective-retrospective quality cohort investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

ESMO classification for the risk-guided intensity modulation of cancer treatments provides a set of evidence-based criteria to categorise biomarkers deemed to inform de-intensification of cancer treatments, in risk-defined patients. The classification aims at harmonising definitions on this matter, therefore offering a common language for all the relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, patients, decision-makers, and for clinical trials.

Facilitators and barriers to reducing chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a qualitative analysis of interviews with patients and patient advocates

Background

As the combination of systemic and targeted chemotherapies is associated with severe adverse side effects and long-term health complications, there is interest in reducing treatment intensity for patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Clinical trials are needed to determine the feasibility of reducing treatment intensity while maintaining 3-year recurrence-free survival of greater than 92%. To recruit participants for these trials, it is important to understand patient perspectives on reducing chemotherapy.

Methods

We collected qualitative interview data from twenty-four patients with Stage II-III breast cancer and sixteen patient advocates. Interviews explored potential barriers and facilitators to participation in trials testing reduced amounts of chemotherapy. As the COVID-19 pandemic struck during data collection, seventeen participants were asked about the potential impact of COVID-19 on their interest in these trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and researchers used qualitative content analysis to code for dominant themes.

Results

Seventeen participants (42.5%) expressed interest in participating in a trial of reduced chemotherapy. Barriers to reducing chemotherapy included (1) fear of recurrence and inefficacy, (2) preference for aggressive treatment, (3) disinterest in clinical trials, (4) lack of information about expected outcomes, (5) fear of regret, and (6) having young children. Facilitators included (1) avoiding physical toxicity, (2) understanding the scientific rationale of reducing chemotherapy, (3) confidence in providers, (4) consistent monitoring and the option to increase dosage, (5) fewer financial and logistical challenges, and (6) contributing to scientific knowledge. Of those asked, nearly all participants said they would be more motivated to reduce treatment intensity in the context of COVID-19, primarily to avoid exposure to the virus while receiving treatment.

Conclusions

Among individuals with EBC, there is significant interest in alleviating treatment-related toxicity by reducing chemotherapeutic intensity. Patients will be more apt to participate in trials testing reduced amounts of chemotherapy if these are framed in terms of customizing treatment to the individual patient and added benefit—reduced toxicities, higher quality of life during treatment and lower risk of long-term complications—rather than in terms of taking treatments away or doing less than the standard of care. Doctor-patient rapport and provider support will be crucial in this process.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09189-w.

Examining the association among fear of COVID-19, psychological distress, and delays in cancer care

Background

Given the high risk of COVID‐19 mortality, patients with cancer may be vulnerable to fear of COVID‐19, adverse psychological outcomes, and health care delays.

Methods

This longitudinal study surveyed the pandemic's impact on patients with cancer (N= 1529) receiving Patient Advocate Foundation services during early and later pandemic. Generalized estimating equation with repeated measures was conducted to assess the effect of COVID‐19 on psychological distress. Logistic regression with repeated measures was used to assess the effect of COVID‐19 on any delays in accessing health care (e.g., specialty care doctors, laboratory, or diagnostic testing, etc.).

Results

Among 1199 respondents, 94% considered themselves high risk for COVID‐19. Respondents with more fear of COVID‐19 had a higher mean psychological distress score (10.21; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 9.38–11.03) compared to respondents with less fear (7.55; 95% CI 6.75–8.36). Additionally, 47% reported delaying care. Respondents with more fear of COVID‐19 had higher percentages of delayed care than those with less (56; 95% CI 39%–72% vs. 44%; 95% CI 28%–61%). These relationships persisted throughout the pandemic. For respondents with a COVID‐19 diagnosis in their household (n = 116), distress scores were similar despite higher delays in care (58% vs. 27%) than those without COVID‐19.

Conclusions

Fear of COVID‐19 is linked to psychological distress and delays in care among patients with cancer. Furthermore, those who are personally impacted see exacerbated cancer care delays. Timely psychosocial support and health care coordination are critical to meet increased care needs of patients with cancer during the COVID‐19 pandemic.