COVID-19 and gynecological cancer: a review of the published guidelines

Patient care and access to clinical trials in gynaecological oncology: global implications of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

Our prospective international survey evaluated the impact of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management gynaecological malignancies from the multidisciplinary physicians' perspective with particular focus on clinical infrastructures and trial participation.

METHODS

Our survey consisted of 53 COVID-related questions. It was sent to healthcare professionals in gynaecological oncology centres across Europe and Pan-Arabian region via the study groups and gynaecological societies from April 2020 to October 2020. All healthcare professionals treating gynaecological cancers were able to participate in our survey.

RESULTS

A total of 255 answers were collected from 30 countries. The majority (73%) of participants were gynaecological oncologists from university hospitals (71%) with at least an Intensive Care Unit with cardiopulmonary support available at their institutions. Most institutions continued to perform elective surgeries only for oncological cases (98%). Patients had to wait on average 2 weeks longer for their surgery appointments compared to previous years (range 0-12 weeks). Most cases that were prioritised for surgical intervention across all gynaecological tumours were early-stage disease (74%), primary situation (61%) and good ECOG status (63%). The radicality of surgery did not change in the majority of cases (78%) across all tumour types. During the pandemic, only 38% of clinicians stated they would start a new clinical trial. Almost half of the participants stated the pandemic negatively impacted the financial structure and support for clinical trials. Approximately 20% of clinicians did not feel well-informed regarding clinical algorithm for COVID-19 patients throughout the pandemic. Thirty percent stated that they are currently having trouble in providing adequate medical care due to staff shortage.

CONCLUSION

Despite well-established guidelines, pandemic clearly affected clinical research and patientcare. Our survey underlines the necessity for building robust emergency algorithms tailored to gynaecological oncology to minimise negative impact in crises and to preserve access to clinical trials.

Current treatment strategies for ovarian cancer in the East Asian Gynecologic Oncology Trial Group (EAGOT)

Ovarian cancer, notable for its severe prognosis among gynecologic cancers, has seen substantial progress in treatment approaches recently. Enhanced protocols in chemotherapy and the introduction of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for maintenance therapy have markedly improved outcomes for patients with specific genetic profiles, such as those positive for BRCA mutations or exhibiting homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Additionally, the method of intraperitoneal chemotherapy administration has emerged as a valuable alternative to traditional transvenous routes, showing promise for wider clinical adoption. The field of surgery has also evolved, with increasing exploration into the benefits and feasibility of laparoscopic methods over more invasive traditional surgeries, aiming for complete tumor removal but with reduced patient impact. The hereditary nature of ovarian cancer underscores the importance of genetic testing, which has become integral in tailoring treatment strategies, particularly in determining suitability for PARP inhibitors. The formation of the East Asian Gynecologic Oncology Trial Group (EAGOT) aims to optimize treatment across Japan, Korea, China, and Taiwan. The ovarian cancer committee of EAGOT shared the current policies, focusing on 5 topics: 1) strategies for maintenance therapy after initial surgery and chemotherapy, 2) drug regimens for platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant recurrence, 3) intraperitoneal chemotherapy, 4) laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to laparotomy, and 5) current status of genetic testing (BRCA, HRD, and panel tests) for ovarian cancer and its prospects. EAGOT's multi-national trials aim to harmonize these evolving treatment strategies, ensuring that the latest and most effective protocols are accessible across the region, thereby significantly impacting patient outcomes in East Asia.

Effectiveness of a Digital Decision Aid for Nutrition Support in Women with Gynaecological Cancer: A Comparative Study

This study aimed to examine the effects of an animated Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) about dietary choices on decisional conflict and decision regret. A prospective, observational, two-group comparative effectiveness study was conducted with patients (n = 90) from a southern Taiwan oncology inpatient unit. Data included the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), laboratory results, 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (sf-DCS), and 5-item Decision Regret Scale (DRSc). Data were collected at admission (T0), after the first-cycle of chemotherapy but before discharge (T1), and after the six-cycle chemotherapy protocol (T2) (around 3 months). Group A received standardized nutrition education and a printed brochure, while Group B watched a 10-minute information video during a one-on-one inpatient consultation and engaged in a values clarification exercise between T0 and T1. The percentage of women with a MUST score ≧1 in Group A sharply increased over time, but not in Group B. Decision aid usage significantly increased patients' hemoglobin and lymphocyte values over time (p < 0.05). The digital PtDA contributed to less decisional conflict and decision regret in at-risk patients and improved their nutritional well-being. Decision-aids help patients make healthcare decisions in line with their values, and are sustainable for use by busy clinicians.

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the stage of endometrial cancer at diagnosis

Background

Endometrial cancer generally presents at an early stage affording a high rate of surgical cure. Early in the Covid-19 pandemic it was suggested that treatment of tumors with favorable pathologic features might safely be delayed.

Objective

We hypothesized that disruption to health care services during the pandemic would impact the stage at presentation for these patients. Here we compare the stage at presentation of Endometrial Cancer in the months immediately preceding the pandemic to the stage at presentation during the pandemic.

Study design

Charts of patients presenting with Endometrial Cancer between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2022 were reviewed. March 1, 2020 separated the "pre-pandemic" era from the "pandemic" era. Data was collected regarding patient age, body mass index (BMI), tumor stage, histology, grade, size, and depth of invasion.

Results

322 of 374 (86.09%) of surgically staged patients presented with FIGO stage I disease "pre-pandemic" compared to 263 of 329 (71.73%) of surgically staged patients in the "pandemic" cohort (p =.029). 2.08% pre-pandemic compared to 5.48% during the pandemic presented with FIGO stage IV (p =.015).

Conclusion

We found a significant difference in the stage at presentation in endometrial cancer patients, a statistic which may be attributed to the disruption of healthcare services caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Estimation of Oncologic Surgery Case Volume Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic in France

IMPORTANCE

COVID-19 has had a major effect on health care activities, especially surgery. At first, comparisons were proposed using 2019 activities as the highest standard. However, while such an approach might have been suitable during the first months of the pandemic, this might no longer be the case for a longer period.

OBJECTIVE

To examine approaches that may better assess the use of cancer surgeries.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In a cross-sectional design, the nationwide French hospital facility data (Medicalised Information System Program) were used to assess cancer surgery for 6 cancer site categories in adults from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021.

EXPOSURE

Estimated cancer surgery activity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Three models were proposed to assess the expected number of surgical procedures between 2020 and 2021 and make a comparison with those observed in earlier years.

RESULTS

In France, cancer removal surgeries account for approximately 7000 hospitalizations per year for liver cancer; 4000 for pancreatic cancer; 7700 for ovarian cancer; 1300 for esophagus cancer; 23 000 for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) cancer; 78 000 for breast cancer; and 16 600 for thoracic cancers. For most cancer sites, the number of surgical procedures increased from 2010 to 2019: liver, 14%; pancreas, 38%; ovary, 14%; esophagus, 18%; breast, 8%; and thoracic, 29%. Assuming stability, these values underestimate the gap in activity observed in 2020-2021. For other procedures, a decrease was observed: stomach, -10%, and ENT, -6%. Assuming stability, these values overestimate the gap in activity observed in 2020-2021. At the end of 2021, according to the model, the gap in activity observed in 2020-2021 was estimated at between -1.4% and 1.7% for breast, -6.6% and -7.3% for thoracic, -3.1% and -2.5% for ovarian, -4.2% and -1.7% for pancreas, -6.7% and 5.9% for stomach, and -13.0% and -13.9% for esophageal cancers. For ENT, liver, and urologic cancers, because the trend was different before and after 2015, it was necessary to opt for modeling using only the most recent period. The cumulative gap in activity observed in 2020-2021 was estimated at -1.0% for ENT cancers, -5.3% for liver cancers, and -2.9% for urologic cancers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that short- and medium-term trends must be considered to estimate COVID-19 cancer surgery activities. Breast cancer is the site for which the activity showed the smallest decrease during the pandemic, with almost full recovery in 2021.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Diagnosis and Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted health systems worldwide, particularly cancer care. Because the actual implications of these changes on gynecological oncology healthcare are still unclear, we aim to evaluate the impact of this pandemic on the diagnosis and management of gynecological cancer. Materials and Methods: This is a single-center retrospective observational study, including patients diagnosed with gynecological malignancies between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were included into three groups based on the timing of cancer diagnosis: pre-pandemic (2019), pandemic with high restrictions (2020) and pandemic recovery (2021). Results: Overall, 234 patients were diagnosed with gynecological cancer during the period of study. A decrease in the number of newly diagnosed cervical cancers and other rare tumors (leiomyosarcoma, invasive hydatidiform mole) was apparent in 2020. Some aggressive histological types of endometrial and ovarian cancer were more commonly diagnosed in the pandemic recovery group (p < 0.05), although no differences were demonstrated concerning tumor staging in all gynecological cancers. The median time between the first multidisciplinary team meeting and the treatment initiation was higher after the COVID-19 pandemic in endometrial cancer (23.0 vs. 34.0 vs. 36.0 days, p < 0.05). Patients with ovarian cancer were more frequently proposed for neoadjuvant therapy in 2020 compared to the other periods (33.3% vs. 55.0% vs. 10.0% p < 0.05). A significant reduction in the laparoscopic approach was observed during 2020 in endometrial cancer (32.1% vs. 14.3% vs. 36.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were registered regarding median hospitalization days or intra- and post-operative complications between these periods. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the diagnosis and management of most gynecological malignancies, namely, on time to first treatment, chosen oncological therapies and surgical approaches. These results suggest important clinical and healthcare implications that should be addressed in future prospective studies.

Organisation of cancer care in troubling times: A scoping review of expert guidelines and their implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic

This scoping review mapped the main themes in existing expert guidelines for cancer care issued during the COVID-19 crisis from the period of March 2020-August 2021. The guidelines published during the research period principally relate to the first two waves in Europe and until the beginning of the vaccination campaign. They elaborated recommendations for cancer care reorganisation, in particular triage and quality of care issues. The article highlights the ethical, epistemological, as well as practical reasons that guidelines were not always followed to provide some lessons learned for future crises to enable better guideline development processes. We also elaborate early evidence on the impact of triage decisions and different perspectives on cancer care reorganisation from ethics and social science literature.

Single centre experience of 800 gynaecologic oncology cases in 2020: influence of pandemy on cancer surgeries

We aimed to evaluate the gynaecological oncology surgeries in the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 800 operations performed between January and December 2020 were retrieved. Since the COVID-19 pandemic affected operations as of April 1 2020, we compared the cases of the last nine months of the year with the first three months. Of the operations, 265 (33.1%) were performed between January and March and 535 (66.9%) between April and December. Of 168 malignant operations; 78 (46%) were uterine cancer, 58 (35%) ovarian cancer, 28 (17%) cervical cancer and four (2%) vulvar cancer. If we compared the last nine months of the year with the first three months, a significant increase was observed in the rates of malignant and premalignant, while a significant decrease was detected in benign operations (p<.001). Gynaecological oncology surgeries performed with open or laparoscopic approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic should continue by taking preventive measures. Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? During the COVID-19 pandemic, many international associations and organisations recommended the suspension of elective surgeries. It is still controversial whether the gynaecologic oncology surgical procedures to be performed in this unprecedented time should be laparoscopic or laparotomic.What do the results of this study add? The malignant and premalignant gynaecological oncology surgeries should be safely performed laparoscopically or by laparotomy in the COVID-19 pandemic.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Gynaecologic oncology surgeries can be safely performed by attaching appropriate personal protective equipment procedures with pre-operative COVID-19 PCR testing in the COVID-19 era.

Prognostic impact of waiting time between diagnosis and treatment in patients with cervical cancer: A nationwide population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Prior research underlined the importance of timely oncological care as longer waiting times from diagnosis to treatment may result in poorer survival outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of waiting time from diagnosis to treatment on overall survival (OS) in patients with cervical cancer treated with curative intent.

METHODS

Patients from a nationwide population-based cohort with newly diagnosed cervical cancer between 2010 and 2019 were studied. Patients who underwent surgery or (chemo)radiotherapy with curative intent were selected. Waiting time (i.e. interval between first pathologic confirmation and treatment) was modelled as continuous (i.e. linear per week), dichotomized (i.e. ≤8 versus >8 weeks), and polynomial (i.e. restricted cubic splines). The association with OS was examined using Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

Among 6895 patients with cervical cancer, 2755 treated with primary surgery and 1898 who received primary (chemo)radiotherapy were included. Mean waiting time was 8.5 (±4.2) weeks to surgery and 7.7 (±2.9) weeks to (chemo)radiotherapy. Adjusted for confounders, waiting time to surgery was not significantly associated with OS (continuous HR 0.97 [95%CI: 0.93-1.01], dichotomized HR 0.93 [95%CI: 0.68-1.27], polynomial HR not significant). Similarly, a longer waiting time to (chemo)radiotherapy was not significantly associated with poorer OS (continuous HR 0.97 [95%CI: 0.93-1.00], dichotomized HR 0.91 [95%CI: 0.75-1.09], polynomial HR not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

This large population-based study demonstrates that a longer waiting time (of up to 12 weeks) from diagnosis to treatment in patients with cervical cancer treated with curatively intended surgery or (chemo)radiotherapy does not negatively impact survival.

Gynecologic radiation therapy in low and middle income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has forever affected healthcare and posed an incredible challenge to our society to care for our sick. Patients with cancer were found early on to have higher rates of complications with COVID-19. Radiation therapy is an integral part of treatment for many types of gynecologic cancer and adaptation on its utilization during the pandemic varied across the globe. In this review, we detail certain guidelines for the use of radiation in gynecologic cancers during the pandemic as well as real world accounts of how different countries adapted to these guidelines or created their own based on individualized resources, staffing, government restrictions, and societal norms. Critically, this review demonstrates the breadth of fractionation schemes and technologies used when resources were limited but highlights the importance of long term follow-up for many of our patients during this time.

Management of Gynecologic Cancer During COVID-19 Pandemic: South Asian Perspective

Management of gynecological cancers has suffered during the pandemic, partly due to lockdown and partly due to directing resources to manage COVID-19 patients. Modification of gynecological cancer management during this pandemic is recommended. Cervical cancer patients who present with stage IA1 disease can have a delay of up to 8 weeks for surgical treatment, considering the slow tumor growth rate. Women with stages IA2, IB1, IB2, IIA1 must undergo radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy within 6 to 8 weeks. In areas where surgical treatment is not available, patients should be referred for radiation therapy/areas with adequate surgical expertise. The surgical option is attractive for early cancers during the COVID era, as it involves a single visit compared to the multiple visits required for chemoradiation. The value of lymph node staging needs to be reconsidered. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be given preference over primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancers. Surgeries, which demand extended surgical time such as Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and pelvic exenterations, should be avoided during this pandemic. For patients scheduled for interval surgery after two or three neoadjuvant cycles, six cycles of chemotherapy should be considered before surgery is performed. For early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer, consideration should be given to medical management until surgery is possible. The above recommendations have been made keeping in mind the geography, patient load, and availability of resources available to health care providers from southeast Asia. They might not be applicable globally and every practitioner should take call regarding patient's management as per availability of resources and loco-regional circumstances. The implementation of recommended international guidelines for the management of gynecologic cancers should take precedence. Each modification to the standard approach should be approved by a multidisciplinary team depending on the condition of the patients and the locoregional circumstances.

COVID-19 and Gynecologic Oncology: What Have We Learned?

COVID-19 has transformed the care we provide to gynecologic oncology patients. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with gynecologic cancer, it has affected our patient’s ability to undergo recommended surveillance and has made an impact on every caregiver providing care during this time. Herein we review the current literature on the impact of COVID-19 on gynecologic oncology and highlight new approaches and innovations that have resulted in gynecologic cancer care as a result of the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on the field of gynecologic oncology has been profound. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with cancer, it has also challenged the very ethics with which we practice medicine. The equitable distribution of resources is paramount to upholding the Hippocratic Oath which we all invoke. The COVID-19 pandemic has stripped this oath down to its very core, forcing all medical practitioners to scrutinize who gets what resources and when. As the pandemic continues to unfold, the question remains — in the setting of a strained and overburdened healthcare system, how do we maximize beneficence to one group of patients, while maintaining non-maleficence to others? As gynecologic oncologists, we are responsible for advocating for our patients to ensure that the quality of their cancer care is not compromised, while also not overutilizing resources that are sorely needed for the care of COVID-19 victims, and not making them more likely to succumb to COVID-19 by the very nature of the treatment we provide. The effects of the pandemic are far-reaching and broad, and many of these are yet to be determined. Future studies are needed to analyze how the above-utilized strategies in GYN cancer care during the pandemic will impact the long-term outcomes of our patients.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society recommendations for women with gynecological cancer who received non-standard care during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressures on clinical services required adaptation to how care was prioritised and delivered for women with gynecological cancer. This document discusses potential 'salvage' measures when treatment has deviated from the usual standard of care. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society convened a multidisciplinary working group to develop recommendations for the onward management and follow-up of women with gynecological cancer who have been impacted by a change in treatment during the pandemic. These recommendations are presented for each tumor type and for healthcare systems, and the impact on gynecological services are discussed. It will be important that patient concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on their cancer pathway are acknowledged and addressed for their ongoing care.

Impact of COVID-19 on gynecologic cancer treatment in Japan: a nationwide survey by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO)

OBJECTIVE

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rages on, it is a challenging task to balance resources for treatment of COVID-19 and malignancy-based treatment. For the development of optimal strategies, assessing the conditions and constrains in treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic is pertinent. This study reported about a nationwide survey conducted by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

METHODS

We interviewed 265 designated training facilities about the state of their clinical practice from the time period between March and December 2020. We asked the facility doctors in charge to fill a web-based questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 232 facilities (87.5%) responded. A decrease in the number of outpatient visits was reported, and the major reason attributed was reluctance of patients to visit hospitals rather than facility restrictions. The actual number of surgeries decreased by 3.9%, compared to 2019. There was a significant difference when the variable of "Prefectures operating under special safety precautions" or not was introduced. There was no increase in the rate of advanced stages in the three cancer types studied. However, 34.1% participants perceived COVID-19 affected management and prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Refraining from visiting hospitals based on the patient's judgment may be expected to be an issue in the future. No significant decrease in surgeries was observed, and it would seem that there were few forced changes in treatment plans, but "the State of Emergency" had an impact. There was no increase in the rate of advanced cancers, but this will need to be monitored.

Impact of COVID-19 in gynaecological oncology care: a systematic rapid review

Purpose

Synthesis of available evidence on clinical practice in gynaecological oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic is highly warranted, as women with cancer are at increased risk due to their systemic immunosuppressed state and changes in their care are inevitable. Rapid review of available data is a quick way of providing useful information and insight into the way medical practice has been affected by the COVID pandemic.

Methods

We conducted a systematic rapid review, based on a literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We considered all studies on gynaecological oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic using relevant keywords and MeSH terms. Selection criteria were English language, studies with more than five cases and publication in peer-review journal.

Results

Nine retrospective studies, one systematic review and five questionnaire surveys were included. Quality of the studies has been assessed. Development of higher quality evidence is warranted. Mortality of COVID-19 infection is higher in patients with gynaecological cancer than in non-cancer patients. Reported delays in diagnosis and management of cancer and changes in treatments, may affect the natural history of cancer and increase patients’ anxiety and fear of disease progression while causing concerns to healthcare professionals affecting their clinical practice. The number of new diagnoses has declined. Prioritization is important, face-to-face interactions should be limited, and appropriate protective measures are essential. Cancer surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy should continue as high priority practices.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical practice significantly. Adaptations in clinical practice may improve mortality and complication rates.

Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Gynecological Cancer Radiation During Complete Nationwide Lockdown: Observations and Reflections From Tertiary Care Institute in India

PURPOSE

To report real-world compliance to radiation in gynecologic cancers during the complete lockdown phase of COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From March 23, 2020, until June 30, 2020, complete lockdown was imposed in India. During this period there was restructuring of cancer care and radiation oncology department due to operational policies prevalent in the institution, and the care for gynecological cancer was based on the evolving international recommendations. Institutional review board approval was obtained to audit patterns of care during the complete lockdown phase. Descriptive variables were used to report on patient characteristics, compliance, delays, toxicity, and observed deviations in recommended care.

RESULTS

During the lockdown period spanning 100 days, treatment of 270 and telephonic follow-up of 1103 patients with gynecological cancer was undertaken. Of 270 new patients, due to travel restrictions, 90 patients were referred to the facilities in vicinity of their residence. Of the remaining 180 patients, 138 were planned for complete treatment at our institution and 42 were referred to our center for brachytherapy. Of 138 patients, only 106 (76%) completed the planned external radiation. Twenty-four (26%) patients completed full course of concurrent chemotherapy, 11 (12%) received chemotherapy dose reduction, and 57 (62%) received no concurrent chemotherapy. Treatment delay of up to 3 weeks was noted in 8.6% patients due to COVID-19 infection. No grade 4 to 5 acute sequelae were observed. No excess adverse effects were observed in high-risk population. Low rate of symptom burden was observed among 1103 patients on telephonic follow-up. With 100 (9.6%) patients reporting symptoms, among these, 54% (54 of 100) had complete resolution of symptoms within 4 weeks of teleconsultation, and 10% had disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Low compliance with planned treatment was observed for radiation and concurrent chemotherapy due to lockdown and fear of contracting COVID-19 and will likely lead to increased risk of cancer-related mortality. Rapid restructuring of care is needed to prevent the same as COVID-19 pandemic further evolves.

COVID-19 and the impact on gynecologic cancer care

The COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in significant reconfiguration of gynecologic cancer services and care pathways across the globe, with a transformation of working practices. Services had to adapt to protect their vulnerable patients from infection, whilst providing care despite reduced resources/capacity and staffing. The international gynecologic cancer community introduced modified clinical care guidelines. Remote working, reduced hospital visiting, routine COVID‐testing, and use of COVID‐free surgical areas/hubs enabled the ongoing and safe delivery of complex cancer care, with priority levels for cancer treatments established to guide decision‐making by multidisciplinary tumor boards. Some 2.3 million cancer surgeries were delayed or cancelled during the first peak, with many patients reporting significant anxiety/concern for cancer progression and COVID infection. Although COVID trials were prioritized, recruitment to other cancer trials/research activity was significantly reduced. The impact of resultant protocol deviations on outcomes remains to be established. During the recovery healthcare services must maintain capacity and flexibility to manage future surges of infection, address the large backlog of patients with altered or delayed treatments, along with salvaging screening and prevention services. Training needs/mental well‐being of trainees need addressing and staff burnout prevented. Future research needs to fully evaluate the impact of COVID‐19 on long‐term patient outcomes.

This article reviews the global changes introduced to gynecologic cancer care due to COVID‐19, and their impact on services and patients. Key lessons are considered for the recovery and future.

Impact of COVID-19 on management of urogynaecology patients: a rapid review of the literature

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted health systems worldwide. There is a continuing need for clinicians to adapt practice to facilitate timely provision of medical care, whilst minimising horizontal transmission. Guidance and recommendations are increasingly available, and this rapid review aimed to provide a timely evidence synthesis on the current recommendations surrounding urogynaecological care.

METHODS

We performed a literature review using PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane and a manual search of national and international societies for management recommendations for urogynaecological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

Nine guidance documents and 17 articles, including 10 reviews, were included. Virtual clinics are recommended for new and follow-up patients, to assess and initiate treatment, as well as triage patients who require face-to-face appointments. Outpatient investigations such as urodynamics and cystoscopy for benign indications can be deferred. Prolapse and continence surgery should be suspended, except in specific circumstances such as procidentia with upper tract complications and failed pessaries. There is no evidence to support a particular route of surgery, but recommendations are made to minimise COVID-19 transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Urogynaecological patients face particular challenges owing to inherent vulnerabilities of these populations. Behavioural and medical therapies should be recommended as first line options and initiated via virtual or remote clinics, which are integral to management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the availability and accessibility of technology will be increasingly required. The majority of outpatient and inpatient procedures can be deferred, but the longer-term effects of such practices are unclear.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of newly diagnosed gynecological and breast cancers: a tertiary center perspective

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of postponed screening examinations and lockdown measures on gynecological and breast cancer diagnoses throughout the year 2020 in a gynecological oncological center in Austria.

Methods

Data of 889 patients with either newly diagnosed gynecological or breast cancer between January 2019 and December 2020 were collected. Clinical parameters including symptoms, performance status, comorbidities and referral status were compared in patients, who were newly diagnosed with cancer in the period of the first lockdown from March 2020 to April 2020 and the second lockdown from November 2020 to December 2020 and compared to the same period in 2019.

Results

Our results showed a strong decline in newly diagnosed cancers during the lockdown periods: −45% in gynecological cancer and -52% in breast cancer compared to the same period in 2019. Compared to the analogue period of 2019, breast cancer patients reported significantly more tumor-associated symptoms (55% vs. 31%, p = 0.013) during and in between (48% vs. 32%, p = 0.022) the lockdowns. During the lockdown, periods in the group of breast cancer patients’ tumor stage varied significantly compared to 2019 (T2–T4; p = 0.047).

Conclusion

Both lockdowns led to a strong decrease in newly diagnosed gynecological and breast cancers. Treatment delays in potentially curable disease could lead to inferior clinical outcomes, with the risk of missing the optimal treatment window. As the COVID-19 pandemic will be a challenge for some time to come, new strategies in patient care are needed to optimize cancer screening and management during the pandemic.

Nationwide Survey of German Outpatient Gynecologic Oncology Practices during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Reactions to the First Wave and Future Perspectives

Introduction

In the spring of 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 posed a substantial challenge for countries and their healthcare systems. In Germany, over 70% of all cancer patients are treated in an outpatient setting, so gynecologic oncology practices are the guarantors of optimal patient care. We developed a survey to evaluate the management of gynecologic oncology patients.

Methods

The survey consisted of 38 questions and was sent to the members of the Berufsverband Niedergelassener Gynäkologischer Onkologen in Deutschland e.V. (BNGO), a professional association of gynecologic oncologists in the outpatient sector in Germany.

Results

The survey was completed by 54 out of 133 (41%) gynecologic oncologists from 14 out of 15 (93%) federal states where the BNGO is represented. Facing the pandemic, popular measures were mask requirements (100%), restriction of access to practices (94%), increased number of disinfectant dispensers (85%), installment of panes of acrylic glass (76%), or spatial alterations (67%). For most patients the pandemic had no influence on prioritization of therapies (82%) or prescribed systemic treatments (87%). Despite an increase in perceived psychological burden among the staff (72%), 85% (45/54) of the practices were not offered any additional psychological support.

Discussion and Conclusion

As most cancer patients in Germany are treated in an outpatient setting, a suitable reaction of oncology centers to the new circumstances was crucial to secure optimal treatment and patient care. Nevertheless, the low prioritization of mental health or distress of healthcare workers poses a serious threat to the maintenance of optimal medical care in further waves of the pandemic.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on training and mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees

INTRODUCTION

The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic has caused a crisis disrupting health systems worldwide. While efforts are being made to determine the extent of the disruption, the impact on gynecological oncology trainees/training has not been explored. We conducted an international survey of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on clinical practice, medical education, and mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees.

METHODS

In our cross-sectional study, a customized web-based survey was circulated to surgical gynecological oncology trainees from national/international organizations from May to November 2020. Validated questionnaires assessed mental well-being. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test were used to analyse differences in means and proportions. Multiple linear regression was used to evaluate the effect of variables on psychological/mental well-being outcomes. Outcomes included clinical practice, medical education, anxiety and depression, distress, and mental well-being.

RESULTS

A total of 127 trainees from 34 countries responded. Of these, 52% (66/127) were from countries with national training programs (UK/USA/Netherlands/Canada/Australia) and 48% (61/127) from countries with no national training programs. Altogether, 28% (35/125) had suspected/confirmed COVID-19, 28% (35/125) experienced a fall in household income, 20% (18/90) were self-isolated from households, 45% (57/126) had to re-use personal protective equipment, and 22% (28/126) purchased their own. In total, 32.3% (41/127) of trainees (16.6% (11/66) from countries with a national training program vs 49.1% (30/61) from countries with no national training program, p=0.02) perceived they would require additional time to complete their training fellowship. The additional training time anticipated did not differ between trainees from countries with or without national training programs (p=0.11) or trainees at the beginning or end of their fellowship (p=0.12). Surgical exposure was reduced for 50% of trainees. Departmental teaching continued throughout the pandemic for 69% (87/126) of trainees, although at reduced frequency for 16.1% (14/87), and virtually for 88.5% (77/87). Trainees reporting adequate pastoral support (defined as allocation of a dedicated mentor/access to occupational health support services) had better mental well-being with lower levels of anxiety/depression (p=0.02) and distress (p<0.001). Trainees from countries with a national training program experienced higher levels of distress (p=0.01). Mean (SD) pre-pandemic mental well-being scores were significantly higher than post-pandemic scores (8.3 (1.6) vs 7 (1.8); p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 has negatively impacted the surgical training, household income, and psychological/mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees. The overall clinical impact was worse for trainees in countries with no national training program than for those in countries with a national training program, although national training program trainees reported greater distress. COVID-19 sickness increased anxiety/depression. The recovery phase must focus on improving mental well-being and addressing lost training opportunities.

Radiotherapy based management during Covid-19 pandemic - A systematic review of presented consensus and guidelines

Treatment management of cancer patients in the radiation oncology departments during the current COVID-19 pandemic is challenging. A systematic review of published consensus/guidelines on the role of radiotherapy prioritization, suggested treatment protocols, and set up management was undertaken based on the PRISMA protocol and through PubMed/PMC, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science databases until 01/20/2021. One hundred and sixty-eight publications or regional consensus were included. Summary of recommendations contained: (1) using hypo-fractionated (Hypo-F) regimens for therapeutic/palliative indications, (2) delaying radiotherapy for several weeks or until pandemic over, (3) omitting radiotherapy by replacement of alternative therapies or active surveillance, (4) applying safer patients' setup and preparation protocols, (5) developing telemedicine/telehealth service. To conclude, it is essential to carefully weigh the risk of exposure to COVID-19 infection and the benefit of treating cancer patients during the pandemic. Trying to have a global guideline facing this or any other probable crisis is crucial for health care service.

'Overnight, things changed. Suddenly, we were in it': a qualitative study exploring how surgical teams mitigated risks of COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 presents a risk of infection and transmission for operating theatre teams. Guidelines to protect patients and staff emerged and changed rapidly based on expert opinion and limited evidence. This paper presents the experiences and innovations developed by international surgical teams during the early stages of the pandemic to attempt to mitigate risk.

DESIGN

In-depth, semistructured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using methods of constant comparison.

PARTICIPANTS

43 participants, including surgeons from a range of specialties (primarily general surgery, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic and ophthalmology), anaesthetists and those in nursing roles.

SETTING

The UK, Italy, Spain, the USA, China and New Zealand between March and May 2020.

RESULTS

Surgical teams sought to mitigate COVID-19 risks by modifying their current practice with an abundance of strategies and innovations. Communication and teamwork played an integral role in how teams adapted, although participants reflected on the challenges of having to improvise in real time. Uncertainties remained about optimal surgical practice and there were significant tensions where teams were forced to balance what was best for patients while contemplating their own safety.

CONCLUSIONS

The perceptions of risks during a pandemic such as COVID-19 can be complex and context dependent. Management of these risks in surgery must be driven by evidence-based practice resulting from a pragmatic and novel approach to collation of global evidence. The context of surgery has changed dramatically, and surgical teams have developed a plethora of innovations. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence to inform surgical practice that optimises the safety of both patients and healthcare professionals as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds.

Care as Usual: An Acceptable Strategy to Apply During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a French Tertiary Gynecologic Oncology Department

We describe and analyze a “care as usual” strategy of a French Comprehensive Cancer Center during the COVID-19 pandemic to manage surgical patients with gynecological cancer. We conducted a retrospective analysis evaluating the surgical activity in our gynecologic oncology department between January 21 and May 12, 2020. We compared the surgical activity and surgical and oncologic outcomes during the pre-lockdown period and the pandemic period. The main objective was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical activity. The secondary objectives were to analyze the surgical and the oncologic outcomes. We compared the surgical activity during the 8 weeks after the national lockdown (85 procedures) to the surgical activity in the 8 weeks preceding the lockdown (127 procedures). We observed a 33% decrease in activity between the two periods. The clinical and epidemiologic characteristics were similar between the two periods. There were no differences between the surgical approaches (p = 0.592), the surgical complexity (p = 0.323), the length of stay (p = 0.85), and even for the complex procedure (p = 0.96) and the perioperative (p = 0.791) and postoperative complication rates (p = 0.102). We observed a significant decrease in the time of return to intended oncological treatment (RIOT) during the lockdown period with an average of 31.9 days compared to 46.9 days in the pre-lockdown period (p = 0.003). During the COVID-19 pandemic, “care as usual” represents an acceptable strategy without impairing the oncologic outcome in a Comprehensive Cancer Center with a patient-centered clinical pathway for gynecologic oncologic surgical patients.

Medical treatment of patients with gynecologic cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care had to be reorganized; national and international recommendations were published to manage anticancer treatments safely and to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for patients and health workers.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the adoption of recommendations for the management of patients with gynaecologic cancer receiving treatment during the pandemic resulted in containment of infections and continuing oncologic care.

METHODS

Based on the published recommendations, and according to the local Health Direction guidelines, we developed and drafted a security protocol to modify access of patients with gynaecologic cancer to the "Fondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli-IRCCS, Rome" between February 1 and April 30, 2020 and compared results with the corresponding 3 months of 2019.

RESULTS

Between February and April 2019, we registered 3254 admissions, including 2253 patients receiving intravenous chemotherapies, 298 receiving oral therapies, and 703 having hospital visits. Between February and April 2020, we registered 3213 admissions, including 2221 patients receiving intravenous chemotherapies, 401 receiving oral therapies, and 591 having hospital visits. Oral treatments and general visits were different in the two time periods (p<0.001). Despite the elevated patient flow, only one patient (0.1%) tested positive for COVID-19 and there were no cases among healthcare staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the adopted security protocol we provided continuity of care for all patients and limited the spread of the COVID-19 infection.

Cancer or COVID-19? A Review of Guidelines for Safe Cancer Care in the Wake of the Pandemic

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to reasons beyond control, health care workers have struggled to deliver treatment for the patients with cancer. The concern for otherwise healthy patients with curable cancers that require timely intervention or therapy is the risk of contracting COVID-19 may outweigh the benefits of cancer treatment. Lack of international guidelines leaves health care providers with a case-to-case approach for delivering optimal cancer care in the wake of the pandemic. Transition to telemedicine has somewhat bridged the gap for in-office visits, but there is a continuing challenge of delays in cancer screening or significant decline of new diagnoses of cancers due to the pandemic. We aim to propose a balance in risk from treatment delay versus risks from COVID-19 with emphasis on treatment modality (surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy) as well as supportive care for cancer patients, and therefore have reviewed the publications and recommendations from international societies and study groups available as of October 2020.

Gynecologic cancer surveillance in the era of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the management of patients with gynecologic cancers. Many centers have reduced access to routine visits to avoid crowded waiting areas and specially to reduce the infection risk for oncologic patients. The goal of this review is to propose a surveillance algorithm for patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic based on existing evidence and established guidelines. It is time to consider strategies based on telemedicine and to adapt protocols in this new era. We hereby propose a strategy for routine surveillance both during and beyond the pandemic.

Impact of the COVID-19 epidemic at a high-volume facility in gynecological oncology in Tokyo, Japan: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The number of cases of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Japan have risen since the first case was reported on January 24, 2020, and 6225 infections have been reported as of June 30, 2020. On April 8, 2020, our hospital began screening patients via pre-admission reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and chest computed tomography (CT). Although no patients exhibited apparent pneumonia, treatment delay or changes in treatment plans were required for a few patients based on the results of screening tests. During an emerging infectious disease pandemic, the likelihood of being infected, as well as the disease itself, affects clinical decision making in several ways. We summarized and presented our experience.

CASE PRESENTATION

After the introduction of pre-admission screening, RT-PCR and CT were performed in 200 and 76 patients, respectively, as of June 30, 2020. The treatment of five patients, including two patients with cervical cancer, two patients with ovarian tumors, and one patient with ovarian cancer, was affected by the results. Two asymptomatic RT-PCR-positive patients did not develop COVID-19, but their treatment was delayed until the confirmation of negative results. The other three patients were RT-PCR-negative, but abnormal CT findings suggested the possibility of COVID-19, which delayed treatment. The patients receiving first-line preoperative chemotherapy for ovarian cancer had clinically evident exacerbations because of the treatment delay.

CONCLUSION

During the epidemic phase of an emerging infectious disease, we found that COVID-19 has several other effects besides its incidence. The postponing treatment was the most common, therefore, treatment of ovarian tumors and ovarian cancer was considered to be the most likely to be affected among gynecological diseases. Protocols that allow for easy over-diagnosis can be disadvantageous, mainly because of treatment delays, and therefore, the protocols must be developed in light of the local infection situation.

Cancer in the Time of Coronavirus: A Call for Crisis Oncology Standards of Care

Since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was identified as a global pandemic, health systems have been severely strained, particularly affecting vulnerable populations such as patients with cancer. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of oncology specialty societies are making recommendations for standards of care. These diverse standards and gaps in standards can lead to inconsistent and heterogeneous care among governments, cancer centers, and even among oncologists within the same practice. These challenges highlight the need for a common nomenclature and crisis guidelines. For times of increased scarcity of resources, the National Academy of Medicine developed Crisis Standards of Care, defined as fairness, duty to care, duty to steward resources, transparency, consistency, proportionality, and accountability. However, we believe there is an urgent need to develop cancer-specific guidelines by convening a panel of experts from multiple specialties. These would be Crisis Oncology Standards of Care (COSCs) that are sensitive to both the individual cancer patient and to the broader health system in times of scarce resources, such as pandemic, natural disaster, or supply chain disruptions.