Consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and patient health in a German lung cancer center: results from a cross-sectional questionnaire

Patient-reported outcomes in advanced NSCLC before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Real-world data from the German prospective CRISP Registry (AIO-TRK-0315)

Patients with lung cancer under treatment have been associated with a high risk of COVID-19 infection and potentially worse outcome, but real-world data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are rare. We assess patients' characteristics and PROs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in an advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort in Germany. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC from the prospective, multicentre, observational CRISP Registry (NCT02622581) were categorised as pre-pandemic (March 2019 to Feb 2020, n = 1621) and pandemic (March 2020 to Feb 2021, n = 1317). From baseline to month 15, patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed by FACT-L, anxiety and depression by PHQ-4. Association of pandemic status with time to deterioration (TTD) in QoL scales adjusted for potential covariates was estimated using Cox modelling. PROs were documented for 1166 patients (72%) in the pre-pandemic, 979 (74%) in the pandemic group. Almost 60% of patients were male, median age was 66 years, comorbidities occurred in 85%. Regarding HRQoL, mean-change-from-baseline plots hardly differed between both samples. Approximately 15%-21% of patients reported anxiety, about 19%-27% signs of depression. For the pandemic group, TTD was slightly, but statistically significantly, worse for the physical well-being-FACT-G subscale (HR 1.15 [95%CI 1.02-1.30]) and the anxiety-GAD-2 subscale (HR 1.14 [95%CI 1.01-1.29]). These prospectively collected real-world data provide valuable insights into PROs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in advanced NSCLC. For the patients, the pandemic seemed to be less of a burden than the disease itself, as there was a considerable proportion of patients with anxiety and depression in both groups.

Resource allocation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the impact on patients with lung cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in unprecedented tolls on both economies and human life. Healthcare resources needed to be reallocated away from the care of patients and towards supporting the pandemic response. In this systematic review, we explore the impact of resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic on the screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of patients with lung cancer during the pandemic.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for articles investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with lung cancer. Of the 1605 manuscripts originally screened, 47 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Patients with lung cancer during the pandemic experienced reduced rates of screening, diagnostic testing and interventions but did not experience worse outcomes. Population-based modelling studies predict significant increases in mortality for patients with lung cancer in the years to come.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced access to resources during the pandemic resulted in reduced rates of screening, diagnosis and treatment for patients with lung cancer. While significant differences in outcomes were not identified in the short term, ultimately the effects of the pandemic and reductions in cancer screening will likely be better delineated in the coming years. Future consideration of the long-term implications of resource allocation away from patients with lung cancer with an attempt to provide equitable access to healthcare and limited interruptions of patient care may help to provide the best care for all patients during times of limited resources.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological care in Germany: rapid review

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic affected medical care for chronic diseases. This study aimed to systematically assess the pandemic impact on oncological care in Germany using a rapid review.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, study and preprint registries and study bibliographies were searched for studies published between 2020 and 2 November 2022. Inclusion was based on the PCC framework: population (cancer), concept (oncological care) and context (COVID-19 pandemic in Germany). Studies were selected after title/abstract and full-text screening by two authors. Extracted data were synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively. Risk of bias was assessed and summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Overall, 77 records (59 peer-reviewed studies and 18 reports) with administrative, cancer registry and survey data were included. Disruptions in oncological care were reported and varied according to pandemic-related factors (e.g., pandemic stage) and other (non-pandemic) factors (e.g., care details). During higher restriction periods fewer consultations and non-urgent surgeries, and delayed diagnosis and screening were consistently reported. Heterogeneous results were reported for treatment types other than surgery (e.g., psychosocial care) and aftercare, while ongoing care remained mostly unchanged. The risk of bias was on average moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Disruptions in oncological care were reported during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Such disruptions probably depended on factors that were insufficiently controlled for in statistical analyses and evidence quality was on average only moderate. Research focus on patient outcomes (e.g., longer term consequences of disruptions) and pandemic management by healthcare systems is potentially relevant for future pandemics or health emergencies.

Patient Report on the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Living With Lung Cancer

Introduction

Several studies have highlighted coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related disruptions in treatment and care in people living with lung cancer. However, few studies have assessed patient-reported perspectives on treatment disruption. This study aims to report the patient perspectives on the impact of COVID-19, vaccination access, and coverage on people living with lung cancer.

Methods

Data are from a larger online longitudinal study being run by a lung cancer nonprofit organization, LUNGevity Foundation. The survey is open to all patients living with lung cancer and their caregivers. These analyses focus on data captured in the COVID-19 module and the vaccine questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were computed for categorical and ordinal variables.

Results

Overall, 164 people living with lung cancer completed the COVID-19 module. Of these, 54% reported disruption in access to treatment, appointments, participating in research and clinical trials. Participants living with stage IV disease were likely to be more concerned about COVID-19 (35%) compared with those with stage I, II, and III. More than half (66%) had tested for COVID-19 of this group 88% tested negative. There was a correlation among participants testing positive for COVID-19 and the number of household members who also tested positive for COVID-19. In the sample who completed the vaccine survey, almost all (98%) were vaccinated against COVID-19. When a recommendation came from a health care professional, an oncologist was the most likely referral source (33%).

Conclusions

An integrative patient-reported view on the impact of COVID-19 is important for adequate preparation to ensure undisrupted treatment and allocation of resources.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Frontline Pembrolizumab-Based Treatment for Advanced Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy has become an important frontline treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To date, it remains unclear how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted the treatment outcome.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental study was conducted based on a real-world database, comparing pandemic with pre-pandemic patient cohorts. The pandemic cohort consisted of patients who initiated treatment from March to July 2020, with follow-up through March 2021. The pre-pandemic cohort consisted of those initiating treatment between March and July 2019.The outcome was overall real-world survival. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazard models were constructed.

RESULTS

Analyses included data from 2090 patients: 998 in the pandemic cohort and 1092 in the pre-pandemic cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable, with 33% of patients having PD-L1 expression level ≥50% and 29% of patients receiving pembrolizumab monotherapy. Among those treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy (N = 613), there was a differential impact of the pandemic on survival by PD-L1 expression levels (p-interaction = 0.02). For those with PD-L1 level < 50%, survival was better in the pandemic cohort than the pre-pandemic cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 (95% CI: 0.43-0.97, p = 0.03). However, for those with PD-L1 level ≥ 50%, survival was not better in the pandemic cohort: HR 1.17 (95% CI: 0.85-1.61, p = 0.34). We found no statistically significant impact of the pandemic on survival among patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an increase in survival among patients with lower PD-L1 expression who were treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy. This finding suggests an increased efficacy of immunotherapy due to viral exposure in this population.

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Factors Affecting Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with CAP Due to Different Variants of SARS-CoV-2 and Non-COVID-19 CAP

The study was conducted from October 2020 to March 2022 in a province in southern Thailand. The inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and more than 18 years old were enrolled. Of the 1511 inpatients with CAP, COVID-19 was the leading cause, accounting for 27%. Among the patients with COVID-19 CAP, mortalities, mechanical ventilators, ICU admissions, ICU stay, and hospital costs were significantly higher than of those with non-COVID-19 CAP. Household and workplace contact with COVID-19, co-morbidities, lymphocytopenia and peripheral infiltration in chest imaging were associated with CAP due to COVID-19. The delta variant yielded the most unfavorable clinical and non-clinical outcomes. While COVID-19 CAP due to B.1.113, Alpha and Omicron variants had relatively similar outcomes. Among those with CAP, COVID-19 infection as well as obesity, a higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and APACHE II score were associated with in-hospital mortality. Among those with COVID-19 CAP, obesity, infection due to the Delta variant, a higher CCI and higher APACHE II score were associated with in-hospital mortality. COVID-19 had a great impact on the epidemiology and outcomes of CAP.

Changes in Behavior After Vaccination and Opinions Toward Mask Wearing: Thoracic Oncology Patient–Reported Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background:

The COVID-19 vaccines, face masks, and social distancing are effective interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. In this study, we aimed to determine lung cancer patients’ attitudes toward vaccination, changes in behavior after vaccination, and willingness to continue mask wearing after the pandemic.

Methods:

We sent out questionnaires to 220 thoracic oncology patients treated at our lung cancer center in May 2021. The questionnaire focused on patients’ vaccination status, self-reported experiences surrounding vaccination, and assessed changes in behaviors before and after vaccination as well as opinions toward mask wearing after the pandemic. Results are presented as absolute and relative frequencies and means with standard deviation and compared using t test, paired t test, and analysis of variance test as well as chi2 test, and Fisher exact text.

Results:

About 91.0% of patients reported having received at least 1 vaccination. About 73.3% of patients reported having at least 1 reaction to the vaccination. The most common reactions were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. After vaccination, patients increased contact with family and friends, use of public transport, and grocery shopping. Overall, the level of willingness to wear masks beyond the end of the pandemic differed according to vaccination status.

Conclusions:

Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination among thoracic oncology patients in Germany was high. Overall, patients with thoracic malignancies tolerated the COVID-19 vaccination well. Rate of adverse reaction was not higher compared with the general population. After the vaccination, patients increased social contacts and usage of public transport. These changes suggest positive psychological effects on quality of life. While reducing social distancing can increase the risk of infection, our results indicate that an extension of mask mandates after the pandemic would likely be accepted by a majority of thoracic oncology patients, suggesting that our cohort was still aware and in support of other measure of protection.