Gender and Racial Diversity Among Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments and Gynecologic Oncology Divisions in Canada: Are We There Yet?

OBJECTIVES

Gender and racial diversity in academic Canadian departments of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) have not been previously described. We examined gender representation in leadership in academic OBGYN departments and gynecologic oncology (GO) divisions, and determined factors predictive of leadership and promotion including racialized status.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study of Canadian residency-affiliated academic OBGYN departments queried institutional websites in January 2021 to compile a list of academic faculty. Subjective gender was assessed using photographs and pronouns, and racialized status was determined using photographs. Logistic regression analyses determined predictive factors for leadership roles. Fassiotto et al. rank equity indices (REI) and Hofler et al. representation ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

Within 16 Canadian institutions there were 354 (33.6%) men and 699 (66.4%) women, with 18.3% racialized faculty. Men were more likely to reach full professorship (P < 0.00001) and leadership positions of department chair, vice-chair or division head (P = 0.01). Representation ratios for women in OBGYN were <1 for all administrative leadership positions, and pairwise comparisons of the probability of promotion for women OBGYNs using REI reveal significant disparities between senior and junior administrative leadership and professorial ranks. Racialized physicians were less likely to have attained full professorship (P = 0.002). Ninety-seven academic GOs were identified: 68 (70.1%) were women, 17 (17.5%) racialized. Seven GO divisions (44%) had no racialized members. On multivariate analysis, only year of completion of fellowship was predictive of leadership.

CONCLUSION

In academic Canadian OBGYN departments women are underrepresented in leadership and full professor positions. Racialized faculty are underrepresented in full professorship.

Reporting of Physicians' or Investigators' Choice of Treatment in Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials

This cross-sectional study examines the prevalence of restricted choice of treatment in control groups among physicians and investigators conducting oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

An Italian Model for the Management of Cancer Patients during COVID-19 Pandemic: The Regional Center for Oncological Orientation (COrO) of Taranto (ROP)

OBJECTIVE

The recent outbreak of COVID-19 limited the resources of the National Health System necessitating the formulation of novel practice recommendations for oncological care. To date, management guidelines for cancer patients in case of pandemic are not available. Each center tried to manage its own needs and requests independently, often reducing access to treatment and diagnostic exams to patients. Here, we have described the management of cancer patients during COVID-19 infection with suggestions of some practical approaches applied by our Regional Center for Oncological Orientation (COrO) in S.G. Moscati Hospital (Taranto, Italy).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Our strategy was to minimize any interruption of cancer treatment through the extension of Taranto's Health Regional (COrO). The extension of the oncological network, assisted by the General Management of Taranto ASL through agreements with private structures in Taranto's area, allowed cancer patients to receive up to 11 different types of services, according to their needs (first investigation or follow-up), and represents an exclusive organization on the entire Italian territory.

RESULTS

Thanks to the organization of the COrO in 2020, 1,406 first oncological visits and 566 preparatory treatments were carried out, 372 of exemption for oncological pathology (free health care) were activated, and 1,742 instrumental investigations and 7 cases of civil invalidity were performed (certificate of disability).

CONCLUSIONS

We have overcome barriers to care of oncology patients leading to a reduction of waiting lists representing a practical application model that can be extended to other healthcare settings.

Misleading Reporting (Spin) in Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology With Statistically Not Significant Results: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Spin, the inaccurate reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results that are not statistically significant for the primary end point, distorts interpretation of results and leads to misinterpretation. However, the prevalence of spin and related factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To examine misleading reporting, or spin, and the associated factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs through a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed for articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators independently selected studies using the inclusion criteria of noninferiority parallel-group RCTs aiming to confirm effects to cancer treatments published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Standardized data abstraction was used to extract information concerning the trial characteristics and spin based on a prespecified definition. The main investigator extracted the trial characteristics while both readers independently evaluated the spin. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was spin prevalence in any section of the report. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from results that are not statistically significant. The associations (prevalence difference and odds ratios [ORs]) between spin and trial characteristics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The analysis included 52 of 2752 reports identified in the PubMed search. Spin was identified in 39 reports (75.0%; 95% CI, 61.6%-84.9%), including the abstract (34 reports [65.4%; 95% CI, 51.1%-76.9%]) and the main text (38 reports [73.1%; 95% CI, 59.7%-83.3%]). Univariate analysis found that the spin prevalence was higher in reports with data managers (prevalence difference, 27%; 95% CI, 1.1%-50.3%), reports without funding from for-profit sources (prevalence difference, 31.2%; 95% CI, 4.8%-53.8%), and reports of novel experimental treatments (prevalence difference, 37.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-64.7%). Multivariable analysis found that novel experimental treatment (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 0.98-22.02) and funding only from nonprofit sources only (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.21-22.29) were associated with spin.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, most noninferiority RCTs reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points showed distorted interpretation and inaccurate reporting. The novelty of an experimental treatment and funding only from nonprofit sources were associated with spin.

Multicenter evaluation of breast cancer patients' satisfaction and experience with oncology telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, teleconsultation was implemented in clinical practice to limit patient exposure to COVID-19 while monitoring their treatment and follow-up. We sought to examine the satisfaction of patients with breast cancer (BC) who underwent teleconsultations during this period.

METHODS

Eighteen centres in France and Italy invited patients with BC who had at least one teleconsultation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to participate in a web-based survey that evaluated their satisfaction (EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire [TSQ] scores) with teleconsultation.

RESULTS

Among the 1299 participants eligible for this analysis, 53% of participants were undergoing standard post-treatment follow-up while 22 and 17% were currently receiving active anticancer therapy for metastatic and localised cancers, respectively. The mean satisfaction scores were 77.4 and 73.3 for the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and TSQ scores, respectively. In all, 52.6% of participants had low/no anxiety. Multivariable analysis showed that the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 score correlated to age, anxiety score and teleconsultation modality. The TSQ score correlated to disease status and anxiety score.

CONCLUSION

Patients with BC were satisfied with oncology teleconsultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teleconsultation may be an acceptable alternative follow-up modality in specific circumstances.

Attitudes and Perceptions of Multidisciplinary Cancer Care Clinicians Toward Telehealth and Secure Messages

Importance

Telehealth use including secure messages has rapidly expanded since the COVID-19 pandemic, including for multidisciplinary aspects of cancer care. Recent reports described rapid uptake and various benefits for patients and clinicians, suggesting that telehealth may be in standard use after the pandemic.

Objective

To examine attitudes and perceptions of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians toward telehealth and secure messages.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional specialty-specific survey (ie, some questions appear only for relevant specialties) among multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians, collected from April 29, 2020, to June 5, 2020. Participants were all 285 clinicians in the fields of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, survivorship, and oncology navigation from all 21 community cancer centers of Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinician satisfaction, perceived benefits and challenges of telehealth, perceived quality of telehealth and secure messaging, preferred visit and communication types for different clinical activities, and preferences regarding postpandemic telehealth use.

Results

A total of 202 clinicians (71%) responded (104 of 128 medical oncologists, 34 of 37 radiation oncologists, 16 of 62 breast surgeons, 18 of 28 navigators, and 30 of 30 survivorship experts; 57% (116 of 202) were women; 73% [147 of 202] between ages 36-55 years). Seventy-six percent (n = 154) were satisfied with telehealth without statistically significant variations based on clinician characteristics. In-person visits were thought to promote a strong patient-clinician connection by 99% (n = 137) of respondents compared with 77% (n = 106) for video visits, 43% (n = 59) for telephone, and 14% (n = 19) for secure messages. The most commonly cited benefits of telehealth to clinicians included reduced commute (79%; n = 160), working from home (74%; n = 149), and staying on time (65%; n = 132); the most commonly cited negative factors included internet connection (84%; n = 170) or equipment problems (72%; n = 146), or physical examination needed (64%; n = 131). Most respondents (59%; n = 120) thought that video is adequate to manage the greater part of patient care in general; and most deemed various telehealth modalities suitable for any of the queried types of patient-clinician activities. For some specific activities, less than half of respondents thought that only an in-person visit is acceptable (eg, 49%; n = 66 for end-of-life discussion, 35%; n = 58 for new diagnosis). Most clinicians (82%; n = 166) preferred to maintain or increase use of telehealth after the pandemic.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians in the COVID-19 era, telehealth was well received and often preferred by most cancer care clinicians, who deemed it appropriate to manage most aspects of cancer care. As telehealth use becomes routine in some cancer care settings, video and telephone visits and use of asynchronous secure messaging with patients in cancer care has clear potential to extend beyond the pandemic period.

Patients' Expectations of Benefits From Large-Panel Genomic Tumor Testing in Rural Community Oncology Practices

Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology that promises to make cancer treatment more precise. Because GTT is novel and complex, patients may have unrealistic expectations and limited knowledge of its benefits. These problems may limit the clinical value of GTT, but their prevalence and associated factors have not been explored.

METHODS

Patients with cancer enrolled in a large initiative to disseminate GTT in community oncology practices completed surveys assessing their expectations, knowledge, and attitudes about GTT. The study sample (N = 1,139) consisted of patients with a range of cancer types (22% gynecologic, 14% lung, 10% colon, 10% breast, and 46% other malignancies) and cancer stages (4% stage I, 3% stage II, 15% stage III, and 74% stage IV). Mean age was 64 years (standard deviation = 11); 668 (59%) were women; 71% had no college degree; 57% came from households with less than $50,000 US dollars household income; and 73% lived in a rural area.

RESULTS

Generally, patients had high expectations that they would benefit from GTT (M = 2.81 on 0-4 scale) and positive attitudes toward it (M = 2.98 on 0-4 scale). Patients also had relatively poor knowledge about GTT (48% correct answers on an objective test of GTT knowledge). Greater expectations for GTT were associated with lower knowledge (b = -0.46; P < .001), more positive attitudes (b = 0.40; P < .001), and lower education (b = -0.53; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This research suggests patients have high expectations that they will benefit from GTT, which is associated with low knowledge, positive attitudes, and low education. More research is needed to understand the concordance between expectations and actual clinical outcomes.

Practice patterns and survival in FIGO 2009 stage 3B endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe the practice patterns and outcomes of patients with stage 3B endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database for all surgically staged, stage 3 patients between 2012 and 2016. Patients who received any pre-operative therapy were excluded. Demographics, tumor factors, and adjuvant therapy for the stage 3 substages were compared. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with adjuvant therapy. Kaplan Meier curves were generated and compared using the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to adjust for prognostic factors. Findings with p < 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

Of 7363 patients with stage 3 disease, 478 (6%) had stage 3B; 1732 (23%) had stage 3A, 3457 (48%) had stage 3C1, and 1696 (23%) had stage 3C2 disease. Post-surgical treatment consisted of: combined chemotherapy (CT) and radiation (RT) (49%), CT alone (28%), RT alone (9%), 14% received no postoperative therapy. Among all stage 3 substages, patients with stage 3B disease were the least likely to receive any CT, and the most likely to receive RT alone. After adjusting for known prognostic factors, patients with stage 3A (Hazard ratio (HR) of death = 0.64) and 3C1 (HR of death = 0.79) disease had significantly worse overall survival compared to stage 3B; survival was not demonstrably different from patients with stage 3C2 disease. Patients with stage 3B disease who received CT + RT had the best overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Survival of patients with stage 3B disease is similar to that of patients with para-aortic node metastases and is inferior to all others with stage 3 endometrial cancer. Less frequent CT and a higher rate of post-operative RT alone, describes a distinct practice from that seen in other stage 3 patients.

Trends in Use and Perceptions About Triplet Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Importance

Triplet chemotherapy with fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (FOLFOXIRI-B) is an effective first-line treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the degree of implementation of FOLFOXIRI-B in daily practice is unknown.

Objectives

To evaluate the current adoption rate of FOLFOXIRI-B in patients with mCRC and investigate the perspectives of medical oncologists toward this treatment option.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This 1-week, multicenter, cross-sectional study in the Netherlands used a flash mob design, which facilitates ultrafast data generation (flash) through the engagement of numerous researchers (mob). During the study week (March 1-5, 2021), patient data were retrieved from electronic health records of 47 hospitals on patients with mCRC who were referred to a medical oncologist between November 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Interviews were simultaneously conducted with 101 medical oncologists from 52 hospitals who regularly treat patients with mCRC.

Exposure

First-line systemic treatment as determined by the treating physician.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The FOLFOXIRI-B prescription rate was the main outcome. Current practice was compared with prescription rates in 2015 to 2018. Eligibility for treatment with FOLFOXIRI-B was estimated. An exploratory outcome was medical oncologists' reported perspectives on FOLFOXIRI-B.

Results

A total of 5948 patients in the Netherlands (median age [interquartile range], 66 [57-73] years; 3503 [59%] male; and 3712 [62%] with left-sided or rectal tumor) were treated with first-line systemic therapy for synchronous mCRC. A total of 282 patients with mCRC underwent systemic therapy during the study period (2021). Of these 282 patients, 199 (71%) were treated with intensive first-line therapy other than FOLFOXIRI-B, of whom 184 (65%) were treated with oxaliplatin doublets with or without bevacizumab; 14 (5%) with irinotecan doublets with or without bevacizumab, panitumumab, or cetuximab; and 1 (0.4%) with irinotecan with bevacizumab. Fifty-four patients (19%) were treated with fluoropyrimidine monotherapy with or without bevacizumab, 1 patient (0.4%) with panitumumab monotherapy, and 3 (1%) with immune checkpoint inhibitors. In total, 25 patients (9%; 95% CI, 6%-12%) were treated with first-line FOLFOXIRI-B compared with 142 (2%; 95% CI, 2%-3%) in 2015 to 2018. During the study period, 21 of 157 eligible patients (13.4%) in the Netherlands were treated with FOLFOXIRI-B. A total of 87 medical oncologists (86%) reported discussing FOLFOXIRI-B as a treatment option with eligible patients. A total of 47 of 85 (55%) generally communicated a preference for a chemotherapy doublet to patients. These oncologists reported a significantly lower awareness of guidelines and trial results. Toxic effects were the most reported reason to prefer an alternative regimen.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that FOLFOXIRI-B prescription rates have marginally increased in the last 5 years. Considering that most medical oncologists discuss this treatment option, the prescription rate found in this study was below expectations. Awareness of guidelines and trial data seems to contribute to the discussion of available treatment options by medical oncologists, and the findings of this study suggest a need for repeated and continuing medical education.

Correlation Between Surrogate End Points and Overall Survival in a Multi-institutional Clinicogenomic Cohort of Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung or Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Contemporary observational cancer research requires associating genomic biomarkers with reproducible end points; overall survival (OS) is a key end point, but interpretation can be challenging when multiple lines of therapy and prolonged survival are common. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and time to next treatment (TTNT) are alternative end points, but their utility as surrogates for OS in real-world clinicogenomic data sets has not been well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To measure correlations between candidate surrogate end points and OS in a multi-institutional clinicogenomic data set.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) whose tumors were genotyped at 4 academic centers from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, and who initiated systemic therapy for advanced disease. Patients were followed up through August 31, 2020 (NSCLC), and October 31, 2020 (CRC). Statistical analyses were conducted on January 5, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Candidate surrogate end points included TTD; TTNT; PFS based on imaging reports only; PFS based on medical oncologist ascertainment only; PFS based on either imaging or medical oncologist ascertainment, whichever came first; and PFS defined by a requirement that both imaging and medical oncologist ascertainment have indicated progression.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the correlation between candidate surrogate end points and OS.

RESULTS

There were 1161 patients with NSCLC (648 women [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 63 [11] years) and 1150 with CRC (647 men [56.3%]; mean [SD] age, 54 [12] years) identified for analysis. Progression-free survival based on both imaging and medical oncologist documentation was most correlated with OS (NSCLC: ρ = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.79; CRC: ρ = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75). Time to treatment discontinuation was least associated with OS (NSCLC: ρ = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.40-0.50; CRC: ρ = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06-0.19). Time to next treatment was modestly associated with OS (NSCLC: ρ = 0.60; 0.55-0.64; CRC: ρ = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.32-0.46).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study suggests that PFS based on both a radiologist and a treating oncologist determining that a progression event has occurred was the surrogate end point most highly correlated with OS for analysis of observational clinicogenomic data.

The Spectrum of Malnutrition/Cachexia/Sarcopenia in Oncology According to Different Cancer Types and Settings: A Narrative Review

Nutritional status in oncological patients may differ according to several modifiable and non-modifiable factors. Knowledge of the epidemiology of malnutrition/cachexia/sarcopenia may help to manage these complications early in the course of treatment, potentially impacting patient quality of life, treatment intensity, and disease outcome. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to critically evaluate the current evidence on the combined impact of tumor- and treatment-related factors on nutritional status and to draw some practical conclusions to support the multidisciplinary management of malnutrition in cancer patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed from January 2010 to December 2020 using different combinations of pertinent keywords and a critical evaluation of retrieved literature papers was conducted. The results show that the prevalence of weight loss and associated symptoms is quite heterogeneous and needs to be assessed with recognized criteria, thus allowing a clear classification and standardization of therapeutic interventions. There is a large range of variability influenced by age and social factors, comorbidities, and setting of cures (community-dwelling versus hospitalized patients). Tumor subsite is one of the major determinants of malnutrition, with pancreatic, esophageal, and other gastroenteric cancers, head and neck, and lung cancers having the highest prevalence. The advanced stage is also linked to a higher risk of developing malnutrition, as an expression of the relationship between tumor burden, inflammatory status, reduced caloric intake, and malabsorption. Finally, treatment type influences the risk of nutritional issues, both for locoregional approaches (surgery and radiotherapy) and for systemic treatment. Interestingly, personalized approaches based on the selection of the most predictive malnutrition definitions for postoperative complications according to cancer type and knowledge of specific nutritional problems associated with some new agents may positively impact disease course. Sharing common knowledge between oncologists and nutritionists may help to better address and treat malnutrition in this population.

Trends and geographic variation in women's representation as principal investigators (PI) in phase 3 gynecologic oncology clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the representation of women as principal investigators (PI) in phase 3, gynecologic oncology clinical trials.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for all phase 3 clinical trials with start dates between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020 using the search terms: "ovarian cancer", "endometrial cancer", and "cervical cancer". Trial characteristics were abstracted from the website. Gender of the PI was assessed by name, image on institutional website or by querying the trial coordinator. Trials were considered to have women's representation if women were the sole PI or among multiple co-PIs. Chi-square tests and relative risks were used to compare proportions across groups. Linear regression was used to assess trends over time.

RESULTS

200 unique clinical trials were included in this analysis, of which women were represented as PI in 76 (38%). Women were more likely to be a PI of trials funded by multiple sites than a single entity (RR = 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25, 2.61, p = 0.01), registered outside of Asia than those in Asia (RR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.11, 2.88, p = 0.02), and trials with multiple co-PIs than with one PI (RR = 1.78 (95% CI 1.18, 2.67), p = 0.01). Overall, women's representation as a PI increased by 3% annually (by year of registration, R² = 0.61, p = 0.01). This increase was most evident in trials registered in multiple continents and Europe (both 4% annually).

CONCLUSIONS

Women's representation as PIs in clinical trials has increased in the last decade. Trials funded by multiple sources outside of Asia have the highest proportion of PIs who are women. These trends may represent ongoing leadership and mentorship opportunities for women gynecologic oncologists.

Research trends for papillary thyroid carcinoma from 2010 to 2019: A systematic review and bibliometrics analysis

BACKGROUND

Thyroid carcinoma comprises the fastest rising incidence of carcinomas over the past decade. Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is the most predominant type of thyroid carcinoma. This study aimed to assess the research trends in the field of PTC.

METHODS

Publications from January 2010 to December 2019 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database using Thompson Reuters. Searching strategies were determined according to Medical Subject Heading terms. Different kinds of bibliometrics software, such as HistCite and VOSviewer, and online bibliometrics analysis platforms were utilized to evaluate and visualize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 8102 publications across 93 countries were identified, with the annual number of publications showing an increasing trend. The United States, China, and South Korea showed their dominant position in PTC publication outputs, H-index, total citations, and international collaborations. Thyroid was the most productive journal. Akira Miyauchi published the most articles, and the most productive institution was Yonsei University. The hotspots keywords proliferation, invasion and metastasis, diagnoses and prognoses, therapeutic resistance, recurrence, and microcarcinomas appeared earlier and were sustained over the last 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This bibliometric study provides a comprehensive analysis delineating the scientific productivity, collaboration, and research hotspots within the PTC field, which will be very helpful when focusing on the direction of research over the next few years.

Evaluation of Oncology Trial Results Reporting Over a 10-Year Period

IMPORTANCE

Unreported clinical trial results represent a violation of human rights. Oncology trials account for nearly 30% of interventional biopharmaceutical clinical studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and are the most numerous among all disciplines.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the reporting of results among all interventional oncology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 through 2017.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study analyzed all clinical studies registered between June 1, 2007, and May 8, 2017, on ClinicalTrials.gov, the largest public clinical trial registry in the world. Trials with a recruitment status of completed or terminated and a primary completion date of on or before September 30, 2017, were selected. Data were analyzed between February 20, 2021, and February 26, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the percentage of trials that reported results either on ClinicalTrials.gov or in journal publications within 24 months of the primary completion date. Journal publication was ascertained by searching ClinicalTrials.gov for a link to the publication, PubMed using national clinical trial number, and Embase using national clinical trial number and filters.

RESULTS

Of the 12 240 clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 7425 trials (60.7%; 95% CI, 60.0%-61.5%) reported results, with a 34.0% (95% CI, 30.3%-37.7%) increase in 24-month reporting rate from 2007 to 2017. Multivariable analyses confirmed that more recent trials (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 per year increase; 95% CI, 1.10-1.13) and trials with larger sample sizes (51-100 patients: adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.09-1.24]; >100 patients: adjusted HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.33-1.54]) were more likely to report results. Terminated trials were less likely to report results compared with completed trials (adjusted HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.93). Compared with trials funded by industry, those funded by the National Institutes of Health were more likely to report results (adjusted HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.29-1.49), whereas those funded by other academic or nonprofit organizations were less likely to report results (adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62-0.70). Among all 7425 trials, the results of 2807 trials (37.8%; 95% CI, 36.7%-38.9%) were posted only on ClinicalTrials.gov. These trials tended to be terminated early and to have small sample sizes (≤50 patients) compared with trials that published results in journals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found a gradual improvement in results reporting among oncology trials over a 10-year period. Trial registries could serve as a results reporting platform for unpublished trials and as a data source of trial outcomes for future studies.

Impact of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic dissemination on the management of neuroendocrine neoplasia in Italy: a report from the Italian Association for Neuroendocrine Tumors (Itanet)

INTRODUCTION

The organization of the healthcare system has significantly changed after the recent COVID-19 outbreak, with a negative impact on the management of oncological patients. The present survey reports data collected by the Italian Association for Neuroendocrine Tumors on the management of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) during the pandemic dissemination.

METHODS

A survey with 57 questions was sent to NEN-dedicated Italian centers regarding the management of patients in the period March 9, 2020, to May 9, 2020 RESULTS: The main modification in the centers' activity consisted of decreases in newly diagnosed NEN patients (- 76.8%), decreases in performed surgical procedures (- 58%), delays to starting peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (45.5%), postponed/canceled follow-up examinations (26%), and canceled multidisciplinary teams' activity (20.8%). A low proportion of centers (< 10%) reported having to withdraw systemic anti-tumor medical treatment due to concerns about the pandemic situation, whereas PRRT was withdrawn from no patients.

CONCLUSION

Although the COVID-19 outbreak induced the centers to reduce some important activities in the management of NEN patients, the Italian network was able to provide continuity in care without withdrawing anti-tumor treatment for the majority of patients.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with solid tumors and poor performance status: A prospective data from the real-world settings

ABSTRACT

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are rapidly being incorporated as treatment option either alone or in combination with chemotherapy in most of the solid tumors. Since there is very limited data of ICI in patients with poor performance status (PS) from the real world settings, we performed a retrospective audit of patients who received ICI and report the analysis based on ECOG PS of these patients.This study is a retrospective audit of a prospectively collected database of patients receiving ICIs for advanced solid tumors in any line between August 2015 and November 2018 at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. All statistical calculations were performed using SPSS statistical software for windows version 20.0.A total of 155 patients who received ICIs during the specified period were evaluated for this study. Baseline ECOG PS 0-1 (n = 103, 66.4%) patients was associated with median OS 9.1 (95% CI [confidence interval], 4.4-NR) months when compared to ECOG 2-4 (n = 52, 33.5%) which had a median OS of 2.9 (95% CI; 1.8-5.5) months (HR, 1.7, 95% CI, 1.1-2.7, log rank P = .017). The disease control rate for the poor PS group was 34.6%. However, 27.3% patients (95% CI: 20.3-34.3) were still alive at 1 year. Median OS in patients with PS 2 was 3.7 months (95% CI: 0-11.6) as compared to 1.8 months (95% CI: 0.2-3.4) for those with PS 3-4 (HR-2.0; 95% CI: 1.0-3.9, P = .041). The tolerance to ICIs was good with no grade 3/4 toxicities in 44 (84.6%) patients.Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a safe and effective therapeutic option even in solid tumor patients with poor performance status.

Multidisciplinary team approach for Merkel cell carcinoma: the European Institute of Oncology experience with focus on radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To review the therapeutic strategy in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) treated with radiotherapy (RT) discussed in a multidisciplinary tumour board.

METHODS

Clinical records of patients with a diagnosis of MCC and with an indication to undergo RT at the European Institute of Oncology between 2003 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were included in the analysis (median age 65 years, range 42-87). Nineteen received adjuvant RT, 4 exclusive RT, and the remainder palliative RT. Intensity-modulated RT was used in 13 cases, a 3D conformal technique in 11 cases, and stereotactic RT in 2 cases. No major toxicities were recorded. The median relapse-free survival (RFS) after adjuvant RT was 20.5 months, while for unknown primary MCC, it was 23 months. In the adjuvant setting, median polyomavirus-positive RFS was 21.5 months (range 1-49) and median polyomavirus-negative RFS was only 14 months (range 4-45). Overall, RFS of polyomavirus-positive and polyomavirus-negative patients was 10.5 and 8 months, respectively. After adjuvant RT, only 1 out of 10 patients had a recurrence in the RT field. At the time of data collection, 16 patients were alive with no evidence of disease, 1 patient was alive with advanced status of disease, 8 patients died of disease progression, and 1 patient died of other causes.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of unknown primary and polyomavirus-positive cases, which had a better prognosis in our series, may benefit from a multidisciplinary approach, given the limited data available regarding optimal treatment.

COVID-19 outbreak: An experience to reappraise the role of hospital at home in the anti-cancer drug injection

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak has posed considerable challenges to the health care system worldwide, especially for cancer treatment. We described the activity and the care organisation of the Hospitalisation At Home (HAH) structure during the pandemic for treating patients with anti-cancer injections.

METHODS

We report the established organisation, the eligibility criteria, the patient characteristics, the treatment schemes and the stakeholders' role during two 5-week periods in 2020, before and during the French population's lockdown.

RESULTS

The increase of activity during the lockdown (+32% of treated patients, +156% of new patients and +28% of delivered preparations) concerned solid tumour, mainly breast cancer, even if haematological malignancies remained the most frequent. Thirty different drugs were delivered, including three new drugs administered in HAH versus 19 during the routine period (p < 0.01). For those clinical departments accustomed to using HAH, the usual organisation was kept, but with adjustments. Five clinical departments increased the number of patients treated at home and widened the panel of drugs prescribed. Three oncology departments and one radiotherapy department for the first time solicited HAH for anti-cancer injections, mainly for immunotherapy. We adjusted the HAH organisation with additional human resources and allowed to prescribe drugs with an infusion time of <30 min only for the new prescribers.

CONCLUSION

HAH allowed for the continuation of anti-cancer injections without postponement during the pandemic, and for a decrease in unnecessary patient travel to hospital with its concomitant COVID-19 transmission risk. Often left out of guidelines, the place of HAH in treating cancer patients should be reappraised, even more so during a pandemic.

A retrospective study comparing interventions by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists in outpatient chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The differences in the clinical pharmacy services (CPS) provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists have not been sufficiently explained.

AIM

This study aimed to demonstrate the differences in direct CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for patients and physicians, and to assess the potential impact of these services on medical costs.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for outpatients who underwent chemotherapy between January and December 2016.

RESULTS

In total, 1177 and 1050 CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists, respectively, were investigated. The rates of interventions performed by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for physicians-determined treatment were 18.5% and 11.3%, respectively (p < .001). The rates of oncology and non-oncology pharmacist interventions accepted by physicians were 84.6 and 78.8%, respectively (p = .12). Level 4 and Level 5 interventions accounted for 64.6% of all oncology pharmacist interventions and 53.0% of all non-oncology pharmacist interventions (p = .03). The rates of improvement in symptoms from adverse drug reactions among patients resulting from interventions by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists were 89.4 and 72.1%, respectively (p = .02). Conservative assessments of medical cost impact showed that a single intervention by an oncology and by a non-oncology pharmacist saved ¥6355 and ¥3604, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study suggested that CPS by oncology pharmacists enable safer and more effective therapy for patients with cancer and indirectly contribute to reducing health care fees.

Therapeutic Advances in Oncology

Around 77 new oncology drugs were approved by the FDA in the past five years; however, most cancers remain untreated. Small molecules and antibodies are dominant therapeutic modalities in oncology. Antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies, peptides, cell, and gene-therapies are emerging to address the unmet patient need. Advancement in the discovery and development platforms, identification of novel targets, and emergence of new technologies have greatly expanded the treatment options for patients. Here, we provide an overview of various therapeutic modalities and the current treatment options in oncology, and an in-depth discussion of the therapeutics in the preclinical stage for the treatment of breast cancer, lung cancer, and multiple myeloma.

Effects of systemic therapy and local therapy on outcomes of 873 breast cancer patients with metastatic breast cancer to brain: MD Anderson Cancer Center experience

Outcomes of treatments for patients with breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM) remain suboptimal, especially for systemic therapy. To evaluate the effectiveness of systemic and local therapy (surgery [S], stereotactic radiosurgery [SRS] and whole brain radiotherapy [WBRT]) in BCBM patients, we analyzed the data of 873 BCBM patients from 1999 to 2012. The median overall survival (OS) and time to progression in the brain (TTP-b) after diagnosis of brain metastases (BM) were 9.1 and 7.1 months, respectively. WBRT prolonged OS in patients with multiple BM (hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P = .004). SRS alone, and surgery or SRS followed by WBRT (S/SRS + WBRT), were equivalent in OS and TTP-b (median OS, 14.9 vs 17.2 months; median TTP-b, 8.2 vs 8.6 months). Continued chemotherapy prolonged OS (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.41; P < .001) and TTP-b (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.70; P < .001), however, with no advantage of capecitabine over other chemotherapy agents used (median OS, 11.8 vs 12.4 months; median TTP-b, 7.2 vs 7.4 months). Patients receiving trastuzumab at diagnosis of BM, continuation of anti-HER2 therapy increased OS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83; P = .005) and TTP-b (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.74; P = .003); no additional benefit was seen with switching over between trastuzumab and lapatinib (median OS, 18.4 vs 22.7 months; median TTP-b: 7.4 vs 8.7 months). In conclusion, SRS or S/SRS + WBRT were equivalent for patients' OS and local control. Continuation systemic chemotherapy including anti-HER2 therapy improved OS and TTP-b with no demonstrable advantage of capecitabine and lapatinib over other agents of physicians' choice was observed.

Rural disparities in surgical care from gynecologic oncologists among Midwestern ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Up to one-third of women with ovarian cancer in the United States do not receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist despite guideline recommendations. We aim to investigate the impact of rurality on receiving surgical care from a specialist, referral to a specialist, and specialist surgery after referral, and the consequences of specialist care.

METHODS

We utilized a retrospective cohort created through an extension of standard cancer surveillance in three Midwestern states. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression was utilized to assess gynecologic oncologist treatment of women 18-89 years old, who were diagnosed with primary, histologically confirmed, malignant ovarian cancer in 2010-2012 in Kansas, Missouri and Iowa by rurality.

RESULTS

Rural women were significantly less likely to receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.58) and referral to a specialist (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59) compared to urban women. There was no significant difference in specialist surgery after a referral (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Rural women treated surgically by a gynecologic oncologist versus non-specialist were more likely to receive cytoreduction and more complete tumor removal to ≤1 cm.

CONCLUSION

There is a large rural-urban difference in receipt of ovarian cancer surgery from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (versus a non-specialist). Disparities in referral rates contribute to the rural-urban difference. Further research will help define the causes of referral disparities, as well as promising strategies to address them.

Epidemiology and treatment patterns for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a systematic literature review and gap analysis

BACKGROUND: Several immuno-oncology (IO) agents targeting programmed death-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) are approved second-line therapy options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy or first-line options in patients ineligible for cisplatin whose tumors express PD-L1 or for any platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 expression levels. However, literature on the epidemiology of la/mUC is limited, and real-world treatment patterns are not well established, especially with respect to therapies used following IO. OBJECTIVES: To (a) report the epidemiology of urothelial carcinoma (UC) and la/mUC; (b) identify and summarize the published literature on la/mUC treatment patterns, including IO and post-IO treatment; and (c) identify evidence gaps. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using Cochrane dual-reviewer methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Literature databases and selected congress abstracts (2017-2018) were searched for retrospective studies published January 2013-August 2018 in English reporting epidemiological and treatment data (all lines of therapy) for adult patients with la/mUC. RESULTS: Among 6,584 database references and 1,832 congress abstracts screened, 45 publications (29 manuscripts, 1 poster, 15 abstracts; reporting 37 unique studies) were retained. All studies related to treatment patterns, and the majority were from the United States (n = 17), Japan (n = 8), and the United Kingdom (n = 5). Epidemiological data were not identified among the searches thus online registries were leveraged. Among the identified publications, 21 (20 unique) reported on cisplatin versus non-cisplatin regimens, 14 (8 unique) on IO, and 9 (7 unique) on vinflunine. Cisplatin use varied both within and among countries (ranging from 18.4% in 1 U.S. study to 87.9% in 1 Japanese study). The use of IO was higher in later lines of therapy, ranging from 1.4% to 7.9% as first-line therapy to 57.8% as second-line and 64.4% as third-line therapy. Among studies reporting IO discontinuation rates, 41.4%-71% of patients were reported to discontinue IO across the studies, and the median time to discontinuation ranged from 2.7 to 5.8 months. Only 25%-35.5% of patients received subsequent therapy following IO discontinuation; post-IO treatments varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: Additional published data on the country-specific epidemiology of UC and la/mUC are needed, including rates of progression from early-stage disease to la/mUC. There was large variation in treatment rates, particularly cisplatin use, within and across countries. The few published real-world IO studies reported high levels of discontinuation with only a small percentage of patients receiving subsequent therapy. As IO therapies continue to be granted regulatory approval in countries outside the United States and novel therapies gain approval in the post-IO setting, the treatment paradigm for patients with la/mUC is shifting, and future studies with more recent data will be required. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Astellas/Seagen. Hepp is an employee of and owns stock in Seagen. Shah was a contractor for Astellas Pharma at the time of the study and owns stock in Pfizer. Smoyer is an employee and shareholder of Envision Pharma Group, paid consultants to Seagen. Vadagam was an employee of Envision Pharma Group, paid consultants to Seagen, at the time of the study. Parts of these data have been presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2019 Annual Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, LA.

The effect of anticancer treatment on cancer patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relationship between cancer and COVID-19 has been revealed during the pandemic. Some anticancer treatments have been reported to have negative influences on COVID-19-infected patients while other studies did not support this hypothesis.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in WOS, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and VIP between Dec 1, 2019 and Sept 23, 2020 for studies on anticancer treatments in patients with COVID-19. Cohort studies involving over 20 patients with cancer were included. The characteristics of the patients and studies, treatment types, mortality, and other additional outcomes were extracted and pooled for synthesis. RRs and forest plots were adopted to present the results. The literature quality and publication bias were assessed using NOS and Egger's test, respectively.

RESULTS

We analyzed the data from 29 studies, with 5121 cancer patients with COVID-19 meeting the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in mortality between patients receiving anticancer treatment and those not (RR 1.17, 95%CI: 0.96-1.43, I2 =66%, p = 0.12). Importantly, in patients with hematological malignancies, chemotherapy could markedly increase the mortality (RR 2.68, 95% CI: 1.90-3.78, I2 =0%, p < 0.00001). In patients with solid tumors, no significant differences in mortality were observed (RR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.57-2.36, I2 =72%, p = 0.67). In addition, our analysis revealed that anticancer therapies had no effects on the ICU admission rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.70-1.09, I2 =25%, p = 0.23), the severe rate (RR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.13, I2 =31%, p = 0.42), or respiratory support rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.70-1.21, I2 =32%, p = 0.55) in COVID-19-infected patients with cancer. Notably, patients receiving surgery had a higher rate of respiratory support than those without any antitumor treatment (RR 1.87, 95%CI: 1.02-3.46, I2 =0%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was seen in any anticancer treatments in the solid tumor subgroup. Chemotherapy, however, will lead to higher mortality in patients with hematological malignancies. Multicenter, prospective studies are needed to re-evaluate the results.

How uro-oncology has been affected by COVID-19 emergency? Data from Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta Oncological Network, Italy

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically hit all Europe and Northern Italy in particular. The reallocation of medical resources has caused a sharp reduction in the activity of many medical disciplines, including urology. The restricted availability of resources is expected to cause a delay in the treatment of urological cancers and to negatively influence the clinical history of many cancer patients. In this study, we describe COVID-19 impact on uro-oncological management in Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, estimating its future impact.

METHODS

We performed an online survey in 12 urological centers, belonging to the Oncological Network of Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, to estimate the impact of COVID-19 emergency on their practice. On this basis, we then estimated the medical working capacity needed to absorb all postponed uro-oncological procedures.

RESULTS

Most centers (77%) declared to be "much"/"very much" affected by COVID-19 emergency. If uro-oncological consultations for newly diagnosed cancers were often maintained, follow-up consultations were more than halved or even suspended in around two out of three centers. In-office and day-hospital procedures were generally only mildly reduced, whereas major uro-oncological procedures were more than halved or even suspended in 60% of centers. To clear waiting list backlog, the urological working capacity should dramatically increase in the next months; delays greater than 1 month are expected for more than 50% of uro-oncological procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 emergency has dramatically slowed down uro-oncological activity in Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta. Ideally, uro-oncological patients should be referred to COVID-19-free tertiary urological centers to ensure a timely management.

The influence of learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy on oncological outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer and quantify impact on oncological outcomes.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre with one surgical team.

POPULATION

All women with early-stage cervical cancer treated consecutively with robot-assisted laparoscopy between 2007 and 2017.

METHODS

With multivariate risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis (RA-CUSUM), we assessed the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy of a single surgical team based on cervical cancer recurrence. Subsequently, a survival analysis was conducted comparing oncological outcomes of women treated during different phases of the learning curve.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgical proficiency based on recurrence, survival rates in the different learning phases.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-five women with cervical cancer underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy, with a median follow up of 57 months (range 3-132 months). The RA-CUSUM analysis demonstrated two phases of the learning curve: a learning phase of 61 procedures (group 1) and an experienced phase representing the 104 procedures thereafter (group 2). The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.2% in group 1 and 91.1% in group 2 (P = 0.040). Both the 5-year disease-specific survival and overall survival significantly increased after the learning phase.

CONCLUSION

The learning phase of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer in this institutional cohort is at least 61 procedures, with higher survival rates in the women treated thereafter. The learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy affects oncological outcomes and warrants more attention in the design of future studies.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

The learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer affects oncological outcomes and warrants more attention.

Determinants of COVID-19 Mortality in Patients With Cancer From a Community Oncology Practice in Brazil

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic remains a public health emergency of global concern. Determinants of mortality in the general population are now clear, but specific data on patients with cancer remain limited, particularly in Latin America.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A longitudinal multicenter cohort study of patients with cancer and confirmed COVID-19 from Oncoclínicas community oncology practice in Brazil was conducted. The primary end point was all-cause mortality after isolation of the SARS-CoV-2 by Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in patients initially diagnosed in an outpatient environment. We performed univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis and recursive partitioning modeling to define the baseline clinical determinants of death in the overall population.

RESULTS

From March 29 to July 4, 2020, 198 patients with COVID-19 were prospectively registered in the database, of which 167 (84%) had solid tumors and 31 (16%) had hematologic malignancies. Most patients were on active systemic therapy or radiotherapy (77%), largely for advanced or metastatic disease (64%). The overall mortality rate was 16.7% (95% CI, 11.9 to 22.7). In univariate models, factors associated with death after COVID-19 diagnosis were age ≥ 60 years, current or former smoking, coexisting comorbidities, respiratory tract cancer, and management in a noncurative setting (P < .05). In multivariable logistic regression and recursive partitioning modeling, only age, smoking history, and noncurative disease setting remained significant determinants of mortality, ranging from 1% in cancer survivors under surveillance or (neo)adjuvant therapy to 60% in elderly smokers with advanced or metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Mortality after COVID-19 in patients with cancer is influenced by prognostic factors that also affect outcomes of the general population. Fragile patients and smokers are entitled to active preventive measures to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and close monitoring in the case of exposure or COVID-19-related symptoms.

Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions

Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence-based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real-world data.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on specialty community practices: an oncology perspective

OBJECTIVES

Typically, a community-based specialty practice is prepared for a limited public health crisis that is driven by a natural disaster or a localized environment event. This article describes the unexpected impact that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had on community-based specialty practices across the United States, especially oncology practices.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted an electronic national survey of community-based specialty practice administrators to determine the impact of COVID-19 on their practices and their ability to manage through a global pandemic. The 22-question survey focused on an initial observation period of March 15, 2020, to May 15, 2020, compared with a second period of May 16, 2020, to August 15, 2020.

RESULTS

Oncology practices accounted for 46% of the 155 specialty practices that participated in the survey. Overall, 57% of respondents saw at least a 30% decline in total patient volume and/or financial impact during the initial observation period, compared with a 38% decline for the oncology practices. More than 70% of all practices experienced improvement after May 15, 2020, with at least 60% improving regardless of specialty. The initial decline was primarily driven by declines in new patient volume and procedures. Approximately 62% of practices anticipate a moderate-to-significant impact on patient outcomes over the next 12 months. The impact expected was slightly higher in retina and ophthalmology practices than oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Although unexpectedly impacted in delivering care for their patients, specialty practices generally and oncology practices especially have been resilient by leveraging federal funds and adopting operational enhancements.

Older cancer patients and COVID-19 outbreak: Practical considerations and recommendations

Since the COVID-19 outbreak started, it has been affecting mainly older individuals. Among the most vulnerable older individuals are those with cancer. Many published guidelines and consensus papers deal with prioritizing cancer care. Given the lack of high-quality evidence for management of cancer in older patients also in normal times, it is even more stringent to provide some resources on how to avoid both undertreatment and overtreatment in this population, who as of now is twice challenged to death, due to both a greater risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as well as from cancer not adequately addressed and treated. We hereby discuss some general recommendations (implement triage procedures; perform geriatric assessment; carefully assess comorbidity; promote early integration of palliative care in oncology; acknowledge the role of caregivers; maintain active take in charge to avoid feeling of abandonment; mandate seasonal flu vaccination) and discuss practical suggestions for specific disease settings (early-stage and advanced-stage disease for solid tumors, and hematological malignancies). The manuscript provides resources on how to avoid both undertreatment and overtreatment in older patients with cancer, who as of now is twice challenged to death, due to both a greater risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as well as from cancer not adequately addressed and treated.

Seeing beyond COVID-19: understanding the impact of the pandemic on oncology, and the importance of preparedness

The impact of this pandemic is not only through COVID-19 itself: the care for non-COVID-19 related conditions has been dramatically curtailed, shaking entire healthcare services around the world. Amongst the non-COVID-19 related conditions, oncology has been disproportionally affected. We discuss how oncology has changed since the acute phase of the pandemic; its impact on clinicians, trainees, and patients; and offer some medical and historical perspectives to reflect on how this impact could be reduced.

Timeliness of cancer care in a regional Victorian health service: A comparison of high-volume (Lung) and low-volume (oesophagogastric) tumour streams

Background

Timeliness of cancer care is vital for improved survival and quality of life of patients. Service and care centralisation at larger‐volume centres has been associated with improved outcomes. However, there is a lack of systematic data on the impact of tumour stream volume on timeliness of care.

Aims

To investigate and compare timeliness of care for lung cancer, a high‐volume (more commonly diagnosed) tumour stream, and oesophagogastric (OG) cancer, a low‐volume (less commonly diagnosed) tumour stream, at a regional health service in Victoria, Australia.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study comprising random samples of 75 people newly diagnosed with lung cancer (International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems‐10 [ICD‐10] diagnosis codes C34 in the Victorian Cancer Registry [VCR]) and 50 people newly diagnosed with OG cancer (ICD‐10 diagnosis codes C15 or C16 in VCR) at one regional Victorian health service between 2016 and 2017. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between patient factors and suboptimal timeliness of care.

Results

In comparison to OG cancer patients, lung cancer patients had reduced odds of suboptimal timeliness of care in reference to times outside OCP for referral to diagnosis (OR [95% CI] = 0.34 [0.14 to 0.83]) but increased odds of suboptimal timeliness for diagnosis to treatment (OR [95% CI] = 2.48 [1.01 to 6.09]).

Conclusion

In the low‐volume OG cancer stream, patients had longer wait times from referral to an MDM, where treatment decisions occur, but shorter time to commencement of first treatment. Conversely in the high‐volume lung cancer group, there was delayed initiation of first treatment following presentation at MDM. There is need to explore ways to fast‐track MDM presentation and commencement of therapy among people diagnosed with low‐volume and high‐volume cancers, respectively.

Bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles on cervical cancer radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To identify the 100 most cited research articles on cervical cancer radiotherapy.

METHODS

The Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched to identify the 100 most cited articles on cervical cancer radiotherapy as of September 29, 2019. Articles were ranked based on the total citations received from 2 databases. One hundred articles about radiotherapy for cervical cancer were identified. The following important information was extracted: author, journal, year and month of publication, country or region, and radiotherapy technologies.

RESULTS

The 100 most cited articles on cervical cancer radiotherapy were published between 1964 and 2016, and the total citations from 2 databases ranged from 3478 to 211, including a total of 49,262 citations as of September 29, 2019. The index of citations per year ranged from 170.4 to 13.1. These articles were from 16 countries or regions, with most publications being from the United States (n = 38), followed by Austria (n = 15), Canada (n = 8), France (n = 8) and the United Kingdom (n = 7). The International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics produced the most articles (n = 42), followed by Radiotherapy and Oncology (n = 13), Cancer (n = 8) and Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 7). These articles were categorized as original studies (n = 86), recommendations (n = 5), guidelines (n = 5) and reviews (n = 4). Of the 100 most cited articles, intracavitary brachytherapy (n = 50) and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (n = 34) were the most commonly used treatment techniques.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report and analysis of the most cited articles on cervical cancer radiotherapy. This bibliographic study presents the history of technological development in external radiation therapy and brachytherapy. Brachytherapy is an indispensable part of radiotherapy for cervical cancer. The International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics is the journal with the most publications related to cervical cancer radiotherapy.

Association of Diet Quality With Survival Among People With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Cancer and Leukemia B and Southwest Oncology Group 80405 Trial

IMPORTANCE

Diet has been associated with survival in patients with stage I to III colorectal cancer, but data on patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between diet quality and overall survival among individuals with metastatic colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a prospective cohort study of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were enrolled in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance) and Southwest Oncology Group 80405 trial between October 27, 2005, and February 29, 2012, and followed up through January 2018.

EXPOSURES

Participants completed a validated food frequency questionnaire within 4 weeks after initiation of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Diets were categorized according to the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI), Alternate Mediterranean Diet (AMED) score, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) score, and Western and prudent dietary patterns derived using principal component analysis. Participants were categorized into sex-specific quintiles.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for overall survival.

RESULTS

In this cohort study of 1284 individuals with metastatic colorectal cancer, the median age was 59 (interquartile range [IQR]: 51-68) years, median body mass index was 27.2 (IQR, 24.1-31.4), 521 (41%) were female, and 1102 (86%) were White. There were 1100 deaths during a median follow-up of 73 months (IQR, 64-87 months). We observed an inverse association between the AMED score and risk of death (HR quintile 5 vs quintile 1, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04; P = .04 for trend), but the point estimates were not statistically significant. None of the other diet scores or patterns were associated with overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this prospective analysis of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, diet quality assessed at initiation of first-line treatment for metastatic disease was not associated with overall survival.

Increasing Undergraduate Exposure to Oncology: the Role of Oncology Interest Groups

This study describes a medical school oncology interest group (OIG) and assesses its influence on student perceptions of oncology, interest in pursuing oncology as a career, and comfort levels with oncology topics such as breaking bad news. From 2015 to 2017, the OIG annual event took place at a satellite campus of a larger Canadian undergraduate medical school. The event provided a question and answer period with a panel of physicians from multiple oncology specialties-discussions focused around lifestyle, training, clinical work, lifestyle, and career focus. Small physician-led groups taught breaking bad news using the SPIKES framework. The interest group also provided a mentoring and networking opportunity to interested students. Pre- and post-event surveys were distributed to students and physicians. For three consecutive years, the student-run, and physician-mentored OIG successfully recruited student and physician participants, providing a clinical skill teaching session as well as mentorship opportunities to students. Pre-event surveys found that only 20% of students believed their current curriculum was adequate as it relates to oncology education. In pre-session, 13% (6/45) of students indicated comfort with the skill of breaking bad news, compared with that in post-session with 81% (34/42) of students feeling comfortable. When asked "How likely are you to pursue a future elective opportunity in oncology?" 49% (20/41) of students indicated "likely" as their response in the pre-session. This response increased post-session to 70% (28/40). The event highlighted the potential for OIGs to increase student interest in pursuing oncology electives and student-perceived comfort with breaking bad news. OIGs are important in promoting interest in the field of oncology and in improving confidence in breaking bad news. This medical student-created, run and maintained oncology interest group supplemented standard curriculum by providing relevant educational and mentorship opportunities to students. This study highlights the feasibility of implementing a self-sustaining medical school oncology interest group and its potential to positively impact student learning and interest in oncology.

The hospital care of patients with cancer: a retrospective analysis of the characteristics of their hospital stay in comparison with other medical conditions

PURPOSE

Hospital admission is a frequent occurrence among patients with cancer, and a significant proportion of patients admitted to medical units have cancer. Their hospital stay has features that may be different compared with patients without cancer. We performed a retrospective analysis of the characteristics of patients with cancer admitted for medical conditions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied the administrative data of patients with solid cancer admitted to the medical department of a large referral hospital over a 12-month period and compared them with those of patients without cancer.

RESULTS

Seven thousand eight hundred two consecutive admissions were analysed, of which 1099 (14.1%) had a principal or associated diagnosis of cancer. Admissions were distributed across 12 units, with 44% concentrated in the medical oncology unit and 56% in other units. Patients with cancer were more frequently men and were younger than patients without cancer. Admission less frequently involved the emergency department (ED), while discharge was more frequently assisted. The in-hospital death rate was higher, as was the readmission rate. Length of stay was longer (11.3 days vs. 9.8 days; p < 0.0001). Patients with cancer admitted to the medical oncology unit used the ED even less, and their length of stay was shorter than that of patients with cancer admitted in other units.

CONCLUSIONS

The in-hospital pathway of patients with cancer displays specific issues and adds complexity to hospital stay of patients with medical conditions. The medical oncology unit plays a role in reducing ED use and in providing efficient care. The evidence gathered should help in shaping new models of care and in improving adequate clinical competencies.

Survey of the Impact of COVID-19 on Oncologists' Decision Making in Cancer

PURPOSE

To understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision making was influenced by the pandemic.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted between March 24 and April 29, 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 343 oncologists from 28 countries participated. The median age was 43 years (range, 29-68 years), and the majority were male (62%). At the time of the survey, nearly all participants self-reported an outbreak in their country (99.7%). Personal protective equipment was available to all participants, of which surgical mask was the most common (n = 308; 90%). Telemedicine, in the form of phone or video encounters, was common and implemented by 80% (n = 273). Testing patients with cancer for COVID-19 via reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction before systemic treatment was not routinely implemented: 58% reported no routine testing, 39% performed testing in selected patients, and 3% performed systematic testing in all patients. The most significant factors influencing an oncologist's decision making regarding choice of systemic therapy included patient age and comorbidities (81% and 92%, respectively). Although hormonal treatments and tyrosine kinase inhibitors were considered to be relatively safe, cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were perceived as being less safe or unsafe by participants. The vast majority of participants stated that during the pandemic they would use less chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids. Although treatment in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and first-line metastatic disease was less affected, most of the participants stated that they would be more hesitant to recommend second- or third-line therapies in metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Decision making by oncologists has been significantly influenced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

A fellow-run clinic achieves similar patient outcomes as faculty clinics: A safe and feasible model for gynecologic oncology fellow education

OBJECTIVES

Fellow involvement in patient care is important for education, but effect on patient care is unclear. Our aim was to compare patient outcomes in gynecologic oncology attending clinics versus a fellow training clinic at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive gynecologic oncology patients from six attending clinics and one faculty-supervised fellow clinic was used to analyze differences based on patient demographics, cancer characteristics, and practice patterns. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), postoperative complications and chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests.

RESULTS

Of 159 patients, 76 received care in the attending clinic and 83 in the fellow clinic. Patients in the fellow clinic were younger, less likely to be Caucasian, and more overweight, but cancer site and proportion of advanced stage disease were similar. Both clinics had similar rates of moderate to severe adverse events related to surgery (15% vs. 8%, p = .76), chemotherapy (21% vs. 23%, p = .40), and radiation (14% vs. 17%, p = .73). There was no difference in median RFS in the fellow compared to attending clinic (38 vs. 47 months, p = .78). OS on both univariate (49 months-fellow clinic, 60 months-attending clinic vs. p = .40) and multivariate analysis [hazard ratio 1.3 (0.57, 2.75), P = .58] was not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A fellow-run gynecologic oncology clinic designed to provide learning opportunities does not compromise patient outcomes and is a safe and feasible option for fellow education.

Evaluation of Reported Fertility Preservation Counseling Before Chemotherapy Using the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Survey

IMPORTANCE

The opportunity to discuss fertility preservation is essential for patients of reproductive age with newly diagnosed cancer before the initiation of treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with fertility preservation counseling among patients of reproductive age before initiating chemotherapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used data obtained from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, an oncologist-led quality assessment program that surveys approximately 400 oncology practices biannually, from January, 2015, to June, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was whether reproductive risks were discussed before initiation of chemotherapy. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with fertility preservation counseling, controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, cancer type, year of study, region, clinic type (academic vs private), annual clinic volume, and rates of insurance coverage.

RESULTS

Among the 6976 patients of reproductive age (3571 men [51%]; mean (SD) age, 42.5 [7.1] years), with reproductive age ranging from 18 to 40 years for 3405 women and from 18 to 50 years for 3571 men, clinics reported that 3036 of 6976 patients (44%) received counseling regarding the risk of infertility associated with chemotherapy. Women were more likely to be informed (1912 of 3405 [56%]) compared with men (1126 of 3571 [32%]) (P < .001). Factors associated with reduced likelihood of fertility risk discussion included male sex (odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.90), increasing age (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.94), private practice setting (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93), and lack of multidisciplinary team planning (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.70). Factors associated with increased likelihood of fertility risk discussion included having breast cancer (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.73) and lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.33-2.40), participating in each subsequent study year (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.24), receiving care in an academic clinic (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.05-2.01), and being a practice offering clinical trial enrollment (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.13-2.29). States with legislatively mandated coverage of fertility preservation had significantly higher rates of fertility risk discussion compared with states without legislation (48.6% vs 39.6%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that clinicians are more likely to counsel younger patients and female patients about reproductive risks before initiation of chemotherapy. State laws mandating fertility preservation coverage may be associated with improved frequency of fertility counseling before chemotherapy. Further awareness and implementation of ASCO guidelines appear to be needed to improve rates of fertility risk discussion and referrals to fertility specialists before chemotherapy.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment patterns in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus pandemic has provoked discussions among healthcare providers how to manage cancer patients when faced with the threat of severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) containing regimens are standard of care in the majority of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients. It remains unclear whether therapies should be modified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We performed an online survey among physicians involved in the treatment of mccRCC, and 41 experts responded. Questions focused on criteria relevant for treatment decision outside the pandemic and the modifications of systemic therapy during COVID-19.

FINDINGS

For the majority of experts (73%), the combination of International metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category and patient fitness are two important factors for decision-making. The main treatment choice in fit, favourable risk patients outside the pandemic is pembrolizumab/axitinib for 53%, avelumab/axitinib, sunitinib or pazopanib for 13% of experts each. During the pandemic, ICI-containing regimens are chosen less often in favour of a tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) monotherapy, mainly sunitinib or pazopanib (35%).In fit, intermediate/poor-risk patients outside the pandemic, over 80% of experts choose ipilimumab/nivolumab, in contrast to only 41% of physicians during COVID-19, instead more TKI monotherapies are given. In patients responding to established therapies with ICI/ICI or ICI/TKI combinations, most participants modify treatment regimen by extending cycle length, holding one ICI or even both.

CONCLUSION

mccRCC treatment modifications in light of the coronavirus pandemic are variable, with a shift from ICI/ICI to ICI/TKI or TKI monotherapy.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the spectrum of cancer care, including delaying diagnoses and treatment and halting clinical trials. In response, healthcare systems are rapidly reorganizing cancer services to ensure that patients continue to receive essential care while minimizing exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and its Impact on the Cardio-Oncology Population

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV, COVID-19) is historically one of the most severe acute respiratory syndromes and pandemics to affect the globe in the twenty-first century. Originating in Wuhan, the virus rapidly spread and impacted subsets of populations with initial unclear risk factors contributing to worsening morbidity and mortality. Patients with diagnosis of cancer and undergoing treatment further represent a population at risk for worsening cardiopulmonary outcomes. This review explores specific risk factors, diagnoses, and treatment options that impact cardio-oncologic patients with COVID-19.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies globally, including Italy, China, and the USA, have documented severe outcomes. Cancer patients are at increased risk of cardiac injury which itself is a risk factor for mortality. Additionally, elderly cancer patients undergoing recent anti-cancer treatment may be at greater risk for sustaining worse outcomes, although data remains suboptimal in this population. Major gaps remain regarding risk associated with type of cancer and type of anti-cancer treatment, as well as the layered risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Immunomodulatory therapies used to treat cytokine release syndrome secondary to anti-cancer therapies, as well as other agents being traditionally used to treat cardiovascular and cancer disease states, are being investigated for treatment of COVID-19. Hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer have been associated with more severe COVID-19 infection and worse outcomes. Patients undergoing anti-cancer therapy or those who have suffered from coronavirus infection may develop long-standing changes, not limited to pulmonary fibrosis, hyperlipidemia, and worsening atherosclerosis. Those undergoing anti-cancer therapy are at theoretically increased susceptibility for infection, with type of cancer not necessarily dictating outcome. A review of the literature of patients with cardiovascular and/or cancer disease is presented, as well as proposed strategies to attenuate risk regarding treatment, management, and surveillance in this vulnerable population.

The Influence of Supportive Oncodermatology Interventions on Patient Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) secondary to anticancer treatments reduce patients&rsquo; quality of life (QOL) and result in interruptions in anticancer therapy.

OBJECTIVE

Determine if a comprehensive supportive oncodermatology program improves patients&rsquo; QOL scoring.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of adult cancer patients enrolled in the George Washington University Supportive Oncodermatology Clinic. All patients were above age 18 years and received dermatologic care between May 1, 2017 and November 1, 2019. Fifty-five patents meeting inclusion criteria were invited to complete an online survey with questions adapted from the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-18).

RESULTS

Survey initiation rate was 61.8% (34/55) and completion rate 88.2% (30/34). Average QOL score prior to treatment was 6.5 (moderate effect on QOL) and 3.8 (small effect) afterwards (P=0.0005; 95% CI -3.9 to -1.). Average satisfaction score was 4.15 &plusmn; 0.7 (satisfied). Impact on treatment adherence earned the lowest score (3.67, neutral to satisfied).

LIMITATIONS

Recall bias Conclusion: Enrollment was significantly associated with improved QOL. Dermatologic care also resulted in overall satisfied patient outcomes, although many patients were unsure if these dermatologic interventions aided in anticancer treatment adherence, highlighting the need for evidence-based management strategies for dAEs. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(5): &nbsp;doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5040.