Management of Lung Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

An assessment of the association between patient characteristics and timely lung cancer treatment

PURPOSE

Prior data have demonstrated relationships between patient characteristics, the use of surgery to treat lung cancer, and the timeliness of treatment. Our study examines whether these relationships were observable in 2019 in patients with Medicare Advantage health plans being treated for lung cancer.

METHODS

Claims data pertaining to patients with Medicare Advantage health plans who had received radiation therapy (RT) or surgery to treat lung cancer within 90 days of diagnostic imaging were extracted. Other databases were used to determine patients' demographics, comorbidities, the urbanicity of their ZIP code, the median income of their ZIP code, and whether their treatment was ordered by a physician at a hospital. Multivariable logistic and Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to assess the association between patient characteristics, receipt of surgery, and time to non-systemic treatment (surgery or RT), respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 2,682 patients were included in the analysis. In an adjusted analysis, patients were significantly less likely to receive surgery if their first ordering physician was based in a hospital, if they were older, if they had a history of congestive heart failure (CHF), if they had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or if they had stage III lung cancer. Likewise, having stage III cancer was associated with significantly shorter time to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a Medicare Advantage population, patient demographics were found to be significantly associated with the decision to pursue surgery, but factors other than stage were not significantly associated with time to non-systemic treatment.

Analyzing the impact of the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on initial oncologic presentation and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

A significantly lower rate of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) screening, greater health care avoidance, and changes to oncologic recommendations were some consequences of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affecting the medical environment. We sought to determine how the health care environment during the COVID-19 pandemic affected the oncologic treatment of patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients with NSCLC in the National Cancer Database (2019-2020). Patients were divided into prepandemic (2019) and pandemic (2020) cohorts, and patient, oncologic, and treatment variables were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for the impact of demographic characteristics on oncologic variables and the impact of oncologic variables on treatment variables.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 250,791 patients, including 114,533 patients (45.7%) in the pandemic cohort. There were 15% fewer new NSCLC diagnoses during the pandemic compared with prepandemic. Patients diagnosed during the pandemic had more advanced clinical TNM stage on presentation (P < .0001) and were more likely to have tumors in overlapping lobes or in a main bronchus (P = .0002). They were less likely to receive cancer treatment (P < .0001) and to undergo primary resection (P < .0001) and more likely to receive adjuvant systemic therapy (P = .004) and a combination of palliative treatment regimens (P < .0001). After risk adjustment, all these differences remained statistically significant (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased clinical stage at presentation for patients with NSCLC, which impacted subsequent treatment strategies. However, treatment differed minimally when controlling for cancer stage. Future studies will examine the impact of these differences on overall survival and cancer-free survival.

Patients' perception of using telehealth for consultation: insights after pandemic and development of an online calculator platform to predict acceptance of remote consultation: the TELEMED international study

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a change in healthcare models. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient acceptance of telehealth as an alternative to physical consultations, and to identify factors predicting higher satisfaction. This was an observational, cross-sectional, multi-center, international study. All consecutive patients for whom telehealth was used in consultations between April and July 2020 were considered for inclusion. The validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) was used as a model to measure patient acceptance. Overall, 747 patients were observed, of whom 721 agreed to participate (96·5%). The TUQ showed that 86·9% of patients agreed that telehealth was useful; 85·2% supported the interface quality and 81·4% endorsed the interaction quality. Patients aged > 60 y were less likely to agree with the use of telehealth (p < 0·05). A web-based prediction tool was generated to calculate global satisfaction and to identify patients more likely to feel comfortable with telehealth. Telehealth is feasible and allows consultations that are satisfactory for patients. Technological advancements could ease safe implementation of telehealth into everyday practice. Adequate patient selection can be useful to ensure that the ideal strategy is used for each individual during and after the pandemic.

A Comparative Multicenter Cohort Study Evaluating the Long-Term Influence of the Strict Lockdown during the First COVID-19 Wave on Lung Cancer Patients (ARTEMISIA Trial)

The consequences of the strict health restrictions during the first wave of COVID-19 on lung cancer (LC) patients are not known. This cohort study evaluated the impact of the initial lockdown on management of and long-term outcome in LC patients. This exposed-unexposed-type study included two evaluation periods of 6 months each in non-selected patients; one began on the first day of lockdown in 2020, and the other in 2019 during the same calendar period. Various indicators were compared: clinical profiles, management delays and overall survival beyond 2 years. A total of 816 patients from 7 public or private centers were enrolled. The clinical characteristics of the patients in 2020 did not differ from those in 2019, except that the population was older (p = 0.002) with more non-smokers (p = 0.006). Delays for pre-therapeutic medical management were generally reduced after the first imaging in 2020 (1.28 [1.1-1.49]). In the multivariate analysis, being part of the 2020 cohort was correlated with better prognosis (HR = 0.71 [0.5-0.84], p < 0.001). The gain observed in 2020 mainly benefited non-smoking patients, along with ECOG PS 0-2 (p = 0.01), stage 4 (p = 0.003), squamous cell carcinoma (p = 0.03) and receiving systemic therapy (p = 0.03). In conclusion, the first lockdown did not exert any deleterious impact on LC patients.

Clinical management of stage III non-small cell lung cancer in India: An expert consensus statement

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is considered the most common type of lung cancer (>80% of all lung cancers); patients are often diagnosed at advanced stages of the disease. The management of NSCLC is considered challenging owing to variations in size, an extension of the tumors, involvement patterns, and classification. Although adequate literature and guidelines are available on the management of NSCLC in several countries, an Indian perspective on stage III NSCLC management is lacking. We used the modified Delphi approach to form consensus statements. A thorough literature search was done. The authors then convened and deliberated over published literature, available guidelines, and clinical judgment. Recommendation statements were formed for different clinical scenarios. These statements were sent as a form of survey to other oncologists, and their responses were recorded and mentioned. Evidence-based statements were formed for diagnosing and managing stage III NSCLC. These recommendation statements cover various aspects-surgical, radiation, and medical treatment in various clinical scenarios including adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and consolidation therapies.

Lung Cancer Treatment Trends During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Claims and Order Data Analysis (2019-2021)

Introduction

Lung cancer is treated using systemic therapy, radiation therapy (RT), and surgery. This study evaluates how utilization of these modalities and cancer stage at initial treatment shifted from 2019 to 2021.

Methods

Claims for lung cancer treatment were extracted from the database of a national health care organization offering Medicare Advantage health plans and paired with enrollment data to determine utilization rates. Seasonally adjusted rates were trended, with monotonicity evaluated using Mann-Kendall tests. Using contemporaneous prior authorization order data, the association between year and the patient's cancer stage at the time of the initial RT or surgery order was evaluated through univariable and multivariable analyses.

Results

The study considered 140.9 million beneficiary-months of data. There were negative and significantly monotonic trends in utilization of RT (p = 0.033) and systematic therapy (p = 0.003) for initial treatment between January 2020 and December 2021. Analysis of RT and surgery order data revealed that the patients were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely to have advanced (stage III or IV) cancer at the time of their surgery order in 2020 and 2021 than in 2019. After adjusting for urbanicity, age, and local income, a significant relationship between year of the initial order and presence of advanced cancer at the time of ordering was found for surgery orders placed in 2020 (p < 0.001) and 2021 (p < 0.01), but not for RT orders.

Conclusions

There was a per-capita reduction in lung cancer treatment in 2020 and 2021, and patients receiving initial orders for surgery after the onset of the pandemic had more advanced cancer.

Impact of COVID-19 control on lung, breast, and colorectal pathological cancer diagnoses. A comparison between the Netherlands, Aotearoa New Zealand, and Northern Ireland

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic was managed in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) by a COVID-19 elimination policy, involving border closure and an initial national lockdown. This was different to most other countries including Northern Ireland (NI) and the Netherlands (NED). We quantify the effect of these policies on the diagnosis of three major cancers, comparing NZ with these two European countries.

METHOD

Data from NED, NZ and NI population-based cancer registries were used to assess trends in all pathologically diagnosed (PD) lung, breast, and colorectal cancers from March to December 2020 (pandemic period) and compared to the similar pre-pandemic period (2017-2019). Trend data were also collated on COVID-19 cases and deaths per 100,000 in each population.

RESULTS

Comparing the pre-pandemic period to the pandemic period there were statistically significant reductions in numbers of lung (↓23%) and colorectal (↓15%) PD cancers in NI and numbers of breast (↓18%) and colorectal cancer (↓18.5%) diagnosed in the NED. In NZ there was no significant change in the number of lung (↑10%) or breast cancers (↑0.2%) but a statistically significant increase in numbers of colorectal cancer diagnosed (↑5%).

CONCLUSION

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer services was mitigated in NZ as services continued as usual reflecting minimal healthcare disruption and protected cancer services linked with the elimination approach adopted. The reduction in PD cases diagnosed in NED and NI were linked with higher COVID-19 rates and reflect societal restrictions which resulted in delayed patient presentation to primary and secondary care, disruption to screening and healthcare services as a result of COVID-19 infections on staff and the need to shift intensive care to COVID-19 patients. Reductions in PD cancers in NI and the NED and in particularly lung cancers in NI, highlight the need for targeted public health campaigns to identify and treat 'missing' patients. Protecting cancer services should be a priority in any future pandemic or systemic healthcare system disruption.

Current challenges and perspectives in lung cancer care during COVID-19 waves

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the era of the SARS-Cov2 pandemic, the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer is the main challenge for clinicians. The depiction of complex networking between SARS-CoV2 and cancer cells is crucial to understanding the downstream signalling pathways leading to more severe clinical behaviour of COVID-19 among lung cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The immunosuppressive status caused by both blunted immune response and active anticancer treatments (e.g. radiotherapy, chemotherapy) affects also the response to vaccines. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced early detection, therapeutic management, and clinical research for patients with lung cancer.

SUMMARY

SARS-CoV-2 infection does undoubtedly represent a challenge for care of patients with lung cancer. Since symptoms of infection may overlap with underlying condition, diagnosis must be reached and treatment should start as soon as possible. Although any cancer treatment should be procrastinated as long as infection is not cured, every choice must be pondered on individual basis, according to clinical conditions. Underdiagnosis should be avoided, and both surgical and medical treatment must be tailored to each patient. Therapeutic scenario standardization represents a major challenge for clinicians and researchers.

Management and outcome of EGFR mutant lung cancer with SARS-CoV-2 infection

The world and India, in particular, have been grappling with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic for more than a year now. The simultaneous presence of active COVID-19 infection with lung cancer poses both a diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma, because of similar clinical, radiological features along with increased susceptibility to ICU admissions and death. We present the case of a metastatic EGFR mutant lung cancer patient who was started on Gefitinib during active COVID-19 infection. He had made a complete recovery from COVID-19 infection while achieving a partial response to therapy in terms of primary lung cancer. The case highlights the importance of active involvement of a medical oncologist in the care of all cancer patients with COVID-19 infection instead of the traditional holding of all therapy for cancer until COVID-19 recovery as suggested by the majority of guidelines.

mHealth Technology as a Help Tool during Breast Cancer Treatment: A Content Focus Group

PURPOSE

To assess the usability and preferences of the contents of mHealth software developed for breast cancer patients as a tool to obtain patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), improve the patient's knowledge about the disease and its side effects, increase adherence to treatment, and facilitate communication with the doctor.

INTERVENTION

an mHealth tool called the Xemio app provides side effect tracking, social calendars, and a personalized and trusted disease information platform to deliver evidence-based advice and education for breast cancer patients.

METHOD

A qualitative research study using semi-structured focus groups was conducted and evaluated. This involved a group interview and a cognitive walking test using Android devices, with the participation of breast cancer survivors.

RESULTS

The ability to track side effects and the availability of reliable content were the main benefits of using the application. The ease of use and the method of interaction were the primary concerns; however, all participants agreed that the application would be beneficial to users. Finally, participants expressed their expectations of being informed by their healthcare providers about the launch of the Xemio app.

CONCLUSION

Participants perceived the need for reliable health information and its benefits through an mHealth app. Therefore, applications for breast cancer patients must be designed with accessibility as a key consideration.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Care

We assessed the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare visits, timing of stage IV NSCLC diagnosis and immunotherapy initiation, and rates of switching to extended dosing schedules of immunotherapies among patients with stage IV NSCLC. This retrospective study examined electronic health record data of adult patients receiving treatment for stage IV NSCLC within The US Oncology Network and Onmark. Endpoints were compared for February-July 2019 (before COVID) vs. February-July 2020 (during COVID). The study found rapid decreases in numbers of patients with clinic/vital visits, immunotherapy initiations, and new diagnoses of stage IV NSCLC during April-May 2020 vs. April-May 2019. The rate of delays of immunotherapy administrations and proportions of patients with such delays increased from February to March of 2020. These patterns may have resulted from the increase in COVID-19 cases during this period and the corresponding quarantine and lockdowns. However, when comparing pre COVID-19 and during COVID-19 for May and after, the differences in delay of immuno-oncology administrations became less marked, likely due to lifting of lockdowns. The rate of switching from shorter to longer dosing schedules increased from May-July 2020. This was mainly attributed to pembrolizumab, likely due to FDA approval of the pembrolizumab 6W dosing schedule in April 2020.

Add fuel to the fire: Inflammation and immune response in lung cancer combined with COVID-19

The corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has had an unprecedented and persistent impact on oncological practice, especially for patients with lung cancer, who are more vulnerable to the virus than the normal population. Indeed, the onset, progression, and prognosis of the two diseases may in some cases influence each other, and inflammation is an important link between them. The original chronic inflammatory environment of lung cancer patients may increase the risk of infection with COVID-19 and exacerbate secondary damage. Meanwhile, the acute inflammation caused by COVID-19 may induce tumour progression or cause immune activation. In this article, from the perspective of the immune microenvironment, the pathophysiological changes in the lungs and whole body of these special patients will be summarised and analysed to explore the possible immunological storm, immunosuppression, and immune escape phenomenon caused by chronic inflammation complicated by acute inflammation. The effects of COVID-19 on immune cells, inflammatory factors, chemokines, and related target proteins in the immune microenvironment of tumours are also discussed, as well as the potential role of the COVID-19 vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting. Finally, we provide recommendations for the treatment of lung cancer combined with COVID-19 in this special group.

Immune Response and Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Lung Cancer-COVID Lung Vaccine Study

Lung cancer patients represent a subgroup of special vulnerability in whom the SARS-CoV-2 infection could attain higher rates of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, those patients were recommended to receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccines once they were approved. However, little was known at that time regarding the degree of immunity developed after vaccination or vaccine-related adverse events, and more uncertainty involved the real need for a third dose. We sought to evaluate the immune response developed after vaccination, as well as the safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in a cohort of patients with lung cancer. Patients were identified through the Oncology/Hematology Outpatient Vaccination Program. Anti-Spike IgG was measured before any vaccine and at 3-6-, 6-9- and 12-15-month time points after the 2nd dose. Detailed clinical data were also collected. In total, 126 patients with lung cancer participated and received at least one dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. At 3-6 months after 2nd dose, 99.1% of baseline seronegative patients seroconverted and anti-Spike IgG titers went from a median value of 9.45 to 720 UI/mL. At the 6-9-month time point, titers raised to a median value of 924 UI/mL, and at 12-15 months, after the boost dose, they reached a median value of 3064 UI/mL. Adverse events to the vaccine were mild, and no SARS- CoV-2 infection-related deaths were recorded. In this lung cancer cohort, COVID-19 vaccines were safe and effective irrespective of the systemic anticancer therapy. Most of the patients developed anti-Spike IgG after the second dose, and these titers were maintained over time with low infection and reinfection rates with a mild clinical course.

Stepping into the real world: a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care

Background

To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

Method

A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed.

Results

A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of ‘organizational readiness for implementing change’ (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options.

Plain English summary

Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.

High-Risk Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Active Scanning Proton Beam Radiation Therapy and Immunotherapy

Purpose

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a deadly malignancy that is frequently diagnosed in patients with significant medical comorbidities. When delivering local and regional therapy, an exceedingly narrow therapeutic window is encountered, which often precludes patients from receiving aggressive curative therapy. Radiation therapy advances including particle therapy have been employed in an effort to expand this therapeutic window. Here we report outcomes with the use of proton therapy with curative intent and immunotherapy to treat patients diagnosed with high-risk NSCLC.

Methods and Materials

Patients were determined to be high risk if they had severe underlying cardiopulmonary dysfunction, history of prior thoracic radiation therapy, and/or large volume or unfavorable location of disease (eg, bilateral hilar involvement, supraclavicular involvement). As such, patients were determined to be ineligible for conventional x-ray-based radiation therapy and were treated with pencil beam scanning proton beam therapy (PBS-PBT). Patients who demonstrated excess respiratory motion (ie, greater than 1 cm in any dimension noted on the 4-dimensional computed tomography simulation scan) were deemed to be ineligible for PBT. Toxicity was reported using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0. Overall survival and progression-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

A total of 29 patients with high-risk NSCLC diagnoses were treated with PBS-PBT. The majority (55%) of patients were defined as high risk due to severe cardiopulmonary dysfunction. Most commonly, patients were treated definitively to a total dose of 6000 cGy (relative biological effectiveness) in 30 fractions with concurrent chemotherapy. Overall, there were a total of 6 acute grade 3 toxicities observed in our cohort. Acute high-grade toxicities included esophagitis (n = 4, 14%), dyspnea (n = 1, 3.5%), and cough (n = 1, 3.5%). No patients developed grade 4 or higher toxicity. The majority of patients went on to receive immunotherapy, and high-grade pneumonitis was rare. Two-year progression-free and overall survival was estimated to be 51% and 67%, respectively. COVID-19 was confirmed or suspected to be responsible for 2 patient deaths during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

Radical PBS-PBT treatment delivered in a cohort of patients with high-risk lung cancer with immunotherapy is feasible with careful multidisciplinary evaluation and rigorous follow-up.

Global Association of COVID-19 Pandemic Measures with Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IMPORTANCE

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a serious strain on health services, including cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the changes in cancer treatment worldwide during the first phase of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed, Proquest, and Scopus databases were searched comprehensively for articles published between 1 January 2020 and 12 December 2021, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted following the PRISMA statement.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies and articles that reported data on the number of or variation in cancer treatments between the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, comprising oncological surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapies, were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted from two pairs of independent reviewers. The weighted average of the percentage variation was calculated between the two periods to assess the change in the number of cancer treatments performed during the pandemic. Stratified analyses were performed by type of treatment, geographic area, time period, study setting, and type of cancer.

RESULTS

Among the 47 articles retained, we found an overall reduction of -18.7% (95% CI, -24.1 to -13.3) in the total number of cancer treatments administered during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the previous periods. Surgical treatment had a larger decrease compared to medical treatment (-33.9% versus -12.6%). For all three types of treatments, we identified a U-shaped temporal trend during the entire period January-October 2020. Significant decreases were also identified for different types of cancer, in particular for skin cancer (-34.7% [95% CI, -46.8 to -22.5]) and for all geographic areas, in particular, Asia (-42.1% [95% CI, -49.6 to -34.7]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The interruption, delay, and modifications to cancer treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to alter the quality of care and patient outcomes.

Early outcomes of lung resections in non-small cell lung cancer after COVID-19 pneumonia

Objective

There is limited literature on patients with a history of COVID-19 pneumonia who underwent anatomical lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was aimed to share the early postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent lung resection after COVID-19 pneumonia.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively evaluated 30 patients who underwent lobectomy with thoracotomy and systematic mediastinal lymph node dissection due to NSCLC in a single center between November 2018 and September 2021. The patients were divided into two groups regarding COVID-19 pneumonia history; the COVID-19 group consisted of 14 patients (46.7%) and the non-COVID-19 group 16 (53.3%) patients. The patients’ age, gender, comorbidity, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) value, tumor type and size, resection type, postoperative air leak duration, total drainage volume, drain removal time, postoperative complications, and length of stay (LOS) were recorded.

Results

9 (30%) patients were female, and 21 (70%) were male. The mean age was 62.1 ± 8.91 years. Our comparison of postoperative air leak duration, total drainage volume, time to drain removal, postoperative complications, and LOS between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups revealed no statistically significant difference.

Conclusion

Anatomical lung resection can be performed safely in NSCLC patients with a history of COVID-19 pneumonia without significant difference in early postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Safety and Feasibility of Lung Cancer Surgery under the COVID-19 Circumstance

Simple Summary

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically changed the current practice of medicine worldwide. As more clinical data is collected and processed, we are beginning to have an understanding of which patients are more at risk for severe complications of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Preliminary data has shown that patients with lung cancer are disproportionally affected by the current COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, studies have shown that lung cancer patients are also significantly more likely to be admitted to the ICU and need mechanical ventilation. A specific subset of patients that are even more at risk for severe COVID-19 are those that require lung cancer surgery. To minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients undergoing surgery, new treatment guidelines and preventive measures are necessary. In this review, we summarize the latest evidence regarding recommendations for patients undergoing lung cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era.

Abstract

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced healthcare providers worldwide to adapt their practices. Our understanding of the effects of COVID-19 has increased exponentially since the beginning of the pandemic. Data from large-scale, international registries has provided more insight regarding risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and has allowed us to delineate specific subgroups of patients that have higher risks for severe complications. One particular subset of patients that have significantly higher risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection with higher morbidity and mortality rates are those that require surgical treatment for lung cancer. Earlier studies have shown that COVID-19 infections in patients that underwent lung cancer surgery is associated with higher rates of respiratory failure and mortality. However, deferral of cancer treatments is associated with increased mortality as well. This creates difficult situations in which healthcare providers are forced to weigh the benefits of surgical treatment against the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 infections. A number of oncological and surgical organizations have proposed treatment guidelines and recommendations for patients planned for lung cancer surgery. In this review, we summarize the latest data and recommendations for patients undergoing lung cancer surgery in the COVID-19 circumstance.

The Potential Bioactive Components of Nine TCM Prescriptions Against COVID-19 in Lung Cancer Were Explored Based on Network Pharmacology and Molecular Docking

Objective

The purpose of this study was to screen active components and molecular targets of nine prescriptions recommended by the National Health Commission (NHC) of China by network pharmacology, and to explore the potential mechanism of the core active components against COVID-19 with molecular docking.

Methods

Differentially expressed genes of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) screened by edgeR analysis were overlapped with immune-related genes in MMPORT and COVID-19-related genes in GeneCards. The overlapped genes were also COVID-19 immune-related genes in LUAD. TCMSP platform was used to identify active ingredients of the prescription, potential targets were identified by the UniProt database, and the cross genes with COVID-19 immune-related genes in LUAD were used to construct a Chinese Medicine-Logy-immune target network. Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) enrichment analyses were performed on the target genes of each prescription. Finally, the key active components were selected for molecular docking simulation with ACE2.

Results

We obtained 15 overlapping immunization target genes from FPQXZ, HSYFZ, HSZFZ, and QFPDT, 16 overlapping immunization target genes from QYLFZ, SDYFZ, SRYFZ, and YDBFZ, and 17 overlapping immunization target genes from QYLXZ. ADRB2, FOS, HMOX1, ICAM1, IL6, JUN, NFKBIA, and STAT1 also had the highest-ranked therapeutic targets for 9 prescriptions, and their expressions were positively correlated with TME-related stromal score, immune score, and ESTIMATE score. Among 9 compounds with the highest frequency of occurrence in the 9 prescriptions, baicalein had the highest ACE2 binding affinity and can be well-combined into the active pocket of ACE2 It is stabilized by forming hydrogen bonds with ASN290 and ILE291 in ACE2 and hydrophobic interaction with PHE438, ILE291, and PRO415.

Conclusion

The nine Chinese medicine prescriptions may play an anti-SARS-CoV-2 role via regulating viral transcription and immune function through multi-component, multi-target, and multi-pathway.

The impact of misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic

Since the inception of the current pandemic, COVID-19 related misinformation has played a role in defaulting control of the situation. It has become evident that the internet, social media, and other communication outlets with readily available data have contributed to the dissemination and availability of misleading information. It has perpetuated beliefs that led to vaccine avoidance, mask refusal, and utilization of medications with insignificant scientific data, ultimately contributing to increased morbidity. Undoubtedly, misinformation has become a challenge and a burden to individual health, public health, and governments globally. Our review article aims at providing an overview and summary regarding the role of media, other information outlets, and their impact on the pandemic. The goal of this article is to increase awareness of the negative impact of misinformation on the pandemic. In addition, we discuss a few recommendations that could aid in decreasing this burden, as preventing the conception and dissemination of misinformation is essential.

COVID-19 and its impact on cancer, HIV, and mentally ill patients

Severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its disease, COVID-19 is a global pandemic creating an unprecedented medical as well economic havoc across the world. Despite the wide spread global infection rates, the death rate is low for COVID-19. However, COVID-19 patients with other comorbid conditions face severe health complications irrespective of their gender or age. As the management of COVID-19 patients is taking up health resources, it is getting difficult to treat patients suffering from other dreadful diseases like cancer, HIV, and mental health issues. In this chapter, we discuss the effects of COVID-19 and management of cancer patients of main cancer subtypes (e.g., breast, lung, blood cancers), and patients affected with HIV and mental health issues. Finally, we also add a perspective on Ayurvedic treatment and its efficacy on COVID-19 patients.

Management of lung cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic: dos, don’ts and don’t knows

Aim:

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic two needs have overlapped: on one hand continuing to provide the best care for patients with lung cancer and preventing the spread of the virus between patients and healthcare professionals on the other hand. Due to the pandemic’s unpredictable duration, physicians had to evaluate the risk/benefit ratio of anti-cancer therapeutic strategy to do the best for their patients and to protect patients themselves, as well as healthcare workers.

Methods:

Systematic literature research was performed with the aim to assess the available guidelines for the management of lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirteen potentially relevant articles were selected and recommendations have been divided into three main categories: dos, don’ts and don’t knows.

Results:

All guidelines and recommendations highlighted the relevance of being able to delay, if possible and based on risk stratification, and curative interventions. The selected recommendations should be considered adaptable and flexible because they might be contextualized on the basis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and the availability of diagnostic-therapeutic resources.

Conclusions:

It remains of fundamental importance to discuss each diagnostic and therapeutic decision with the patient taking into account risks and benefits that might vary from case to case.

Prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in patients with lung neuroendocrine carcinoma receiving platinum agents plus etoposide

BACKGROUND

The clinical utility of prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients receiving platinum agents plus etoposide for neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is unknown.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with NEC who received platinum agents plus etoposide were retrospectively evaluated. The occurrence of severe neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and efficacy of chemotherapy were compared between patients who did (G-CSF group) and did not receive prophylactic G-CSF (non-G-CSF group).

RESULTS

Among 58 patients, 51 (87.9%) and 7 (12.1%) had small-cell lung cancer and large-cell NEC, respectively, and 24 (41.4%) and 34 (58.6%) received cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively. The G-CSF and non-G-CSF groups included 32 and 26 patients, respectively. The non-G-CSF group displayed significantly higher rates of grade 3-4 neutropenia {88.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 69.8% - 97.6%] vs. 56.2% [95% CI = 37.7% - 73.6%], P = 0.009} and FN [50.9% (95% CI = 30% - 70%) vs. 18.8% (95% CI = 7.2% - 36.4%), P = 0.023] than the G-CSF group. In multivariate analysis, non-G-CSF was an independent risk factor for grade 3-4 neutropenia and FN. The rate of treatment delay was significantly higher in the non-G-CSF group (69.2% vs. 31.2%, P = 0.001). The relative dose intensity was significantly higher in the G-CSF group (86.7% vs. 74.1%, P < 0.001). The overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NEC receiving platinum agents plus etoposide, prophylactic G-CSF significantly reduced the risks of severe neutropenia and FN.

Cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic: Choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea

COVID-19 was declared a "Public Health Emergency of International Concern" in March 2020. Since then, drastic measures were implemented to reduce the virus spread. These measures prevented cancer patients from receiving prompt medical care. A delay in testing and treating cancer patients is thought to protect them from serious COVID-19 complications but exposes them at the same time to the risk of disease progression and cancer related mortality. Healthcare providers are therefore facing the dilemma of choosing between two unpleasant scenarios. To shed light upon the matter, we present in this review article, based on an extensive search of the literature, an overview of the delay in the management of cancer patients, possible contributors to this delay and its benefits and risks on cancer patients' health.

Impact of telemedicine adoption on accessibility and time to treatment in patients with thoracic malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

To ensure safe delivery of oncologic care during the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has been rapidly adopted. However, little data exist on the impact of telemedicine on quality and accessibility of oncologic care. This study assessed whether conducting an office visit for thoracic oncology patients via telemedicine affected time to treatment initiation and accessibility.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with thoracic malignancies seen by a multidisciplinary team during the first surge of COVID-19 cases in Philadelphia (March 1 to June 30, 2020). Patients with an index visit for a new phase of care, defined as a new diagnosis, local recurrence, or newly discovered metastatic disease, were included.

Results

240 distinct patients with thoracic malignancies were seen: 132 patients (55.0%) were seen initially in-person vs 108 (45.0%) via telemedicine. The majority of visits were for a diagnosis of a new thoracic cancer (87.5%). Among newly diagnosed patients referred to the thoracic oncology team, the median time from referral to initial visit was significantly shorter amongst the patients seen via telemedicine vs. in-person (median 5.0 vs. 6.5 days, p < 0.001). Patients received surgery (32.5%), radiation (24.2%), or systemic therapy (30.4%). Time from initial visit to treatment initiation by modality did not differ by telemedicine vs in-person: surgery (22 vs 16 days, p = 0.47), radiation (27.5 vs 27.5 days, p = 0.86, systemic therapy (15 vs 13 days, p = 0.45).

Conclusions

Rapid adoption of telemedicine allowed timely delivery of oncologic care during the initial surge of the COVID19 pandemic by a thoracic oncology multi-disciplinary clinic.

COVID-19 in Immunocompromised Cancer Patients: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

The global pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has presented newfound challenges to the oncology community regarding management of disease progression in immunocompromised and cancer patients. Further, the large influx of COVID-19 patients has overwhelmed healthcare facilities, limited access to intensive care unit beds and ventilators, and canceled elective surgeries causing disruptions to the cancer care continuum and re-organization of oncological care. While it is known that the potential threat of infection is greatest in elderly patients (>60 years of age) and patients with underlying comorbidities, there is still insufficient data to determine the risk of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Given the immunosuppressive status in cancer patients arising from chemotherapy and other comorbidities, management of COVID-19 in this patient population carries a unique set of challenges. We report three cases of COVID-19 in immunocompromised cancer patients and discuss the challenges in preventing, diagnosing, and treating this vulnerable group.

Clinical Outcome in Patients with Nosocomial COVID-19 Infection After Thoracic Surgery

In the present study, we retrospectively evaluated outcomes in 8 patients (mean age 67 ± 7, range 55-77 years; male/female 7/1) who acquired nosocomial COVID-19 infection postoperatively out of the 39 adults who underwent elective thoracic surgery in November 2020. All patients were tested negative for COVID-19 on admission. The mortality rate in the eight patients was 25%. The surviving six patients were discharged in a good clinical condition. Fatal outcomes were due to the development of severe and unrelenting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and were associated with preoperatively reduced serum albumin (<3 g/dL), an open surgical approach, oxygen saturation <90% at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and the real-time PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value <20. A high mortality rate indicates a need for systematic and frequent COVID-19 screening in patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery and the use of minimally invasive procedures whenever feasible.

Care disruptions among patients with lung cancer: A COVID-19 and cancer outcomes study

Introduction

Patients with lung cancer (LC) are susceptible to severe outcomes from COVID-19. This study evaluated disruption to care of patients with LC during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

The COVID-19 and Cancer Outcomes Study (CCOS) is a prospective cohort study comprised of patients with a current or past history of hematological or solid malignancies with outpatient visits between March 2 and March 6, 2020, at two academic cancer centers in the Northeastern United States (US). Data was collected for the three months prior to the index week (baseline period) and the following three months (pandemic period).

Results

313 of 2365 patients had LC, 1578 had other solid tumors, and 474 had hematological malignancies. Patients with LC were not at increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis compared to patients with other solid or hematological malignancies. When comparing data from the pandemic period to the baseline period, patients with LC were more likely to have a decrease in in-person visits compared to patients with other solid tumors (aOR 1.94; 95% CI, 1.46–2.58), but without an increase in telehealth visits (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 0.85–1.50). Patients with LC were more likely to experience pandemic-related treatment delays than patients with other solid tumors (aOR 1.80; 95% CI 1.13–2.80) and were more likely to experience imaging/diagnostic procedure delays than patients with other solid tumors (aOR 2.59; 95% CI, 1.46–4.47) and hematological malignancies (aOR 2.01; 95% CI, 1.02–3.93). Among patients on systemic therapy, patients with LC were also at increased risk for decreased in-person visits and increased treatment delays compared to those with other solid tumors.

Discussion

Patients with LC experienced increased cancer care disruption compared to patients with other malignancies during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Focused efforts to ensure continuity of care for this patient population are warranted.

Viral Infection and Lung Cancer Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (mainly anti-PD1 and anti-PDL1 monoclonal antibodies) became a standard of care in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Most of the clinical trials excluded patients with hepatitis B (HBV), hepatis C (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) active infection (1-10). Despite the progress in treatment of these infections, they remain an unresolved clinical problem when lung cancer immunotherapy should be initiated in an NSCLC patient. This manuscript summarizes the data from the literature concerning this subgroup of patients including the rationale for immunotherapy initiation depending on the HBV, HCV, or HIV infection status; the risk of adverse events; and the efficacy compared to non-infected patients. One of the crucial questions is how the candidates to immunotherapy should be screened for HBV, HCV, and HIV infections. The year 2020 brought the world a new but dynamic viral problem-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2). The incorporation of known data in oncology guidelines became a burning need, and then, which group of the infected patients can be treated with immunotherapy despite the infection. Oncologists should also know if these patients should receive antiviral therapy and what are the safe combinations in these settings. We also indicate which of the adverse events should be monitored carefully during checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

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.

Lung cancer patients with COVID-19 in Spain: GRAVID study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cancer may be at increased risk of more severe COVID-19 disease; however, prognostic factors are not yet clearly identified. The GRAVID study aimed to describe clinical characteristics, outcomes, and predictors of poor outcome in patients with lung cancer and COVID-19.

METHODS

Prospective observational study that included medical records of patients with lung cancer and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis across 65 Spanish hospitals. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints were hospitalization and admission to intensive care units (ICU).

RESULTS

A total of 447 patients with a mean age of 67.1 ± 9.8 years were analysed. The majority were men (74.3 %) and current/former smokers (85.7 %). NSCLC was the most frequent type of cancer (84.5 %), mainly as adenocarcinoma (51.0 %), and stage III metastatic or unresectable disease (79.2 %). Nearly 60 % of patients were receiving anticancer treatment, mostly first-line chemotherapy. Overall, 350 (78.3 %) patients were hospitalized for a mean of 13.4 ± 11.4 days, 9 (2.0 %) were admitted to ICU and 146 (32.7 %) died. Advanced disease and the use of corticosteroids to treat COVID-19 during hospitalization were predictors of mortality. Hospitalized, non-end-of-life stage patients with lymphocytopenia and high LDH had an increased risk of death. Severity of COVID-19 correlated to higher mortality, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality rate was higher among patients treated with corticosteroids during hospitalization, while anticancer therapy was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization or death. Tailored approaches are warranted to ensure effective cancer management while minimizing the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

Severity of COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer: evidence and challenges

Cancer patients are highly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infections due to frequent contacts with the healthcare system, immunocompromised state from cancer or its therapies, supportive medications such as steroids and most importantly their advanced age and comorbidities. Patients with lung cancer have consistently been reported to suffer from an increased risk of death compared with other cancers. This is possibly due to the combination of specific pathophysiological aspects, including underlying pulmonary compromise due to smoking history and the increased specific pressures on respiratory healthcare services caused by the related pandemic. Rationally and safely treating patients with lung cancer during the pandemic has become a continuous challenge over the last year. Deciding whether to offer, modify, postpone or even cancel treatments for this particular patient's population has become the crucial recurrent dilemma for lung cancer professionals. Chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted agents represent distinct risks factors in the context of COVID-19 that should be balanced with the short-term and long-term consequences of delaying cancer care. Despite the rapid and persistent trend of the pandemic, declared by WHO on March 11, 2020, and still ongoing at the time of writing (January 2021), various efforts were made by oncologists worldwide to understand the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer. Adapted recommendations of our evidence-based practice guidelines have been developed for all stakeholders. Different small and large-scale registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration quickly collected data, supporting cancer care decisions under the challenging circumstance created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Several recommendations were developed as guidance for prioritizing the various aspects of lung cancer care in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 healthcare crisis, potentially reducing the morbidity and mortality of our patients from COVID-19 and from cancer. These recommendations helped inform decisions about treatment of established disease, continuation of clinical research and lung cancer screening. In this review, we summarize available evidence regarding the direct and indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and patients.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Lung Cancer Community

Since the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) induced by a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the pandemic has become a global catastrophe. Patients with cancer especially lung cancer are more vulnerable and susceptible to get infected by the virus SARS-CoV-2. The overwhelming impact of COVID-19 on lung cancer community may result in rise of the incidence and mortality of lung cancer. It would become more obvious in future retrospective studies. Lung cancer patients are believed at higher risk of COVID-19 due to immunosuppression and should be protected by vaccination with priority. Better understanding of SARS-CoV-2 could help develop more effective vaccines to eradicate this disease in the near future.

Is COVID-19 a high risk factor for lung cancer?: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 has become a common threat to global human health and is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Some asymptomatic patients with early-stage lung cancer who have COVID-19 receive surgical treatment but develop severe pneumonia and other complications or even experience postoperative death, and they may have a worse prognosis compared with healthy individuals infected with COVID-19. However, there is no evidence that COVID-19 is a risk factor for lung cancer patients. This systematic review aims to evaluate the incidence and prognosis of COVID-19 in lung cancer patients and provide evidence-based medical support for clinical treatment.

METHODS

We will search 6 medical databases to identify eligible studies published from the establishment of the database to the present. The quality of the included literature will be evaluated using the bias risk assessment tool in Cochrane 5.1.0, and a meta-analysis will be performed using Stata 14.0. Heterogeneity will be statistically assessed using χ2 tests.

RESULTS

The study will integrate existing research findings to investigate the prevalence and severity rate of patients with lung cancer infected with SARS-CoV-2 and analyze the prognosis and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with or without COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide evidence to support whether COVID-19 is a risk factor for lung cancer and provide guidance for clinical prevention and treatment based on the evidence obtained in light of the unpredictable threat posed by COVID-19.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review as it will involve the collection and analysis of secondary data. The results of the review will be reported in international peer-reviewed journals.

PRORPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020195967.

Multimorbidity patterns among COVID-19 deaths: proposal for the construction of etiological models

OBJECTIVES

To describe patterns of multimorbidity among fatal cases of COVID-19, and to propose a classification of patients based on age and multimorbidity patterns to begin the construction of etiological models.

METHODS

Data of Colombian confirmed deaths of COVID-19 until June 11, 2020, were included in this analysis (n=1488 deaths). Relationships between COVID-19, combinations of health conditions and age were explored using locally weighted polynomial regressions.

RESULTS

The most frequent health conditions were high blood pressure, respiratory disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease. Dyads more frequents were high blood pressure with diabetes, cardiovascular disease or respiratory disease. Some multimorbidity patterns increase probability of death among older individuals, whereas other patterns are not age-related, or decrease the probability of death among older people. Not all multimorbidity increases with age, as is commonly thought. Obesity, alone or with other diseases, was associated with a higher risk of severity among young people, while the risk of the high blood pressure/diabetes dyad tends to have an inverted U distribution in relation with age.

CONCLUSIONS

Classification of individuals according to multimorbidity in the medical management of COVID-19 patients is important to determine the possible etiological models and to define patient triage for hospitalization. Moreover, identification of non-infected individuals with high-risk ages and multimorbidity patterns serves to define possible interventions of selective confinement or special management.

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.

Satisfaction Survey of Patients and Medical Staff for Telephone-Based Telemedicine During Hospital Closing Due to COVID-19 Transmission

Introduction: Telephone-based telemedicine was temporarily permitted in Korea during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess satisfaction with the telemedicine done during temporary hospital closing when in-person visits were not allowed due to in-hospital COVID-19 transmission. Methods: Survey questionnaires partially taken from a telehealth usability questionnaire (TUQ) were sent to 6,840 patients who used telephone-based telemedicine from February 24 to March 7, 2020. Questionnaires sent to patients and additionally created questionnaires to evaluate telemedicine were sent to medical staff (182 doctors and 138 nurses). Results: Response rates of patients and medical staff were 13.2% and 17.2%, respectively. Patients' satisfaction with telemedicine was significantly greater than medical staff's satisfaction for all five components taken from TUQ (all p = 0.000). In addition, created questionnaires showed good reliability, obtaining similar results between doctors and nurses (all p > 0.05). More than 85% of medical staff replied that telemedicine was needed in COVID-19, whereas more than 80% of them worried about incomplete assessment and communication of medical condition. Overall satisfaction with telemedicine by medical staff was 49.7%. The strength of telephone-based telemedicine was patients' convenience (53.4%). However, incomplete assessment of patients' condition (55.0%) was its weakness. Conclusion: Satisfaction with telephone-based telemedicine by patients was significantly greater than that by medical staff (doctors and nurses). Negative views for safety and inconvenience resulted in a greater proportion of dissatisfaction among medical staff. For safe application of telemedicine, medical staff insisted that developing a platform and creating guidelines should be needed.

Cancer therapy and treatments during COVID-19 era

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a serious strain on health treatments as well at the economies of many nations. Unfortunately, there is not currently available vaccine for SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19. Various types of patients have delayed treatment or even routine check-ups and we are adapting to a virtual world. In many cases, surgeries are delayed unless they are essential. This is also true with regards to cancer treatments and screening. Interestingly, some existing drugs and nutraceuticals have been screened for their effects on COVID-19. Certain FDA approved drugs, vitamin, natural products and trace minerals may be repurposed to treat or improve the prevention of COVID-19 infections and disease progression. This review article will summarize how the treatments of various cancer patients has changed during the COVID-19 era as well as discuss the promise of some existing drugs and other agents to be repurposed to treat this disease.

Cancer, immune suppression and Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19): Need to manage drug safety (French Society for Oncology Pharmacy [SFPO] guidelines)

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is disrupting our health environment. As expected, studies highlighted the great susceptibility of cancer patients to COVID-19 and more severe complications, leading oncologists to deeply rethink patient cancer care. This review is dedicated to the optimization of care pathways and therapeutics in cancer patients during the pandemic and aims to discuss successive issues. First we focused on the international guidelines proposing adjustments and alternative options to cancer care in order to limit hospital admission and cytopenic treatment in cancer patients, most of whom are immunocompromised. In addition cancer patients are prone to polypharmacy, enhancing the risk of drug-related problems as adverse events and drug-drug interactions. Due to increased risk in case of COVID-19, we reported a comprehensive review of all the drug-related problems between COVID-19 and antineoplastics. Moreover, in the absence of approved drug against COVID-19, infected patients may be included in clinical trials evaluating new drugs with a lack of knowledge, particularly in cancer patients. Focusing on the several experimental drugs currently being evaluated, we set up an original data board helping oncologists and pharmacists to identify promptly drug-related problems between antineoplastics and experimental drugs. Finally additional and concrete recommendations are provided, supporting oncologists and pharmacists in their efforts to manage cancer patients and to optimize their treatments in this new era related to COVID-19.