American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care

A call to action to advance patient-focused and decentralized clinical trials

This commentary is a call to action for a concerted commitment and effort to transform clinical trials and enable people with cancer to participate in clinical trials closer to home. Three key strategies are identified to address major barriers: confront challenges with the interpretation of US Food and Drug Administration Form 1572 requirements (Statement of Investigator); broaden acceptance of local laboratories and imaging centers; and invest in the creation of effective, sustainable partnerships between research centers and local providers.

TBCRC 057: Survey about willingness to participate in cancer clinical trials during the pandemic

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic-related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic-era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic-related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two-sample t-tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic-related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate-severe pandemic-related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research-only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

While pandemic-related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.

Provider motivations and barriers to cancer clinical trial screening, referral, and operations: Findings from a survey

BACKGROUND

Provider and institutional practices have been shown to have a large impact on cancer clinical trial enrollment. Understanding provider perspectives on screening for trial eligibility is necessary to improve enrollment.

METHODS

A questionnaire about incentives, barriers, process tools, and infrastructure related to opening trials and referring patients to onsite and offsite trials was administered to diverse stakeholders, including professional societies, advocacy organizations, and industry networks. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings.

RESULTS

Overall, 693 responses were received, primarily from physicians (42.7%) and nurses (35.6%) employed at hospital health systems (43.7%) and academic centers (36.5%). Approximately half (49.2%) screened all patients for onsite clinical trials with screening typically done by manual chart review (81.9%). The greatest incentive reported for offering trials was providing the best treatment options for patients (67.7%). Contracting and paperwork (48.5%) were the greatest barriers to opening more onsite trials. Offsite referrals were rare.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for trial eligibility is a largely manual and ad hoc process, with screening and referral to offsite trials occurring infrequently. Administrative and infrastructure barriers commonly prevent sites from opening more onsite trials. These findings suggest that automated trial screening tools built into workflows that screen in a site-agnostic manner could result in more frequent trial eligibility screening, especially for offsite trials. With recent momentum, in part in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to improve clinical trial efficiencies and broaden access and participant diversity, implementing tools to improve screening and referral processes is timely and essential.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

There are many factors that contribute to low adult enrollment in cancer clinical trials, but previous research has indicated that provider and institutional barriers are the largest contributors to low cancer clinical trial enrollment. In this survey, we sought to gain insight into cancer clinical trial enrollment practices from the perspective of health care providers such as physicians and nurses. We found that only approximately half of respondents indicated their institution systematically screens their patients for clinical trials and this process is manual and time consuming. Furthermore, we found that providers infrequently search for and refer patients to clinical trials at other sites. Creating better screening methods could improve enrollment in clinical trials.

Telehealth utilization in gynecologic oncology clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth visits and remote clinical trial operations (such as local collection of laboratory tests or imaging studies) were underutilized in gynecologic oncology clinical trials. Current literature on these operational changes provides anecdotal experience and expert opinion with few studies describing patient-level safety data. We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of telehealth and remote clinical trial operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

METHODS

Gynecologic oncology patients enrolled and actively receiving treatment on a clinical trial at a single, academic institution during the designated pre-Telehealth and Telehealth periods were identified. Patients with at least 1 provider or research coordinator telehealth visit were included. Patient demographics, health system encounters, adverse events, and protocol deviations were collected. Pairwise comparisons were performed between the pre-Telehealth and Telehealth period with each patient serving as their own control.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients met inclusion criteria. Virtual provider visits and off-site laboratory testing increased during the Telehealth period. Delays in provider visits, imaging, and laboratory testing did not differ between time periods. Total and minor protocol deviations increased in incidence during the Telehealth period and were due to documentation of telehealth and deferment of non-therapeutic testing. Major protocol deviations, emergency department visits, admissions, and severe adverse events were of low incidence and did not differ between time periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth and remote clinical trial operations appeared safe and did not compromise clinical trial protocols in a small, single institutional study. Larger scale evaluations of such trial adaptations should be performed to determine continued utility following the Pandemic.

Sponsor Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Cancer Clinical Trial Protocols and Data Quality

PURPOSE

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic created major disruptions in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, regulators and sponsors allowed modifications to traditional trial processes to enable clinical research and care to continue. We systematically evaluated how these mitigation strategies affected data quality and overall trial conduct.

METHODS

This study used surveys and live interviews. Forty-one major industry and National Cancer Institute Network groups (sponsors) overseeing anticancer treatment trials open in the United States from January 2015 to May 2022 were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics were used for survey data summaries. Key themes from interviews were identified.

RESULTS

Twenty sponsors (48.8%; 15 industry and five Network groups) completed the survey; 11/20 (55.0%) participated in interviews. Sponsors predominantly (n = 12; 60.0%) reported large (≥11 trials) portfolios of phase II and/or phase III trials. The proportion of sponsors reporting a moderate (9) or substantial (8) increase in protocol deviations in the initial pandemic wave versus the pre-pandemic period was 89.5% (17/19); the proportion reporting a substantial increased dropped from 42.1% (n = 8/19) in the initial wave to 15.8% (n = 3/19) thereafter. The most commonly adopted mitigation strategies were remote distribution of oral anticancer therapies (70.0%), remote adverse event monitoring (65.0%), and remote consenting (65.0%). Most respondents (15/18; 83.3%) reported that the pandemic had minimal (n = 14) or no impact (n = 1) on overall data integrity.

CONCLUSION

Despite nearly all sponsors observing a temporary increase in protocol deviations, most reported the pandemic had minimal/no impact on overall data integrity. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated an emerging trend toward greater flexibility in trial conduct, with potential benefits of reduced burden on trial participants and sites and improved patient access to research.

Telehealth through the pandemic at a safety net hospital: observations and next steps for cancer care delivery

The COVID-19 pandemic revolutionized cancer care delivery leading to rapid adoption of digital technology for telehealth in the United States. In this study, we describe telehealth utilization trends across the three largest waves of the pandemic at a safety net academic center. We also provide a perspective on lessons learnt and our vision for cancer care delivery using digital technology in the near future. The integration of interpreter services within the video platform and its integration within the electronic medical record system is crucial for safety net institutes that service a diverse patient population. Pay-parity for telehealth, especially ongoing support for audio-only visits, will be critical in overcoming health disparities for patients without access to smartphone technology. Use of telehealth in clinical trials, widespread adoption of hospital at home programs, electronic consults for rapid access, and structured telehealth slots in clinic templates will be crucial in making cancer care more equitable and efficient.

The Enduring Effects of COVID for Cancer Care: Learning from Real-Life Clinical Practice

For three years, COVID-19 has circulated among our communities and around the world, fundamentally changing social interactions, health care systems, and service delivery. For people living with (and receiving treatment for) cancer, pandemic conditions presented significant additional hurdles in an already unstable and shifting environment, including disrupted personal contact with care providers, interrupted access to clinical trials, distanced therapeutic encounters, multiple immune vulnerabilities, and new forms of financial precarity. In a 2020 perspective in this journal, we examined how COVID-19 was reshaping cancer care in the early stages of the pandemic and how these changes might endure into the future. Three years later, and in light of a series of interviews with patients and their caregivers from the United States and Australia conducted during the pandemic, we return to consider the potential legacy effects of the pandemic on cancer care. While some challenges to care provision and survivorship were unforeseen, others accentuated and amplified existing problems experienced by patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Both are likely to have enduring effects in the "post-pandemic" world, raising the importance of focusing on lessons that can be learned for the future.

Eighteen Years of Medical Oncology in Morocco: A Bibliometric Evaluation

Medical publications constitute an essential tool for sharing scientific advances in the medical field. They are also an educational tool of great significance in initial medical training, and also in further medical education. These publications are necessary to ensure an interface between the researchers and members of the medical scientific community, who are always looking for the correct and optimal treatment for their patients. Several golden rules have been laid out in terms of assessing the improvement in scientific productivity, namely the quality of the subject, the type of publication, the publication review and its impact factor, and the establishment of international collaborations. Bibliometrics is a quantitative and qualitative analysis of scientific publications, which aids in assessing the scientific productivity of a community or a scientific institution. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first bibliometric study to evaluate the scientific productivity in the field of medical oncology in Morocco.

The safety risk of information overload and bureaucracy in oncology clinical trial conduct

Performance of clinical trials has led to major therapeutic developments and substantial improvements in the field of medical oncology. To ensure patient's safety, regulatory aspects for proper clinical trial conduct have been increased over the past two decades but seem to cause information overload and ineffective bureaucracy, possibly even impacting patient safety. To put this in perspective, after the implementation of Directive 2001/20/EC in the European Union, a 90 per cent increase in trial launching time, a 25 per cent decrease in patient participation and a 98 per cent rise in administrative trial costs were reported. The time to initiate a clinical trial has increased from a few months to several years in the past three decades. Moreover, there is a serious risk that information overload with relatively unimportant data endangers the decision-making processes and distracts from essential patient safety information. It is now a critical moment in time to improve efficient clinical trial conduct for our future patients diagnosed with cancer. We are convinced that a reduction of the administrative regulations, information overload, and simplification of the procedures for trial conductance may improve patient safety. In this Current Perspective, we give insight in the current regulatory aspects of clinical research, evaluate the practical consequences of these regulations, and propose specific improvements for optimal clinical trial conduct.

Describing Supportive Care Programming Access and Comfort Gathering through the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Observational Mixed Methods Study with Adults Affected by Cancer

Supportive care programming helps many adults affected by cancer manage concerns related to their disease. Public health restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic have undoubtedly changed the nature of supportive care programming delivery. Yet, access to supportive care programming and comfort gathering through the pandemic are unknown. As a first step towards informing ongoing supportive care programming for adults affected by cancer, this observational, mixed methods study described supportive care programming access through the COVID-19 pandemic and comfort returning to in-person supportive care programming as restrictions eased. Adults affected by cancer (n = 113; mean age = 61.9 ± 12.7 years; 68% female) completed an online survey, and descriptive statistics were computed. A purposeful sample of survey participants (n = 12; mean age = 58.0 ± 14.5 years; 58% female) was subsequently recruited to complete semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Less than half (41.6%) of the survey sample reported accessing supportive care programming during the pandemic, and of those who had accessed supportive care programming, most (65.6%) perceived similar or greater access than pre-pandemic. During interviews, participants described the ways online delivery enhanced their access and reduced barriers to supportive care programming. However, physical activity programming was described as challenging to navigate online. With restrictions easing, most of the survey sample (56.6%) reported being apprehensive about returning to in-person supportive care programming and identified the protocols that would make them feel safe to gather. During interviews, participants recounted struggling to balance their need for social connection with their health and safety. This study provides evidence to inform supportive care programming for adults affected by cancer through the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings suggest online delivery can enhance access to some types of supportive care programming for some adults affected by cancer, and that efforts are needed to ensure all adults affected by cancer feel comfortable gathering in-person.

Prioritization of head and neck cancer patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic placed considerable strain on the healthcare system, leading to the re-allocation of resources and implementation of new practice guidelines. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of COVID-19 guideline modifications on head and neck cancer (HNC) care at two tertiary care centers in Canada.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. HNC patients seen at two tertiary care centers before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-pandemic: July 1st, 2019, to February 29th, 2020; pandemic: March 1st, 2020, to October 31st, 2020) were included. The pre-pandemic and pandemic cohorts were compared according to patient and tumor characteristics, duration of HNC workup, and treatment type and duration. Mean differences in cancer care wait times, including time to diagnosis, tumor board, and treatment as well as total treatment package time and postoperative hospital stay were compared between cohorts. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare characteristics and outcomes between cohorts.

RESULTS

Pre-pandemic (n = 132) and pandemic (n = 133) patients did not differ significantly in sex, age, habits, or tumor characteristics. The percentage of patients who received surgery only, chemo/radiotherapy (CXRT) only, and surgery plus adjuvant CXRT did not differ significantly between cohorts. Pandemic patients experienced a significant time reduction compared to pre-pandemic patients with regards to the date first seen by a HNC service until start of treatment ([Formula: see text] = 48.7 and 76.6 days respectively; p = .0001), the date first seen by a HNC service until first presentation at tumor board ([Formula: see text] = 25.1 and 38 days respectively; p = .001), mean total package time for patients who received surgery only ([Formula: see text] = 3.7 and 9.0 days respectively; p = .017), and mean total package time for patients who received surgery plus adjuvant CXRT ([Formula: see text] = 80.2 and 112.7 days respectively; p = .035).

CONCLUSION

The time to treatment was significantly reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic as compared to pre-pandemic. This transparent model of patient-centered operative-room prioritization can serve as a model for improving resource allocation and efficiency of HNC care during emergency and non-emergency scenarios.

Analysis of Serious Adverse Event Reporting for Patients Enrolled in Cancer Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cross-sectional study assesses whether a change occurred in reporting of serious adverse events for patients in oncology clinical trials in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Implementation and Clinical Adoption of Precision Oncology Workflows Across a Healthcare Network

BACKGROUND

Precision oncology relies on molecular diagnostics, and the value-proposition of modern healthcare networks promises a higher standard of care across partner sites. We present the results of a clinical pilot to standardize precision oncology workflows.

METHODS

Workflows are defined as the development, roll-out, and updating of disease-specific molecular order sets. We tracked the timeline, composition, and effort of consensus meetings to define the combination of molecular tests. To assess clinical impact, we examined order set adoption over a two-year period (before and after roll-out) across all gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary (GI) malignancies, and by provider location within the network.

RESULTS

Development of 12 disease center-specific order sets took ~9 months, and the average number of tests per indication changed from 2.9 to 2.8 (P = .74). After roll-out, we identified significant increases in requests for GI patients (17%; P < .001), compliance with testing recommendations (9%; P < .001), and the fraction of "abnormal" results (6%; P < .001). Of 1088 GI patients, only 3 received targeted agents based on findings derived from non-recommended orders (1 before and 2 after roll-out); indicating that our practice did not negatively affect patient treatments. Preliminary analysis showed 99% compliance by providers in network sites, confirming the adoption of the order sets across the network.

CONCLUSION

Our study details the effort of establishing precision oncology workflows, the adoption pattern, and the absence of harm from the reduction of non-recommended orders. Establishing a modifiable communication tool for molecular testing is an essential component to optimize patient care via precision oncology.

Safety and Efficacy of Dostarlimab in Patients With Recurrent/Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Results from Cohort E of the Phase I GARNET Trial

BACKGROUND

Dostarlimab is an anti-programmed cell death protein-1 antibody being evaluated in recurrent/advanced solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in the ongoing Phase I, multi-center, open-label, 2-part (dose escalation and cohort expansion) GARNET study (NCT02715284).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Here, we report an interim analysis of patients with recurrent/advanced NSCLC who progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received dostarlimab (500 mg IV every 3 weeks [Q3W] for Cycles 1-4, then 1000 mg Q6W) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for > 2 years. The primary endpoints were immune-related objective response rate (irORR) per investigator-assessed irRECIST and safety.

RESULTS

As of 8, July 2019, 67 patients with recurrent/advanced NSCLC were enrolled and treated with dostarlimab; the majority had programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) < 1% (35.8% of patients) or PD-L1 TPS 1%-49% (29.9% of patients); 7.5% had PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%, and 26.9% had unknown PD-L1 TPS status. Median follow-up was 13.8 months (range: 0.0-22.6). irORR was 26.9%, including 2 complete and 16 partial responses. The median duration of response of 11.6 months (range: 2.8-19.4). Responses were observed in 2 of 24 (16.7%) patients with PD-L1 TPS < 1%, 4 of 20 (20.0%) patients with PD-L1 TPS 1%-49% and 2 of 5 (40.0%) patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%. Fatigue (4.5%) was the most common Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TRAE). Immune-related TRAEs (any grade) were observed in 28.4% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Dostarlimab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in advanced/recurrent NSCLC that progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy, including across all PD-L1 subgroups, and has an acceptable safety profile.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Depression Symptoms in a Cross Section of Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: Adults with advanced lung cancer experience reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychological symptoms at diagnosis. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic worsened HRQOL among patients recently diagnosed with cancer. Design: We analyzed baseline data from two randomized controlled trials of early palliative care to compare HRQOL and depression symptoms among those enrolled during the pandemic (January 2020 to January 2021) versus prepandemic (March 2018 to January 2019). Setting/Subjects: This cohort included patients recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer in two multisite studies. Measurements: We used analysis of covariance to calculate adjusted mean differences between groups with the timeframe as an independent variable and HRQOL (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General) and depression symptoms (using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) as dependent variables, adjusting for age, gender, relationship status, performance status, symptoms, and time since diagnosis. We tested for an interaction between the COVID-19 timeframe and relationship status. Results: Neither HRQOL (adjusted mean difference -1.78; p = 0.137) nor depression symptoms (0.06; p = 0.889) differed between patients enrolled pre-COVID-19 (n = 665) relative to those enrolled during COVID-19 (n = 191) in adjusted analyses. Relationship status moderated the effect of the COVID-19 timeframe on HRQOL; unmarried patients experienced worse HRQOL during COVID-19 (adjusted mean difference: -5.25; p = 0.011). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic did not further reduce HRQOL or increase depression symptoms among patients recently diagnosed with lung cancer, but did worsen HRQOL for unmarried patients in moderation analysis. Psychosocial evaluation and supportive care are important for all patients, particularly those with limited social support. Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT03337399 and NCT03375489.

Increased TRIM31 gene expression is positively correlated with SARS-CoV-2 associated genes TMPRSS2 and TMPRSS4 in gastrointestinal cancers

Besides typical respiratory symptoms, COVID-19 patients also have gastrointestinal symptoms. Studies focusing on the gastrointestinal tumors derived from gastrointestinal tissues have raised a question whether these tumors might express higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 associated genes and therefore patients diagnosed with GI cancers may be more susceptible to the infection. In this study, we have analyzed the expression of SARS-CoV-2 associated genes and their co-expressions in gastrointestinal solid tumors, cancer cell lines and patient-derived organoids relative to their normal counterparts. Moreover, we have found increased co-expression of TMPRSS2-TMPRSS4 in gastrointestinal cancers suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 viral infection known to be mediated by this protease pair might facilitate the effects of viral infection in GI cancer patients. Further, our findings also demonstrate that TRIM31 expression is upregulated in gastrointestinal tumors, while the inhibition of TRIM31 significantly altered viral replication and viral processes associated with cellular pathways in gastrointestinal cancer samples. Taken together, these findings indicate that in addition to the co-expression of TMPRSS2-TMPRSS4 protease pair in GI cancers, TRIM31 expression is positively correlated with this pair and TRIM31 may play a role in providing an increased susceptibility in GI cancer patients to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Innovations in Cardio-oncology Resulting from the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID pandemic has transformed our approach to patient care, research, and training in cardio-oncology. While the early phases of the COVID pandemic were exceptionally frightening, we now can reflect on the innovative changes that brought more effective and patient-centered care to our doorsteps: expansion of telemedicine, integration of digital health, wider adoption of cardiac biomarkers, consolidation, and coordination of cardio-oncology testing. Normally, it takes years for health care systems to adopt new technology or modify patient care pathways; however, COVID pushed healthcare providers and the health systems to change at warp speed. All of these innovations have improved our efficacy and provided a more “patient-centered” approach for our cardio-oncology patients. The changes we have made in cardio-oncology will likely remain well beyond the pandemic and continue to grow improving the cardiovascular care of oncology patients.

Oncology provider experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic upended nearly all aspects of daily life and of medical care, placing a double burden of professional and personal concerns on those who provide medical care. We set out to assess the burden of the pandemic on provider outlook and understand how cancer survivorship providers experienced rapid changes to practice.

Methods

We distributed a survey through the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) to its accredited organizations in mid-October 2020. We included questions on provider characteristics, changes in patient care practices resulting from the pandemic, worry about COVID-19, and concern about impact on cancer survivors.

Results

Of the n = 607 participants, three-quarters were female and three-quarters were White. Only 2.1% of participants reported having had COVID-19, but 43% reported anxiety about getting COVID-19 and over a quarter experienced sadness or depression, anxiety about the future, changes to sleep, difficulty concentrating, or social isolation. Approximately half of providers also expressed significant concern about progression of cancer in patients who experienced care delays or were afraid of accessing in-person care. In terms of changes to survivorship care, respondents reported changes to visitor policies, delays or cancellations, and efforts to reduce in-person visits.

Conclusions

COVID-19 has taken a significant toll on front-line healthcare professionals, including oncologists and cancer care allied health professionals. Findings support proactive mental health support of healthcare professionals as well as emergency preparedness to manage delays to care for cancer patients in the event of future unexpected pandemics.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

Lessons Learned from the Impact of COVID-19 on NCI-sponsored Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials: Moving Toward Participant-centric Study Designs

The COVID-19 pandemic overloaded health care systems around the globe and brought travel restrictions and other mandates. These effects critically impacted cancer care and conduct of clinical trials, and required medical and research communities to incorporate changes and novel flexible workflows within clinical trials and regulations to improve efficiency. We report the impact of the pandemic on cancer prevention clinical trials managed by the Division of Cancer Prevention within the NCI, focusing on participant-centric, study staff-centric and regulatory elements. Learning lessons from this challenging period, the cancer prevention community has the opportunity to incorporate many of these necessitated novel approaches to future design of clinical trials, to streamline and improve clinical trial efficiency and impact.

Equitable Representation of Latinos in Clinical Research Is Needed to Achieve Health Equity in Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Identify key barriers that keep Latinos from participating in clinical trials (CTs) and interventions proven effective in increasing their representation in clinical research.

METHODS

Utilize our own extensive research experience and review the literature to: identify key barriers, summarize strategies that have been proven effective in increasing Latino representation in CTs, issue a call to action for programs/practices and practitioners to implement what is proven effective, and make recommendations for further research to address current gaps.

RESULTS

Participation barriers are complex, multifactorial, and exist at different levels, including study design (eg, protocol complexity, patient exclusion criteria, trial duration and frequency), healthcare system barriers (eg, lack of minority staff), patient-related factors (eg, lack of awareness, low health literacy, language, social determinants of health [SDoH]), and medical team issues (eg, lack of cultural competence, lack of referrals, implicit bias, provider/patient communication). Research has shown that the most effective strategies to increase participation of underrepresented minorities in CTs include culturally sensitive educational tools aimed at community members, patients, and physicians, and strategies to address the multiple SDoH and other barriers to participation facing cancer patients and the factors that influence patient decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Raising awareness or offering clinical trials to everyone will not alone increase Latino participation. Other key barriers at different levels must also be addressed, especially SDoH and patients' contextual factors. To achieve equitable participation of Latinos and other underrepresented groups in clinical research, comprehensive approaches that address interrelated multilevel and multifactorial barriers to participation can produce a substantial, sustained impact-ensuring everyone equitably benefits from scientific advances in cancer treatment, improved cancer outcomes and quality of life, and reduced health care costs.

Impact of Workforce Challenges and Funds Flow on Cancer Clinical Trial Development and Conduct

The conduct of clinical cancer research has faced considerable challenges in recent years, and the situation has only been exacerbated by the global pandemic. The growing complexity of clinical trials and rising administrative burdens had been causing greater expense and difficulty in recruiting and retaining an appropriately trained workforce even before the well-publicized increase in turnover caused by the pandemic. Longstanding issues such as restrictive inclusion criteria and complicated trial designs have negatively affected already low clinical trial accrual rates, limited sites capable of opening studies and enrolling patients, and worsened disparities in trial participation. Opposing these elements are efforts by ASCO and other organizations to increase affordability, access, and equity in clinical trial enrollment. To provide diverse perspectives on how these challenges are affecting cancer research as we emerge from the pandemic, we asked a panel of experienced clinical research leaders from both academic and community cancer centers to answer questions they felt most pressing about the business of conducting clinical research today and where they felt the field was moving in the near future.

How the COVID-19 Pandemic Reshaped the Management of Leukemia and Affected Patient Outcomes

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed numerous challenges to the global healthcare system. Of particular gravity is adult and pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies who are among the most vulnerable groups of patients at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. In the early phases of the pandemic, several treatment modifications were proposed for patients with leukemia. Largely speaking, these were adopting less-intense therapies and more utilization of the outpatient setting. Over time, our understanding and management have become more nuanced. Furthermore, equipped with vaccinations to prevent COVID-19 infection and availability of treatments in the presence of COVID-19 infection, the recommendations on management of patients with leukemia have evolved. Patient’s leukemia characteristics, possibility of targeted therapy, vaccination status, symptomatology, comorbidities, goal of anti-leukemic therapy, the intensity of therapy, the setting of treatment, as well as loco regional factors like dynamic incidence of COVID-19 in the community and hospital/ICU bed status are among many factors that influence the decisions. Furthermore, the oncology community has adopted delaying the anti-leukemia therapy for a limited time frame, if clinically possible, so as to still deliver most appropriate therapy while minimizing risks. Early adoption of growth factor support and conservative blood transfusion practices have helped as well. In this review, we discuss the impact of COVID-19 on outcomes and share considerations for treatments of leukemias. We describe the impact on both clinical care (from diagnosis to treatment) and research, and cover the literature on vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 in relation to leukemia.

Challenges and Adaptations for Providing Smoking Cessation for Patients with Cancer across Canada during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis can improve health outcomes, but the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly altered healthcare patterns and strained resources, including for smoking cessation support for cancer patients. A Network that included all 13 provinces and territories (jurisdictions) in Canada received funding and coordinated support from a national organization to implement access to smoking cessation support in cancer care between 2016 and 2021, including throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive analyses of meetings between the organization and jurisdictions between March of 2020 and August of 2021 demonstrated that all jurisdictions reported disruptions of existing smoking cessation approaches. Common challenges include staff redeployment, inability to deliver support in person, disruptions in travel, and loss of connections with other clinical resources. Common adaptations included budget and workflow adjustments, transition to virtual approaches, partnering with other community resources, and coupling awareness of the harms of smoking and COVID-19. All jurisdictions reported adaptations that maintained or improved access to smoking cessation services. Collectively, data suggest coordinated national efforts to address smoking cessation in cancer care could be crucial to maintaining access during an international healthcare crisis.

Lessons for Oncology From the COVID-19 Pandemic: Operationalizing and Scaling Virtual Cancer Care in Health Systems

ABSTRACT

After several decades of slow expansion, the use of virtual care in oncology rapidly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from cancer centers across the country show that most patients and providers were satisfied with components of virtual care, and virtual care may be able to improve access to care. However, the rapid implementation of programs during the pandemic worsened disparities in access to virtual care. Health systems must develop strategies to monitor quality, support patients and providers, promote health equity, and overcome regulatory challenges to successfully deliver care in hybrid systems that combine in-person and virtual care.

Maintaining and Advancing Quality Cancer Care During a Global Pandemic

The care of patients with cancer occurs in a fast-moving, high-pressure, and high-stakes ecosystem. Early in 2020, that complex ecosystem was further complicated by the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. We address actions taken by care providers and systems during the initial phases of the pandemic, and how those actions preserved lifesaving and life-sustaining cancer care despite severely constrained resources. We outline cancer care principles and guidelines that were developed, shared, and adopted by cancer care organizations across the country. Care delivery concerns that arose during the pandemic, including equipment and personnel shortages, moral distress for care providers, and exacerbation of health care inequities are addressed. Process and operations changes taken by payers to serve their clients are described. Lessons learned are highlighted, along with a call to action that we learn from the experience, broaden our cancer care delivery mission, and commit to structural changes that will permanently improve the capacity of cancer care teams.

The impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals-one year on: lessons learned from the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey series

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the well-being and job performance of oncology professionals globally. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate and monitor well-being since COVID-19 in relation to work, lifestyle and support factors in oncology professionals 1 year on since the start of the pandemic.

METHODS

An online, anonymous survey was conducted in February/March 2021 (Survey III). Key outcome variables included risk of poor well-being or distress (expanded Well-Being Index), feeling burnout (single item from expanded Well-Being Index), and job performance since COVID-19. Longitudinal analysis of responses to the series of three surveys since COVID-19 was carried out, and responses to job demands and resources questions were interrogated. SPSS V.26.0/V.27.0 and GraphPad Prism V9.0 were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Responses from 1269 participants from 104 countries were analysed in Survey III: 55% (n = 699/1269) female, 54% (n = 686/1269) >40 years, and 69% (n = 852/1230) of white ethnicity. There continues to be an increased risk of poor well-being or distress (n = 464/1169, 40%) and feeling burnout (n = 660/1169, 57%) compared with Survey I (25% and 38% respectively, P < 0.0001), despite improved job performance. Compared with the initial period of the pandemic, more participants report feeling overwhelmed with workload (45% versus 29%, P < 0.0001). There remain concerns about the negative impact of the pandemic on career development/training (43%), job security (37%). and international fellowship opportunities (76%). Alarmingly, 25% (n = 266/1086) are considering changing their future career with 38% (n = 100/266) contemplating leaving the profession.

CONCLUSION

Oncology professionals continue to face increased job demands. There is now significant concern regarding potential attrition in the oncology workforce. National and international stakeholders must act immediately and work closely with oncology professionals to draw up future-proof recovery plans.

Mental Health and Adherence to COVID-19 Protective Behaviors among Cancer Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International, Multinational Cross-Sectional Study

A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted during the first COVID-19 wave, to examine the impact of COVID-19 on mental health using an anonymous online survey, enrolling 9565 individuals in 78 countries. The current sub-study examined the impact of the pandemic and the associated lockdown measures on the mental health, and protective behaviors of cancer patients in comparison to non-cancer participants. Furthermore, 264 participants from 30 different countries reported being cancer patients. The median age was 51.5 years, 79.9% were female, and 28% had breast cancer. Cancer participants reported higher self-efficacy to follow recommended national guidelines regarding COVID-19 protective behaviors compared to non-cancer participants (p < 0.01). They were less stressed (p < 0.01), more psychologically flexible (p < 0.01), and had higher levels of positive affect compared to non-cancer participants. Amongst cancer participants, the majority (80.3%) reported COVID-19, not their cancer, as their priority during the first wave of the pandemic and females reported higher levels of stress compared to males. In conclusion, cancer participants appeared to have handled the unpredictable nature of the first wave of the pandemic efficiently, with a positive attitude towards an unknown and otherwise frightening situation. Larger, cancer population specific and longitudinal studies are warranted to ensure adequate medical and psychological care for cancer patients.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Care and Health-Related Quality of Life of Non-Hispanic Black/African American, Hispanic/Latina and Non-Hispanic White Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in the U.S.: A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol

The COVID-19 pandemic has had critical consequences for cancer care delivery, including altered treatment protocols and delayed services that may affect patients’ quality of life and long-term survival. Breast cancer patients from minoritized racial and ethnic groups already experience worse outcomes, which may have been exacerbated by treatment delays and social determinants of health (SDoH). This protocol details a mixed-methods study aimed at comparing cancer care disruption among a diverse sample of women (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latina) and assessing how proximal, intermediate, and distal SDoH differentially contribute to care continuity and health-related quality of life. An embedded mixed-methods design will be implemented. Eligible participants will complete an online survey, followed by a semi-structured interview (with a subset of participants) to further understand factors that influence continuity of care, treatment decision-making, and self-reported engagement. The study will identify potentially modifiable factors to inform future models of care delivery and improve care transitions. These data will provide the necessary evidence to inform whether a subsequent, multilevel intervention is warranted to improve quality of care delivery in the COVID-19 aftermath. Additionally, results can be used to identify ways to leverage existing social resources to help manage and support patients’ outcomes.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived access to health care and preferences for health care provision in individuals (being) treated for breast cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate perceived access to health care and preferences for health care provision among patients (being) treated for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Longitudinal study within the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA cohort of patients (being) treated for breast cancer. All cohort participants enrolled in UMBRELLA between October 2013 and November 2020 were sent a COVID-19-specific survey during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., April 2020 and November 2020, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 1106 (69.3%) and 822 (50.9%) cohort participants completed the survey in the first and second wave, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing that their treatment or follow-up care was affected due to COVID-19 decreased from 28.4% (n = 198) in April 2020 to 14.8% (n = 103) in November 2020. Throughout the pandemic, one or more hospital consultations were postponed in 10.0% (n = 82) of all patients and changed into a teleconsultation in 23.1% (n = 190). The proportion of patients who experienced a higher threshold to contact their general practitioner due to COVID-19 decreased from 29.9% (n = 204) in the first wave to 20.8% (n = 145) in the second wave. In-person consultations remained most preferred in 35.2% (n = 289) of all patients. Nearly half of all patients (48.3%, n = 396) indicated that telehealth would be a useful alternative for in-person consultations in future.

CONCLUSION

Perceived access to health care has improved substantially throughout the pandemic. Digital care is well received by patients (being) treated for breast cancer.

Investigating Trends in the Quality of Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Over Time: Analysis of 631 Randomized Controlled Trials Published Between 2004 and 2019

OBJECTIVES

Incomplete reporting of key information on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology has been highlighted repeatedly as a major barrier to the use of study findings in clinical practice. We investigated whether the quality of reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs has improved over the last 15 years.

METHODS

We identified all cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints conducted across the most prevalent solid tumor types worldwide published between 2004 and 2019. The quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the International Society for Quality of Life Research recommended standards, which include important aspects related to assessment methodology, statistical analyses, and interpretation of data.

RESULTS

We assessed a total of 631 cancer RCTs in breast (n = 187), lung (n = 131), prostate (n = 120), colorectal (n = 107), and gynecological (n = 86) cancer. We observed a higher adherence to the International Society for Quality of Life Research reporting criteria in the more recently published studies. In a multivariable linear regression analysis, we observed a statistically significant improvement in the quality of PRO reporting over time (P<.001), and this relationship was independent of other measured confounding factors, such as sample size and study sponsorship. Overall, the quality of PRO reporting was higher for studies published after the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-PRO Extension.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of PRO reporting in cancer RCTs published in the last 15 years has improved significantly. Our findings are encouraging because better reporting of PRO results may translate into a greater impact of study findings on real-world practice.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Care and Clinical Trials

Simple Summary

The coronavirus pandemic has had a considerable impact on all parts of society. Unsurprisingly, healthcare has been particularly affected, including cancer care and trials of new drugs. This article will summarize the impact the pandemic has had on cancer healthcare taking into consideration how the pandemic affected potential cancer patients and stopped them seeking medical advice for new symptoms. The pandemic also affected the ability of people to access healthcare services and undergo the tests necessary to diagnose cancer. This article will also discuss the impact of the pandemic on existing treatments and the trials of new drugs. In light of the unprecedented speed of development of new treatments and vaccines for the virus itself, it will also review whether some of these adaptations could be used to accelerate the development of novel cancer therapies.

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused considerable global disruption to clinical practice. This article will review the impact that the pandemic has had on oncology clinical trials. It will assess the effect of the COVID-19 situation on the initial presentation and investigation of patients with suspected cancer. It will also review the impact of the pandemic on the subsequent management of cancer patients, and how clinical trial approval, recruitment, and conduct were affected during the pandemic. An intriguing aspect of the pandemic is that clinical trials investigating treatments for COVID-19 and vaccinations against the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, have been approved and conducted at an unprecedented speed. In light of this, this review will also discuss the potential that this enhanced regulatory environment could have on the running of oncology clinical trials in the future.

Evaluation of Burnout in a National Sample of Hematology-Oncology Pharmacists

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prevalence of burnout among hematology-oncology pharmacists and factors associated with an increased risk of high burnout.

METHODS

Between October and November 2020, members of the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association were invited to complete an anonymous survey. Questions included the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), Well-Being Index, and sociodemographic and occupational factors linked with burnout.

RESULTS

Of 3,024 pharmacists contacted, 614 pharmacists (20.3%) responded to an online survey and 550 (18.2% of overall sample) completed the MBI and were included for analysis. Overall, high levels of burnout were observed in 61.8% of respondents based on the MBI, with 57.9% of respondents scoring high on the emotional exhaustion domain and 31.3% high in the depersonalization domain. Pharmacists with burnout worked on average 48.6 (±9.6) hours per week compared with 44.5 (±9.6) hours per week for those without high burnout and spent more time on administrative tasks per week (7.5 hours v 4.3 hours; all P < .001). Pharmacists reporting high burnout were more likely to report concern they had made a major medication error within the past 3 months (27.6% v 8.1%; P < .001) and greater intent to leave their current job within 2 years (60.3% v 19.0%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Burnout is prevalent among hematology-oncology pharmacists and may affect both patient safety and the adequacy of the workforce. Risk factors for burnout among hematology-oncology pharmacists in this study may be targets for burnout mitigation and prevention strategies to reduce the impact on pharmacists and improve cancer care for patients.

Cancer Australia consensus statement on COVID-19 and cancer care: embedding high value changes in practice

Introduction

Driven by the need to reduce risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and optimise use of health system resources, while maximising patient outcomes, the COVID‐19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented changes in cancer care. Some new or modified health care practices adopted during the pandemic will be of long term value in improving the quality and resilience of cancer care in Australia and internationally. The Cancer Australia consensus statement is intended to guide and enhance the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic and in a post‐pandemic environment. This article summarises the full statement, which is available at https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/covid‐19/covid‐19‐recovery‐implications‐cancer‐care.

Main recommendations

The statement is informed by a desktop literature review and input from cancer experts and consumers at a virtual roundtable, held in July 2020, on key elements of cancer care that changed during the pandemic. It describes targeted strategies (at system, service, practitioner and patient levels) to retain, enhance and embed high value changes in practice. Principal strategies include:

implementing innovative models of care that are digitally enabled and underpinned by clear governance, policies and procedures to guide best practice cancer care;

enabling health professionals to deliver evidence‐based best practice and coordinated, person‐centred cancer care; and

empowering patients to improve health literacy and enhancing their ability to engage in informed, shared decision making.

Changes in management as a result of this statement

Widespread adoption of high value health care practices across all levels of the cancer control sector will be of considerable benefit to the delivery of optimal cancer care into the future.

Lung Cancer and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection: Identifying Important Knowledge Gaps for Investigation

Patients with lung cancer are especially vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a greater than sevenfold higher rate of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19, a greater than threefold higher hospitalization rate with high complication rates, and an estimated case fatality rate of more than 30%. The reasons for the increased vulnerability are not known. In addition, beyond the direct impact of the pandemic on morbidity and mortality among patients with lung cancer, COVID-19, with its disruption of patient care, has also resulted in substantial impact on lung cancer screening and treatment/management.COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in people with lung cancer. On the basis of the available data, patients with lung cancer should continue their course of cancer treatment and get vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For unknown reasons, some patients with lung cancer mount poor antibody responses to vaccination. Thus, boosting vaccination seems urgently indicated in this subgroup of vulnerable patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, many unanswered questions regarding vaccination in this population remain, including the magnitude, quality, and duration of antibody response and the role of innate and acquired cellular immunities for clinical protection. Additional important knowledge gaps also remain, including the following: how can we best protect patients with lung cancer from developing COVID-19, including managing care in patient with lung cancer and the home environment of patients with lung cancer; are there clinical/treatment demographics and tumor molecular demographics that affect severity of COVID-19 disease in patients with lung cancer; does anticancer treatment affect antibody production and protection; does SARS-CoV-2 infection affect the development/progression of lung cancer; and are special measures and vaccine strategies needed for patients with lung cancer as viral variants of concern emerge.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer

Since late December 2019, the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its rapid international spread have posed a global health threat. The World Health Organization has declared the outbreak of COVID-19 as "public health emergency of international concern". COVID-19 not only brings tremendous pressure to the medical system but also brings new challenges to the global economy. The occurrence and development of cancer has always been an area of active research, and COVID-19 also has a long-lasting impact on the diagnosis, treatment, and research of cancer. In the context, we review the adverse effects of COVID-19 on the screening, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of cancer patients and the countermeasures in this situation, and provide solutions for improving the quality of life of cancer patients in the normalized prevention and control of COVID-19.

Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations

PURPOSE

To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript.

RESULTS

The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies.

STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE

Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

Transformation of Cancer Care during and after the COVID Pandemic, a point of no return. The Experience of Italy

Policymakers everywhere struggle to introduce therapeutic innovation while controlling costs, a particular challenge for the universal Italian National Healthcare System (SSN), which spends only 8.8% of GDP to care for one of the world's oldest populations. Oncology provides a telling example, where innovation has dramatically improved care and survival, transforming cancer into a chronic condition. However, innovation has also increased therapy duration, adverse event management, and service demand. The SSN risks collapse unless centralized cancer planning changes gear, particularly with Covid-19 causing treatment delays, worsening patient prognosis and straining capacity. In view of the 750 billion Euro "Next Generation EU", released by the European Union to relieve Member States hit by the pandemic, the SSN tapped a multidisciplinary research team to identify key strategies for equitable uptake of innovations in treatment and delivery, with emphasis on data-driven technological and managerial advancements - and lessons from Covid-19.

Imaging diagnosis of bronchogenic carcinoma (the forgotten disease) during times of COVID-19 pandemic: Current and future perspectives

Patients with bronchogenic carcinoma comprise a high-risk group for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), pneumonia and related complications. Symptoms of COVID-19 related pulmonary syndrome may be similar to deteriorating symptoms encountered during bronchogenic carcinoma progression. These resemblances add further complexity for imaging assessment of bronchogenic carcinoma. Similarities between clinical and imaging findings can pose a major challenge to clinicians in distinguishing COVID-19 super-infection from evolving bronchogenic carcinoma, as the above-mentioned entities require very different therapeutic approaches. However, the goal of bronchogenic carcinoma management during the pandemic is to minimize the risk of exposing patients to COVID-19, whilst still managing all life-threatening events related to bronchogenic carcinoma. The current pandemic has forced all healthcare stakeholders to prioritize per value resources and reorganize therapeutic strategies for timely management of patients with COVID-19 related pulmonary syndrome. Processing of radiographic and computed tomography images by means of artificial intelligence techniques can facilitate triage of patients. Modified and newer therapeutic strategies for patients with bronchogenic carcinoma have been adopted by oncologists around the world for providing uncompromised care within the accepted standards and new guidelines.