Lung Cancer

A minimally invasive multicancer blood test used with standard-of-care screening is safe, effective, and feasible for use in routine clinical care, according to interim findings from a large, prospective study.

The DETECT-A blood test, an early version of the CancerSEEK test currently in development, effectively guided patient management in real time, in some cases leading to diagnosis of early cancer and potentially curative surgery in asymptomatic women with no history of cancer.

Nickolas Papadopoulos, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting I. The findings were simultaneously published in Science.

The study enrolled 10,006 women, aged 65-75 years, with no prior cancer diagnosis. After exclusion and loss to follow-up, 9,911 women remained.

There were 26 patients who had cancer detected by the DETECT-A blood test, 15 of whom underwent follow-up PET-CT imaging and 9 of whom underwent surgical excision. An additional 24 cancers were detected by standard screening, and 46 were detected by other means.

The positive predictive value of the blood test was 19%. When the blood test was combined with imaging, the positive predictive value was 41%.
 

Improving upon standard screening

“Standard-of-care screening [was used] for three different organs: breast, lung, and colon. It was more sensitive for breast cancer,” Dr. Papadopoulos noted. “Blood testing, though, identified cancer in 10 different organs.”

In fact, the DETECT-A blood test detected 14 of 45 cancers in 7 organs for which no standard screening test is available.

In addition, 12 cancers in 3 organs (breast, lung, and colon) were first detected by DETECT-A rather than by standard screening. This increased the sensitivity of cancer detection from 47% with standard screening alone to 71% with standard screening plus blood testing.

“More important, 65% [of the cancers detected by blood test] were localized or regional, which have higher chance of successful treatment with intent to cure,” Dr. Papadopoulos said.

DETECT-A covers regions of 16 commonly mutated genes and 9 proteins known to be associated with cancer. In this study, 57% of cancers were detected by mutations.
 

Safety and additional screening

DETECT-A also proved safe, “without incurring a large number of futile invasive follow-up tests,” Dr. Papadopoulos said.

In fact, only 1% of patients without cancer underwent PET-CT imaging, and only 0.22% underwent a “futile” invasive follow-up procedure.

Three surgeries occurred in patients who were counted as false-positives, but the surgeries were determined to be indicated, Dr. Papadopoulos said. He explained that one was for large colonic polyps with high-grade dysplasia that could not be removed endoscopically, one was for an in situ carcinoma of the appendix, and one was for a 10-cm ovarian lesion that was found to be a mucinous cystadenoma.

The investigators also analyzed whether the availability of a “liquid biopsy” test like DETECT-A would inadvertently reduce patients’ use of standard screening and found that it did not. Mammography screening habits after receiving the baseline DETECT-A blood test did not differ significantly from those prior to study enrollment.

These findings are important because early detection is a key factor in reducing cancer-specific morbidity and mortality, and although minimally invasive screening tests, including liquid biopsies like DETECT-A, hold great promise, prospective clinical studies of these new methods are needed to ensure that the anticipated benefits outweigh the potential risks, Dr. Papadopoulos explained.

“The problem is that most cancers are detected at advanced stages when they are difficult to treat,” he said. “The earlier cancer is detected, the greater the chance of successful treatment.”
 

Unanswered questions and future studies

This study demonstrates that it is feasible for a minimally invasive blood test to safely detect multiple cancer types in patients without a history of cancer and to enable treatment with curative intent, at least in a subset of individuals, Dr. Papadopoulos said. He added that the findings also inform the design of future randomized trials “to establish clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, and benefit-to-risk ratio of future tests.”

Further studies will also be required to determine the clinical validity and utility of the strategy of using liquid biopsy as a complement to standard-of-care screening, Dr. Papadopoulos said.

Invited discussant David G. Huntsman, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, applauded the investigators, saying this study serves to “move the field forward.” However, it still isn’t clear how sensitivity and negative predictive value will be determined and what the optimal testing schedule is.

“This is a prospective study that will provide the data on how this assay will be used [and] whether it should be used going forward,” Dr. Huntsman said, noting that the “much bigger and more important question” is whether it improves survival.

Cost-effectiveness will also be critical, he said.

This research was supported by The Marcus Foundation, Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, The Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, The Sol Goldman Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, Susan Wojcicki and Dennis Troper, the Rolfe Foundation, The Conrad R. Hilton Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, Burroughs Wellcome Career Award For Medical Scientists, and grants/contracts from the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Papadopoulos disclosed relationships with Thrive Earlier Detection Inc., PGDx Inc., NeoPhore, Cage Pharma, and other companies. Dr. Huntsman is a founder, shareholder, and chief medical officer for Contextual Genomics.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Papadopoulos N et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT022; Lennon AM et al. Science. 2020 Apr 28. pii: eabb9601. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9601.

A minimally invasive multicancer blood test used with standard-of-care screening is safe, effective, and feasible for use in routine clinical care, according to interim findings from a large, prospective study.

The DETECT-A blood test, an early version of the CancerSEEK test currently in development, effectively guided patient management in real time, in some cases leading to diagnosis of early cancer and potentially curative surgery in asymptomatic women with no history of cancer.

Nickolas Papadopoulos, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting I. The findings were simultaneously published in Science.

The study enrolled 10,006 women, aged 65-75 years, with no prior cancer diagnosis. After exclusion and loss to follow-up, 9,911 women remained.

There were 26 patients who had cancer detected by the DETECT-A blood test, 15 of whom underwent follow-up PET-CT imaging and 9 of whom underwent surgical excision. An additional 24 cancers were detected by standard screening, and 46 were detected by other means.

The positive predictive value of the blood test was 19%. When the blood test was combined with imaging, the positive predictive value was 41%.
 

Improving upon standard screening

“Standard-of-care screening [was used] for three different organs: breast, lung, and colon. It was more sensitive for breast cancer,” Dr. Papadopoulos noted. “Blood testing, though, identified cancer in 10 different organs.”

In fact, the DETECT-A blood test detected 14 of 45 cancers in 7 organs for which no standard screening test is available.

In addition, 12 cancers in 3 organs (breast, lung, and colon) were first detected by DETECT-A rather than by standard screening. This increased the sensitivity of cancer detection from 47% with standard screening alone to 71% with standard screening plus blood testing.

“More important, 65% [of the cancers detected by blood test] were localized or regional, which have higher chance of successful treatment with intent to cure,” Dr. Papadopoulos said.

DETECT-A covers regions of 16 commonly mutated genes and 9 proteins known to be associated with cancer. In this study, 57% of cancers were detected by mutations.
 

Safety and additional screening

DETECT-A also proved safe, “without incurring a large number of futile invasive follow-up tests,” Dr. Papadopoulos said.

In fact, only 1% of patients without cancer underwent PET-CT imaging, and only 0.22% underwent a “futile” invasive follow-up procedure.

Three surgeries occurred in patients who were counted as false-positives, but the surgeries were determined to be indicated, Dr. Papadopoulos said. He explained that one was for large colonic polyps with high-grade dysplasia that could not be removed endoscopically, one was for an in situ carcinoma of the appendix, and one was for a 10-cm ovarian lesion that was found to be a mucinous cystadenoma.

The investigators also analyzed whether the availability of a “liquid biopsy” test like DETECT-A would inadvertently reduce patients’ use of standard screening and found that it did not. Mammography screening habits after receiving the baseline DETECT-A blood test did not differ significantly from those prior to study enrollment.

These findings are important because early detection is a key factor in reducing cancer-specific morbidity and mortality, and although minimally invasive screening tests, including liquid biopsies like DETECT-A, hold great promise, prospective clinical studies of these new methods are needed to ensure that the anticipated benefits outweigh the potential risks, Dr. Papadopoulos explained.

“The problem is that most cancers are detected at advanced stages when they are difficult to treat,” he said. “The earlier cancer is detected, the greater the chance of successful treatment.”
 

Unanswered questions and future studies

This study demonstrates that it is feasible for a minimally invasive blood test to safely detect multiple cancer types in patients without a history of cancer and to enable treatment with curative intent, at least in a subset of individuals, Dr. Papadopoulos said. He added that the findings also inform the design of future randomized trials “to establish clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, and benefit-to-risk ratio of future tests.”

Further studies will also be required to determine the clinical validity and utility of the strategy of using liquid biopsy as a complement to standard-of-care screening, Dr. Papadopoulos said.

Invited discussant David G. Huntsman, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, applauded the investigators, saying this study serves to “move the field forward.” However, it still isn’t clear how sensitivity and negative predictive value will be determined and what the optimal testing schedule is.

“This is a prospective study that will provide the data on how this assay will be used [and] whether it should be used going forward,” Dr. Huntsman said, noting that the “much bigger and more important question” is whether it improves survival.

Cost-effectiveness will also be critical, he said.

This research was supported by The Marcus Foundation, Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, The Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, The Sol Goldman Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, Susan Wojcicki and Dennis Troper, the Rolfe Foundation, The Conrad R. Hilton Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, Burroughs Wellcome Career Award For Medical Scientists, and grants/contracts from the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Papadopoulos disclosed relationships with Thrive Earlier Detection Inc., PGDx Inc., NeoPhore, Cage Pharma, and other companies. Dr. Huntsman is a founder, shareholder, and chief medical officer for Contextual Genomics.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Papadopoulos N et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT022; Lennon AM et al. Science. 2020 Apr 28. pii: eabb9601. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9601.

A minimally invasive multicancer blood test used with standard-of-care screening is safe, effective, and feasible for use in routine clinical care, according to interim findings from a large, prospective study.

The DETECT-A blood test, an early version of the CancerSEEK test currently in development, effectively guided patient management in real time, in some cases leading to diagnosis of early cancer and potentially curative surgery in asymptomatic women with no history of cancer.

Nickolas Papadopoulos, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting I. The findings were simultaneously published in Science.

The study enrolled 10,006 women, aged 65-75 years, with no prior cancer diagnosis. After exclusion and loss to follow-up, 9,911 women remained.

There were 26 patients who had cancer detected by the DETECT-A blood test, 15 of whom underwent follow-up PET-CT imaging and 9 of whom underwent surgical excision. An additional 24 cancers were detected by standard screening, and 46 were detected by other means.

The positive predictive value of the blood test was 19%. When the blood test was combined with imaging, the positive predictive value was 41%.
 

Improving upon standard screening

“Standard-of-care screening [was used] for three different organs: breast, lung, and colon. It was more sensitive for breast cancer,” Dr. Papadopoulos noted. “Blood testing, though, identified cancer in 10 different organs.”

In fact, the DETECT-A blood test detected 14 of 45 cancers in 7 organs for which no standard screening test is available.

In addition, 12 cancers in 3 organs (breast, lung, and colon) were first detected by DETECT-A rather than by standard screening. This increased the sensitivity of cancer detection from 47% with standard screening alone to 71% with standard screening plus blood testing.

“More important, 65% [of the cancers detected by blood test] were localized or regional, which have higher chance of successful treatment with intent to cure,” Dr. Papadopoulos said.

DETECT-A covers regions of 16 commonly mutated genes and 9 proteins known to be associated with cancer. In this study, 57% of cancers were detected by mutations.
 

Safety and additional screening

DETECT-A also proved safe, “without incurring a large number of futile invasive follow-up tests,” Dr. Papadopoulos said.

In fact, only 1% of patients without cancer underwent PET-CT imaging, and only 0.22% underwent a “futile” invasive follow-up procedure.

Three surgeries occurred in patients who were counted as false-positives, but the surgeries were determined to be indicated, Dr. Papadopoulos said. He explained that one was for large colonic polyps with high-grade dysplasia that could not be removed endoscopically, one was for an in situ carcinoma of the appendix, and one was for a 10-cm ovarian lesion that was found to be a mucinous cystadenoma.

The investigators also analyzed whether the availability of a “liquid biopsy” test like DETECT-A would inadvertently reduce patients’ use of standard screening and found that it did not. Mammography screening habits after receiving the baseline DETECT-A blood test did not differ significantly from those prior to study enrollment.

These findings are important because early detection is a key factor in reducing cancer-specific morbidity and mortality, and although minimally invasive screening tests, including liquid biopsies like DETECT-A, hold great promise, prospective clinical studies of these new methods are needed to ensure that the anticipated benefits outweigh the potential risks, Dr. Papadopoulos explained.

“The problem is that most cancers are detected at advanced stages when they are difficult to treat,” he said. “The earlier cancer is detected, the greater the chance of successful treatment.”
 

Unanswered questions and future studies

This study demonstrates that it is feasible for a minimally invasive blood test to safely detect multiple cancer types in patients without a history of cancer and to enable treatment with curative intent, at least in a subset of individuals, Dr. Papadopoulos said. He added that the findings also inform the design of future randomized trials “to establish clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, and benefit-to-risk ratio of future tests.”

Further studies will also be required to determine the clinical validity and utility of the strategy of using liquid biopsy as a complement to standard-of-care screening, Dr. Papadopoulos said.

Invited discussant David G. Huntsman, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, applauded the investigators, saying this study serves to “move the field forward.” However, it still isn’t clear how sensitivity and negative predictive value will be determined and what the optimal testing schedule is.

“This is a prospective study that will provide the data on how this assay will be used [and] whether it should be used going forward,” Dr. Huntsman said, noting that the “much bigger and more important question” is whether it improves survival.

Cost-effectiveness will also be critical, he said.

This research was supported by The Marcus Foundation, Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, The Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, The Sol Goldman Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, Susan Wojcicki and Dennis Troper, the Rolfe Foundation, The Conrad R. Hilton Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, Burroughs Wellcome Career Award For Medical Scientists, and grants/contracts from the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Papadopoulos disclosed relationships with Thrive Earlier Detection Inc., PGDx Inc., NeoPhore, Cage Pharma, and other companies. Dr. Huntsman is a founder, shareholder, and chief medical officer for Contextual Genomics.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Papadopoulos N et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT022; Lennon AM et al. Science. 2020 Apr 28. pii: eabb9601. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9601.

The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.

As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.

The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)

“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.

“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.

The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.

Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.

Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”

“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.

“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.

“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.

In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
 

“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”

“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.

“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.

Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance

For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.

The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.

Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.

On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.

PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.

Comorbidities Common

“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.

For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.

“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.

“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.

“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.

Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.

As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.

The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)

“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.

“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.

The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.

Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.

Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”

“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.

“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.

“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.

In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
 

“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”

“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.

“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.

Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance

For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.

The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.

Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.

On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.

PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.

Comorbidities Common

“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.

For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.

“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.

“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.

“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.

Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.

As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.

The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)

“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.

“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.

The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.

Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.

Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”

“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.

“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.

“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.

In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
 

“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”

“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.

“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.

Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance

For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.

The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.

Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.

On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.

PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.

Comorbidities Common

“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.

For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.

“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.

“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.

“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.

Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Registry data suggest an “unexpectedly high” mortality rate among patients with thoracic cancers who develop COVID-19, according to a presenter at the AACR virtual meeting I.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Data from the TERAVOLT registry showed a 34.6% mortality rate among 200 patients with COVID-19 and thoracic cancer, according to Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumor in Milan, Italy, who presented the data at the meeting in a session on cancer and COVID-19.

Cancer patients infected with COVID-19 have been reported to be at increased risk of death, but the magnitude of increase is uncertain (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7; JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with thoracic cancer may be particularly vulnerable because of older age, tobacco use, preexisting cardiopulmonary comorbidities, and the immunosuppressive effects of treatment.

The global TERAVOLT registry was begun in late March 2020 to provide outcome data for coronavirus infections in thoracic cancer patients specifically. It is hoped that the data collected will guide patient management and define factors influencing morbidity and mortality.

Dr. Garassino said institutions from 21 countries have joined the TERAVOLT registry thus far. Currently, about 17 new patients with thoracic cancer and laboratory confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 are added to the registry each week.

As of April 12, 2020, there were 200 patients included in the registry. Their median age was 68 years, and 70.5% were men. Non–small cell lung cancer was the histology in 75.5% and small-cell lung cancer in 14.5% of patients. Most patients (73.5%) had stage IV disease. Approximately 27% of patients had at least three comorbid conditions.

About 74% of patients were on current cancer treatment, with 19% on tyrosine kinase inhibitors alone, 32.7% on chemotherapy alone, 23.1% on immunotherapy alone, and 13.6% on chemotherapy plus immunotherapy.

In all, 152 patients (76.0%) were hospitalized. However, 91.2% of patients were not admitted to the ICU, either because of a shortage of equipment or institutional policy.

The most common complications were pneumonia/pneumonitis (79.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (26.8%), multiorgan failure (7.6%), and sepsis (5.1%).

A total of 66 patients (34.6%) died. Most deaths were attributed to COVID-19 and not the underlying cancer, Dr. Garassino said.

A univariate analysis showed no association between cancer treatment and an increased risk of hospitalization or death. However, Dr. Garassino and colleagues are collecting more data to confirm these results.

In a multivariate analysis, no factors were associated with the risk of death, although data from a larger number of patients may shed more light on that issue.

TERAVOLT will continue to collect and provide data to identify characteristics associated with severe COVID-19–related illness, to guide physicians with information applicable to patients with thoracic malignancies, tailored to individual risk.

Like the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium and the ESMO CoCare registry, TERAVOLT represents a way for the patient care and translational science communities to share lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

AACR plans to help share those lessons as well, in another session on COVID-19 and cancer at the AACR virtual meeting II in June and at a conference on COVID-19 and cancer in July, according to session moderator Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Registry data suggest an “unexpectedly high” mortality rate among patients with thoracic cancers who develop COVID-19, according to a presenter at the AACR virtual meeting I.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Data from the TERAVOLT registry showed a 34.6% mortality rate among 200 patients with COVID-19 and thoracic cancer, according to Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumor in Milan, Italy, who presented the data at the meeting in a session on cancer and COVID-19.

Cancer patients infected with COVID-19 have been reported to be at increased risk of death, but the magnitude of increase is uncertain (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7; JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with thoracic cancer may be particularly vulnerable because of older age, tobacco use, preexisting cardiopulmonary comorbidities, and the immunosuppressive effects of treatment.

The global TERAVOLT registry was begun in late March 2020 to provide outcome data for coronavirus infections in thoracic cancer patients specifically. It is hoped that the data collected will guide patient management and define factors influencing morbidity and mortality.

Dr. Garassino said institutions from 21 countries have joined the TERAVOLT registry thus far. Currently, about 17 new patients with thoracic cancer and laboratory confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 are added to the registry each week.

As of April 12, 2020, there were 200 patients included in the registry. Their median age was 68 years, and 70.5% were men. Non–small cell lung cancer was the histology in 75.5% and small-cell lung cancer in 14.5% of patients. Most patients (73.5%) had stage IV disease. Approximately 27% of patients had at least three comorbid conditions.

About 74% of patients were on current cancer treatment, with 19% on tyrosine kinase inhibitors alone, 32.7% on chemotherapy alone, 23.1% on immunotherapy alone, and 13.6% on chemotherapy plus immunotherapy.

In all, 152 patients (76.0%) were hospitalized. However, 91.2% of patients were not admitted to the ICU, either because of a shortage of equipment or institutional policy.

The most common complications were pneumonia/pneumonitis (79.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (26.8%), multiorgan failure (7.6%), and sepsis (5.1%).

A total of 66 patients (34.6%) died. Most deaths were attributed to COVID-19 and not the underlying cancer, Dr. Garassino said.

A univariate analysis showed no association between cancer treatment and an increased risk of hospitalization or death. However, Dr. Garassino and colleagues are collecting more data to confirm these results.

In a multivariate analysis, no factors were associated with the risk of death, although data from a larger number of patients may shed more light on that issue.

TERAVOLT will continue to collect and provide data to identify characteristics associated with severe COVID-19–related illness, to guide physicians with information applicable to patients with thoracic malignancies, tailored to individual risk.

Like the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium and the ESMO CoCare registry, TERAVOLT represents a way for the patient care and translational science communities to share lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

AACR plans to help share those lessons as well, in another session on COVID-19 and cancer at the AACR virtual meeting II in June and at a conference on COVID-19 and cancer in July, according to session moderator Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Registry data suggest an “unexpectedly high” mortality rate among patients with thoracic cancers who develop COVID-19, according to a presenter at the AACR virtual meeting I.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Data from the TERAVOLT registry showed a 34.6% mortality rate among 200 patients with COVID-19 and thoracic cancer, according to Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumor in Milan, Italy, who presented the data at the meeting in a session on cancer and COVID-19.

Cancer patients infected with COVID-19 have been reported to be at increased risk of death, but the magnitude of increase is uncertain (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7; JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with thoracic cancer may be particularly vulnerable because of older age, tobacco use, preexisting cardiopulmonary comorbidities, and the immunosuppressive effects of treatment.

The global TERAVOLT registry was begun in late March 2020 to provide outcome data for coronavirus infections in thoracic cancer patients specifically. It is hoped that the data collected will guide patient management and define factors influencing morbidity and mortality.

Dr. Garassino said institutions from 21 countries have joined the TERAVOLT registry thus far. Currently, about 17 new patients with thoracic cancer and laboratory confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 are added to the registry each week.

As of April 12, 2020, there were 200 patients included in the registry. Their median age was 68 years, and 70.5% were men. Non–small cell lung cancer was the histology in 75.5% and small-cell lung cancer in 14.5% of patients. Most patients (73.5%) had stage IV disease. Approximately 27% of patients had at least three comorbid conditions.

About 74% of patients were on current cancer treatment, with 19% on tyrosine kinase inhibitors alone, 32.7% on chemotherapy alone, 23.1% on immunotherapy alone, and 13.6% on chemotherapy plus immunotherapy.

In all, 152 patients (76.0%) were hospitalized. However, 91.2% of patients were not admitted to the ICU, either because of a shortage of equipment or institutional policy.

The most common complications were pneumonia/pneumonitis (79.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (26.8%), multiorgan failure (7.6%), and sepsis (5.1%).

A total of 66 patients (34.6%) died. Most deaths were attributed to COVID-19 and not the underlying cancer, Dr. Garassino said.

A univariate analysis showed no association between cancer treatment and an increased risk of hospitalization or death. However, Dr. Garassino and colleagues are collecting more data to confirm these results.

In a multivariate analysis, no factors were associated with the risk of death, although data from a larger number of patients may shed more light on that issue.

TERAVOLT will continue to collect and provide data to identify characteristics associated with severe COVID-19–related illness, to guide physicians with information applicable to patients with thoracic malignancies, tailored to individual risk.

Like the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium and the ESMO CoCare registry, TERAVOLT represents a way for the patient care and translational science communities to share lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

AACR plans to help share those lessons as well, in another session on COVID-19 and cancer at the AACR virtual meeting II in June and at a conference on COVID-19 and cancer in July, according to session moderator Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

The risk of lung cancer in never smokers who develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is actually higher than it is in ever smokers who do not have COPD, an observational cohort study has shown.

Patients with COPD who had never smoked had more than double the risk of developing lung cancer (with an adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of 2.67), compared to individuals without COPD who had never smoked.

This was slightly higher than the increased risk seen in individuals who had smoked but who did not have COPD. This group had an almost double the risk of developing lung cancer (adjusted HR, 1.97), again compared to never smokers, the investigators added.

The highest risk of lung cancer was in patients who had COPD and who had smoked; this group had a sixfold risk of developing lung cancer (adjusted HR, 6.19) compared with never smokers without COPD, they note.

“COPD was a strong independent risk factor for lung cancer incidence in never smokers,” conclude the authors, led by Hye Yun Park, MD, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.

“Future studies should evaluate whether COPD patients are candidates for lung cancer screening, irrespective of smoking status,” they suggest.

The study was published March 10 in the journal Thorax.

It was based on an analysis of data from the National Health Insurance (NHS) Service National Sample Cohort between January 2002 and December 2013.

“We included all men and women, 40 to 84 years of age, who underwent at least one health screening examination provided by the NHS during the study period,” Park and colleagues explain.

Overall, the cohort included 338,548 men and women. Participants were followed-up for a median of 7 years.

Over the study interval, 1834 participants developed lung cancer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of lung cancer in never smokers who develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is actually higher than it is in ever smokers who do not have COPD, an observational cohort study has shown.

Patients with COPD who had never smoked had more than double the risk of developing lung cancer (with an adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of 2.67), compared to individuals without COPD who had never smoked.

This was slightly higher than the increased risk seen in individuals who had smoked but who did not have COPD. This group had an almost double the risk of developing lung cancer (adjusted HR, 1.97), again compared to never smokers, the investigators added.

The highest risk of lung cancer was in patients who had COPD and who had smoked; this group had a sixfold risk of developing lung cancer (adjusted HR, 6.19) compared with never smokers without COPD, they note.

“COPD was a strong independent risk factor for lung cancer incidence in never smokers,” conclude the authors, led by Hye Yun Park, MD, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.

“Future studies should evaluate whether COPD patients are candidates for lung cancer screening, irrespective of smoking status,” they suggest.

The study was published March 10 in the journal Thorax.

It was based on an analysis of data from the National Health Insurance (NHS) Service National Sample Cohort between January 2002 and December 2013.

“We included all men and women, 40 to 84 years of age, who underwent at least one health screening examination provided by the NHS during the study period,” Park and colleagues explain.

Overall, the cohort included 338,548 men and women. Participants were followed-up for a median of 7 years.

Over the study interval, 1834 participants developed lung cancer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of lung cancer in never smokers who develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is actually higher than it is in ever smokers who do not have COPD, an observational cohort study has shown.

Patients with COPD who had never smoked had more than double the risk of developing lung cancer (with an adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of 2.67), compared to individuals without COPD who had never smoked.

This was slightly higher than the increased risk seen in individuals who had smoked but who did not have COPD. This group had an almost double the risk of developing lung cancer (adjusted HR, 1.97), again compared to never smokers, the investigators added.

The highest risk of lung cancer was in patients who had COPD and who had smoked; this group had a sixfold risk of developing lung cancer (adjusted HR, 6.19) compared with never smokers without COPD, they note.

“COPD was a strong independent risk factor for lung cancer incidence in never smokers,” conclude the authors, led by Hye Yun Park, MD, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.

“Future studies should evaluate whether COPD patients are candidates for lung cancer screening, irrespective of smoking status,” they suggest.

The study was published March 10 in the journal Thorax.

It was based on an analysis of data from the National Health Insurance (NHS) Service National Sample Cohort between January 2002 and December 2013.

“We included all men and women, 40 to 84 years of age, who underwent at least one health screening examination provided by the NHS during the study period,” Park and colleagues explain.

Overall, the cohort included 338,548 men and women. Participants were followed-up for a median of 7 years.

Over the study interval, 1834 participants developed lung cancer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.

Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”

But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.

But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
 

COVID-19: A natural experiment

For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.

Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.

Until now.

The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.

The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
 

The pressure to ‘fight’

The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.

The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.

Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.

This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.

The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
 

Metaphors of war

These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.

Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.

When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.

After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.

Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.

Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”

But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.

But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
 

COVID-19: A natural experiment

For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.

Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.

Until now.

The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.

The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
 

The pressure to ‘fight’

The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.

The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.

Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.

This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.

The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
 

Metaphors of war

These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.

Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.

When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.

After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.

Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.

Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”

But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.

But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
 

COVID-19: A natural experiment

For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.

Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.

Until now.

The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.

The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
 

The pressure to ‘fight’

The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.

The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.

Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.

This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.

The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
 

Metaphors of war

These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.

Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.

When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.

After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.

Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has issued guidelines that provide a practical road map for managing lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the guidelines don’t address some issues that may affect U.S. physicians.

ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines provide specific details on when to prioritize and when to delay care. However, the guidelines don’t provide recommendations for managing patients who cannot participate in telemedicine or patients who have seen their clinical trial halted because of the pandemic, two situations that may be familiar to U.S. physicians.
 

Prioritization

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the lung cancer guidelines are organized into three priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening. Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients in noncritical situations for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would likely lower the chance of a significant benefit from the intervention. Low-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is stable enough that services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ESMO applied the high-, medium-, and low-prioritization schema to clinically distinct domains of lung cancer management, including outpatient visits; imaging; surgical treatment and diagnostic intervention; radiation therapy; and medical oncology treatment of early, locally advanced, or metastatic lung cancer.

As an example, a high-priority outpatient visit would be a visit for a patient with a new diagnosis of lung cancer and disease-related symptoms, suspicion of advanced disease or small cell cancer, or a visit for treatment administration. Low-priority visits would be survivorship visits, follow-up for a patient with low or intermediate relapse risk, or a visit for psychological support alone. For each diagnostic and therapeutic domain, there are similarly explicit examples.
 

Strengths of the guidelines

Because of small cell lung cancer’s usually aggressive behavior, ESMO’s recommendations appropriately give high priority to the diagnosis and treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Regarding imaging of pulmonary nodules, ESMO’s guidelines are fairly faithful to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations (Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38[5]:1337-50).

Most importantly, ESMO urges oncologists to adjust their routines by amplifying telemedicine services, reducing clinic visits, delaying adjuvant radiation therapy, switching to oral therapies when possible, and taking minor liberties with the schedule and duration of immune-targeted therapy.

The guidelines contain advice on supportive therapies, particularly regarding more liberal use of myeloid growth factors for patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy and postponement of antiresorptive therapy when it is not needed urgently.
 

Unaddressed issues

ESMO’s guidelines do not suggest more liberal use of immune-targeted therapy alone for specific patient profiles, nor do the guidelines provide tips for enhancing mental and physical health of patients during this stressful time.

The guidelines put primacy on “patient safety.” However, Narjust Duma, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that there may be other equally important considerations. The patient’s comfort level about management recommendations and the safety of family members are vital, especially those who are older or immunocompromised.

Dr. Duma also noted that access to care is an issue specific to the United States that is not specifically addressed in the ESMO guidelines.

Dr. Duma estimated that as many as 30%-40% of patients with lung cancer may have no access to the Internet, a smartphone, or the ability to set up a telemedicine encounter. A patient’s lack of health insurance, transportation, and shelter will also have a direct impact on a provider’s ability to implement the ESMO guidance.

In addition, ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines do not specifically address accrual of patients to research studies during the pandemic. In the United States, many institutions have decided to suspend recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and many developing studies have been put on hold.
 

Lung cancer management today

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to cancer patient care, since cancer patients are at high risk of COVID-19-related mortality, but they also have a high risk of cancer progression and its associated morbidity and mortality. In an analysis of 355 Italian patients who died from COVID-19, 20% had active cancer (JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with lung cancer may be particularly vulnerable to death from coronavirus infection caused by older age, comorbid conditions, and the frequent requirement for multiple modalities of treatment, including cytotoxic therapy. In China, among 18 patients with cancer and coronavirus infection, 28% had lung cancer, and those patients had a high risk of requiring ICU-level care (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7).

Bearing these data in mind, even the most mundane aspects of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up require careful risk-benefit analysis before application to individual patients.

There are always gray areas, particularly in quantifying the risk of relapse or infection for individual patients. However, the articulation of the ESMO guidelines into the chosen domains should make them easy to apply in routine practice for many patients.

The holistic approach the ESMO guidelines promote has never been more critical than during the pandemic, nor more aptly applied than to patients with lung cancer.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Duma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and Inivata.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has issued guidelines that provide a practical road map for managing lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the guidelines don’t address some issues that may affect U.S. physicians.

ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines provide specific details on when to prioritize and when to delay care. However, the guidelines don’t provide recommendations for managing patients who cannot participate in telemedicine or patients who have seen their clinical trial halted because of the pandemic, two situations that may be familiar to U.S. physicians.
 

Prioritization

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the lung cancer guidelines are organized into three priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening. Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients in noncritical situations for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would likely lower the chance of a significant benefit from the intervention. Low-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is stable enough that services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ESMO applied the high-, medium-, and low-prioritization schema to clinically distinct domains of lung cancer management, including outpatient visits; imaging; surgical treatment and diagnostic intervention; radiation therapy; and medical oncology treatment of early, locally advanced, or metastatic lung cancer.

As an example, a high-priority outpatient visit would be a visit for a patient with a new diagnosis of lung cancer and disease-related symptoms, suspicion of advanced disease or small cell cancer, or a visit for treatment administration. Low-priority visits would be survivorship visits, follow-up for a patient with low or intermediate relapse risk, or a visit for psychological support alone. For each diagnostic and therapeutic domain, there are similarly explicit examples.
 

Strengths of the guidelines

Because of small cell lung cancer’s usually aggressive behavior, ESMO’s recommendations appropriately give high priority to the diagnosis and treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Regarding imaging of pulmonary nodules, ESMO’s guidelines are fairly faithful to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations (Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38[5]:1337-50).

Most importantly, ESMO urges oncologists to adjust their routines by amplifying telemedicine services, reducing clinic visits, delaying adjuvant radiation therapy, switching to oral therapies when possible, and taking minor liberties with the schedule and duration of immune-targeted therapy.

The guidelines contain advice on supportive therapies, particularly regarding more liberal use of myeloid growth factors for patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy and postponement of antiresorptive therapy when it is not needed urgently.
 

Unaddressed issues

ESMO’s guidelines do not suggest more liberal use of immune-targeted therapy alone for specific patient profiles, nor do the guidelines provide tips for enhancing mental and physical health of patients during this stressful time.

The guidelines put primacy on “patient safety.” However, Narjust Duma, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that there may be other equally important considerations. The patient’s comfort level about management recommendations and the safety of family members are vital, especially those who are older or immunocompromised.

Dr. Duma also noted that access to care is an issue specific to the United States that is not specifically addressed in the ESMO guidelines.

Dr. Duma estimated that as many as 30%-40% of patients with lung cancer may have no access to the Internet, a smartphone, or the ability to set up a telemedicine encounter. A patient’s lack of health insurance, transportation, and shelter will also have a direct impact on a provider’s ability to implement the ESMO guidance.

In addition, ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines do not specifically address accrual of patients to research studies during the pandemic. In the United States, many institutions have decided to suspend recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and many developing studies have been put on hold.
 

Lung cancer management today

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to cancer patient care, since cancer patients are at high risk of COVID-19-related mortality, but they also have a high risk of cancer progression and its associated morbidity and mortality. In an analysis of 355 Italian patients who died from COVID-19, 20% had active cancer (JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with lung cancer may be particularly vulnerable to death from coronavirus infection caused by older age, comorbid conditions, and the frequent requirement for multiple modalities of treatment, including cytotoxic therapy. In China, among 18 patients with cancer and coronavirus infection, 28% had lung cancer, and those patients had a high risk of requiring ICU-level care (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7).

Bearing these data in mind, even the most mundane aspects of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up require careful risk-benefit analysis before application to individual patients.

There are always gray areas, particularly in quantifying the risk of relapse or infection for individual patients. However, the articulation of the ESMO guidelines into the chosen domains should make them easy to apply in routine practice for many patients.

The holistic approach the ESMO guidelines promote has never been more critical than during the pandemic, nor more aptly applied than to patients with lung cancer.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Duma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and Inivata.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has issued guidelines that provide a practical road map for managing lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the guidelines don’t address some issues that may affect U.S. physicians.

ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines provide specific details on when to prioritize and when to delay care. However, the guidelines don’t provide recommendations for managing patients who cannot participate in telemedicine or patients who have seen their clinical trial halted because of the pandemic, two situations that may be familiar to U.S. physicians.
 

Prioritization

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the lung cancer guidelines are organized into three priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening. Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients in noncritical situations for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would likely lower the chance of a significant benefit from the intervention. Low-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is stable enough that services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ESMO applied the high-, medium-, and low-prioritization schema to clinically distinct domains of lung cancer management, including outpatient visits; imaging; surgical treatment and diagnostic intervention; radiation therapy; and medical oncology treatment of early, locally advanced, or metastatic lung cancer.

As an example, a high-priority outpatient visit would be a visit for a patient with a new diagnosis of lung cancer and disease-related symptoms, suspicion of advanced disease or small cell cancer, or a visit for treatment administration. Low-priority visits would be survivorship visits, follow-up for a patient with low or intermediate relapse risk, or a visit for psychological support alone. For each diagnostic and therapeutic domain, there are similarly explicit examples.
 

Strengths of the guidelines

Because of small cell lung cancer’s usually aggressive behavior, ESMO’s recommendations appropriately give high priority to the diagnosis and treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Regarding imaging of pulmonary nodules, ESMO’s guidelines are fairly faithful to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations (Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38[5]:1337-50).

Most importantly, ESMO urges oncologists to adjust their routines by amplifying telemedicine services, reducing clinic visits, delaying adjuvant radiation therapy, switching to oral therapies when possible, and taking minor liberties with the schedule and duration of immune-targeted therapy.

The guidelines contain advice on supportive therapies, particularly regarding more liberal use of myeloid growth factors for patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy and postponement of antiresorptive therapy when it is not needed urgently.
 

Unaddressed issues

ESMO’s guidelines do not suggest more liberal use of immune-targeted therapy alone for specific patient profiles, nor do the guidelines provide tips for enhancing mental and physical health of patients during this stressful time.

The guidelines put primacy on “patient safety.” However, Narjust Duma, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that there may be other equally important considerations. The patient’s comfort level about management recommendations and the safety of family members are vital, especially those who are older or immunocompromised.

Dr. Duma also noted that access to care is an issue specific to the United States that is not specifically addressed in the ESMO guidelines.

Dr. Duma estimated that as many as 30%-40% of patients with lung cancer may have no access to the Internet, a smartphone, or the ability to set up a telemedicine encounter. A patient’s lack of health insurance, transportation, and shelter will also have a direct impact on a provider’s ability to implement the ESMO guidance.

In addition, ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines do not specifically address accrual of patients to research studies during the pandemic. In the United States, many institutions have decided to suspend recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and many developing studies have been put on hold.
 

Lung cancer management today

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to cancer patient care, since cancer patients are at high risk of COVID-19-related mortality, but they also have a high risk of cancer progression and its associated morbidity and mortality. In an analysis of 355 Italian patients who died from COVID-19, 20% had active cancer (JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with lung cancer may be particularly vulnerable to death from coronavirus infection caused by older age, comorbid conditions, and the frequent requirement for multiple modalities of treatment, including cytotoxic therapy. In China, among 18 patients with cancer and coronavirus infection, 28% had lung cancer, and those patients had a high risk of requiring ICU-level care (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7).

Bearing these data in mind, even the most mundane aspects of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up require careful risk-benefit analysis before application to individual patients.

There are always gray areas, particularly in quantifying the risk of relapse or infection for individual patients. However, the articulation of the ESMO guidelines into the chosen domains should make them easy to apply in routine practice for many patients.

The holistic approach the ESMO guidelines promote has never been more critical than during the pandemic, nor more aptly applied than to patients with lung cancer.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Duma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and Inivata.

Delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has proved particularly challenging, as minimizing the risk of infection must be balanced with maintaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare systems and oncologists have had to reorganize standard oncologic care in order to protect vulnerable patients from exposure to COVID-19 as well as deal with pandemic-related issues of equipment and staffing shortages.

A new article now describes how seven cancer centers in Europe rapidly reorganized their oncologic services and are tackling this crisis, as well as offering guidance to other institutions.

This was a major undertaking, to work out a system where patients can still get care but in a safer manner, explained coauthor Emile Voest, MD, medical director of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

“Decisions needed to be taken based on availability of personnel, protective materials, and urgencies,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Because every country had its own speed of development of the COVID pandemic, there were different scenarios in all institutions, but all with a common factor of key expertise on how to de-escalate in a safe manner.”

The article was published April 16 in Nature Medicine.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute (the Netherlands), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Institute Gustave Roussy (France), Cambridge Cancer Center (United Kingdom), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (Italy), German Cancer Research Center (Germany), and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (Spain) have been working closely together in a legal entity since 2014, and have created ‘Cancer Core Europe’ (CCE). The goal is to “maximize coherence and critical mass in cancer research,” the authors note.

The consortium represents roughly 60,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, delivers approximately 300,000 treatment courses, and conducts about 1.2 million consultations annually, with more than 1,500 ongoing clinical trials. In a joint effort, the centers collected, translated, and compared the guidelines that had been put in place to treat patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary and involves many specialties including surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Coordinating care among disciplines is a very complex process, Voest noted.

“Changing treatment also means that you need to reconsider capacities and requirements,” he said. “Hospitals have installed crisis teams that were very good at coordinating these efforts.”
 

Restructuring care

Cancer care had to be reorganized on multiple levels, and the CCE centers looked at several aspects that needed to be accounted for, to ensure continuity in cancer care.

“The biggest challenge for the NHS and other healthcare systems is the surge of patients requiring oxygen and/or intensive care, and the nature and infectiousness of the virus,” said coauthor Carlos Caldas, MD, FMedSci, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. “In hospitals that are mostly run close to capacity, and where all kinds of patients are treated, this has created major resource and logistical problems.”

For regular clinical activities, the institutions with dedicated cancer centers (German Cancer Research Center, Institute Gustave Roussy, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, and Netherlands Cancer Institute) have attempted to stay COVID-19 free. This policy would in turn help ensure that sufficient clinical and intensive-care capacity could be reserved for critical cancer surgeries or management of treatment-related side effects, and allow hospitals outside of the CCE to transfer patients with cancer to these centers. The general hospitals can then focus on caring for patients with COVID-19, as well as other illnesses/injuries that require inpatient care.

As the CCE centers located within general hospitals (Cambridge Cancer Center, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology and Karolinska Institute) have to admit patients with suspected and positive cases of COVID-19, being “COVID-19 free” was never a realistic or pursued goal.

The authors note that it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to ensure patients are not exposed to COVID-19, and this has meant minimizing hospital visits and person-to-person contact. For example, whenever possible, consultations take place via telephone calls or over the Internet, and nonurgent appointments that would require a patient’s physical presence at the clinic have been postponed. Visitors are also not permitted to accompany patients when admitted to the hospital or during procedures.

Standard-of-care treatment regimens have been adapted across all centers to minimize the number of hospital visits and hospitalizations and prevent “anticancer treatment-induced” complications of COVID-19.

To minimize visits and hospitalizations, strategies include converting intravenous treatments to oral or subcutaneous regimens when possible; switching from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a less-toxic approach to minimize the risk of complications requiring hospitalization; or to pause therapies when possible (stable disease reached or better). In addition, nonemergency surgeries have been postponed or replaced by radiotherapy.

To prevent anticancer treatment-induced complications of COVID-19, most centers use the paradigm that the added benefit for tumor control should be weighed against the potential risk for COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality. To prevent or reduce the risk of neutropenia and lymphopenia, for example, all centers have suggested a de-escalation of cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted treatment strategies, or to forgo second or subsequent lines of palliative treatments if response rates from up-front therapy are low.

Some of these changes may be here to stay, noted Caldas. “One of the positive messages that comes out of this is that, clearly, care can be delivered in a safe and compassionate manner without requiring as many hospital visits as in the pre-COVID-19 era,” he said. “In the future, we will take heed of the COVID-19 experience to improve delivery of cancer care.”
 

Capacity of facilities

Many healthcare systems have become overwhelmed as the pandemic has intensified, thus making it necessary to prioritize. To prepare for this possibility, CCE centers have established protocols to categorize and prioritize patients for systemic treatment or surgery. While the protocols vary by center, they are comparable with one another as they prioritize on the basis of anticipated treatment outcome, the authors note.

The guidelines in CCE centers unanimously recommend that neoadjuvant therapies and curative surgeries be the top priority, for the times when operating room and/or ICU capacity is limited. As an alternative, neoadjuvant systemic treatments may be initiated or extended to postpone surgery, and other nonsurgical interventions can be considered.

In addition, some centers agree that certain elective surgeries can be safely delayed if backed by scientific evidence. As an example, an 11-week deferment of surgery may be acceptable for patients with rectal cancer after downstaging.

Cancer centers may also need to upscale and downscale quickly, depending on how the pandemic evolves, and many have already outlined scenarios to prepare for increasing or decreasing their capacity using phased approaches.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, for example, has defined four phases of increasing severity; in Germany, capacity planning has been coordinated among 18 hospitals and the federal ministry of health, in order to prevent shortages of cancer services.

“We note that the optimal downscaling strategies depend on country- and center-specific capacities and preferences,” they write. “Therefore, it is difficult to propose a common schedule, and it will be most effective if hospitals outline their own phase-specific downscaling strategies based on the prioritization schemes and practical handles discussed above.”
 

Future research

Better strategies will be needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in cancer care, and four research priorities were identified to allow for evidence-based adjustments of cancer care protocols while the pandemic continues:

• Collect real-world data about the effects of adjustment and de-escalation of treatment regimens on outcomes
• Determine the incidence of COVID-19 in both the general population and among patients with cancer who have received systemic therapies, with large-scale serological testing
• Develop an epidemiological model that will allow estimates of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 for a patient with cancer, within a specific time frame
• Determine COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic therapies and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Several projects are currently underway, such as the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has proved particularly challenging, as minimizing the risk of infection must be balanced with maintaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare systems and oncologists have had to reorganize standard oncologic care in order to protect vulnerable patients from exposure to COVID-19 as well as deal with pandemic-related issues of equipment and staffing shortages.

A new article now describes how seven cancer centers in Europe rapidly reorganized their oncologic services and are tackling this crisis, as well as offering guidance to other institutions.

This was a major undertaking, to work out a system where patients can still get care but in a safer manner, explained coauthor Emile Voest, MD, medical director of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

“Decisions needed to be taken based on availability of personnel, protective materials, and urgencies,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Because every country had its own speed of development of the COVID pandemic, there were different scenarios in all institutions, but all with a common factor of key expertise on how to de-escalate in a safe manner.”

The article was published April 16 in Nature Medicine.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute (the Netherlands), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Institute Gustave Roussy (France), Cambridge Cancer Center (United Kingdom), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (Italy), German Cancer Research Center (Germany), and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (Spain) have been working closely together in a legal entity since 2014, and have created ‘Cancer Core Europe’ (CCE). The goal is to “maximize coherence and critical mass in cancer research,” the authors note.

The consortium represents roughly 60,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, delivers approximately 300,000 treatment courses, and conducts about 1.2 million consultations annually, with more than 1,500 ongoing clinical trials. In a joint effort, the centers collected, translated, and compared the guidelines that had been put in place to treat patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary and involves many specialties including surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Coordinating care among disciplines is a very complex process, Voest noted.

“Changing treatment also means that you need to reconsider capacities and requirements,” he said. “Hospitals have installed crisis teams that were very good at coordinating these efforts.”
 

Restructuring care

Cancer care had to be reorganized on multiple levels, and the CCE centers looked at several aspects that needed to be accounted for, to ensure continuity in cancer care.

“The biggest challenge for the NHS and other healthcare systems is the surge of patients requiring oxygen and/or intensive care, and the nature and infectiousness of the virus,” said coauthor Carlos Caldas, MD, FMedSci, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. “In hospitals that are mostly run close to capacity, and where all kinds of patients are treated, this has created major resource and logistical problems.”

For regular clinical activities, the institutions with dedicated cancer centers (German Cancer Research Center, Institute Gustave Roussy, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, and Netherlands Cancer Institute) have attempted to stay COVID-19 free. This policy would in turn help ensure that sufficient clinical and intensive-care capacity could be reserved for critical cancer surgeries or management of treatment-related side effects, and allow hospitals outside of the CCE to transfer patients with cancer to these centers. The general hospitals can then focus on caring for patients with COVID-19, as well as other illnesses/injuries that require inpatient care.

As the CCE centers located within general hospitals (Cambridge Cancer Center, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology and Karolinska Institute) have to admit patients with suspected and positive cases of COVID-19, being “COVID-19 free” was never a realistic or pursued goal.

The authors note that it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to ensure patients are not exposed to COVID-19, and this has meant minimizing hospital visits and person-to-person contact. For example, whenever possible, consultations take place via telephone calls or over the Internet, and nonurgent appointments that would require a patient’s physical presence at the clinic have been postponed. Visitors are also not permitted to accompany patients when admitted to the hospital or during procedures.

Standard-of-care treatment regimens have been adapted across all centers to minimize the number of hospital visits and hospitalizations and prevent “anticancer treatment-induced” complications of COVID-19.

To minimize visits and hospitalizations, strategies include converting intravenous treatments to oral or subcutaneous regimens when possible; switching from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a less-toxic approach to minimize the risk of complications requiring hospitalization; or to pause therapies when possible (stable disease reached or better). In addition, nonemergency surgeries have been postponed or replaced by radiotherapy.

To prevent anticancer treatment-induced complications of COVID-19, most centers use the paradigm that the added benefit for tumor control should be weighed against the potential risk for COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality. To prevent or reduce the risk of neutropenia and lymphopenia, for example, all centers have suggested a de-escalation of cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted treatment strategies, or to forgo second or subsequent lines of palliative treatments if response rates from up-front therapy are low.

Some of these changes may be here to stay, noted Caldas. “One of the positive messages that comes out of this is that, clearly, care can be delivered in a safe and compassionate manner without requiring as many hospital visits as in the pre-COVID-19 era,” he said. “In the future, we will take heed of the COVID-19 experience to improve delivery of cancer care.”
 

Capacity of facilities

Many healthcare systems have become overwhelmed as the pandemic has intensified, thus making it necessary to prioritize. To prepare for this possibility, CCE centers have established protocols to categorize and prioritize patients for systemic treatment or surgery. While the protocols vary by center, they are comparable with one another as they prioritize on the basis of anticipated treatment outcome, the authors note.

The guidelines in CCE centers unanimously recommend that neoadjuvant therapies and curative surgeries be the top priority, for the times when operating room and/or ICU capacity is limited. As an alternative, neoadjuvant systemic treatments may be initiated or extended to postpone surgery, and other nonsurgical interventions can be considered.

In addition, some centers agree that certain elective surgeries can be safely delayed if backed by scientific evidence. As an example, an 11-week deferment of surgery may be acceptable for patients with rectal cancer after downstaging.

Cancer centers may also need to upscale and downscale quickly, depending on how the pandemic evolves, and many have already outlined scenarios to prepare for increasing or decreasing their capacity using phased approaches.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, for example, has defined four phases of increasing severity; in Germany, capacity planning has been coordinated among 18 hospitals and the federal ministry of health, in order to prevent shortages of cancer services.

“We note that the optimal downscaling strategies depend on country- and center-specific capacities and preferences,” they write. “Therefore, it is difficult to propose a common schedule, and it will be most effective if hospitals outline their own phase-specific downscaling strategies based on the prioritization schemes and practical handles discussed above.”
 

Future research

Better strategies will be needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in cancer care, and four research priorities were identified to allow for evidence-based adjustments of cancer care protocols while the pandemic continues:

• Collect real-world data about the effects of adjustment and de-escalation of treatment regimens on outcomes
• Determine the incidence of COVID-19 in both the general population and among patients with cancer who have received systemic therapies, with large-scale serological testing
• Develop an epidemiological model that will allow estimates of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 for a patient with cancer, within a specific time frame
• Determine COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic therapies and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Several projects are currently underway, such as the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has proved particularly challenging, as minimizing the risk of infection must be balanced with maintaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare systems and oncologists have had to reorganize standard oncologic care in order to protect vulnerable patients from exposure to COVID-19 as well as deal with pandemic-related issues of equipment and staffing shortages.

A new article now describes how seven cancer centers in Europe rapidly reorganized their oncologic services and are tackling this crisis, as well as offering guidance to other institutions.

This was a major undertaking, to work out a system where patients can still get care but in a safer manner, explained coauthor Emile Voest, MD, medical director of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

“Decisions needed to be taken based on availability of personnel, protective materials, and urgencies,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Because every country had its own speed of development of the COVID pandemic, there were different scenarios in all institutions, but all with a common factor of key expertise on how to de-escalate in a safe manner.”

The article was published April 16 in Nature Medicine.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute (the Netherlands), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Institute Gustave Roussy (France), Cambridge Cancer Center (United Kingdom), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (Italy), German Cancer Research Center (Germany), and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (Spain) have been working closely together in a legal entity since 2014, and have created ‘Cancer Core Europe’ (CCE). The goal is to “maximize coherence and critical mass in cancer research,” the authors note.

The consortium represents roughly 60,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, delivers approximately 300,000 treatment courses, and conducts about 1.2 million consultations annually, with more than 1,500 ongoing clinical trials. In a joint effort, the centers collected, translated, and compared the guidelines that had been put in place to treat patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary and involves many specialties including surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Coordinating care among disciplines is a very complex process, Voest noted.

“Changing treatment also means that you need to reconsider capacities and requirements,” he said. “Hospitals have installed crisis teams that were very good at coordinating these efforts.”
 

Restructuring care

Cancer care had to be reorganized on multiple levels, and the CCE centers looked at several aspects that needed to be accounted for, to ensure continuity in cancer care.

“The biggest challenge for the NHS and other healthcare systems is the surge of patients requiring oxygen and/or intensive care, and the nature and infectiousness of the virus,” said coauthor Carlos Caldas, MD, FMedSci, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. “In hospitals that are mostly run close to capacity, and where all kinds of patients are treated, this has created major resource and logistical problems.”

For regular clinical activities, the institutions with dedicated cancer centers (German Cancer Research Center, Institute Gustave Roussy, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, and Netherlands Cancer Institute) have attempted to stay COVID-19 free. This policy would in turn help ensure that sufficient clinical and intensive-care capacity could be reserved for critical cancer surgeries or management of treatment-related side effects, and allow hospitals outside of the CCE to transfer patients with cancer to these centers. The general hospitals can then focus on caring for patients with COVID-19, as well as other illnesses/injuries that require inpatient care.

As the CCE centers located within general hospitals (Cambridge Cancer Center, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology and Karolinska Institute) have to admit patients with suspected and positive cases of COVID-19, being “COVID-19 free” was never a realistic or pursued goal.

The authors note that it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to ensure patients are not exposed to COVID-19, and this has meant minimizing hospital visits and person-to-person contact. For example, whenever possible, consultations take place via telephone calls or over the Internet, and nonurgent appointments that would require a patient’s physical presence at the clinic have been postponed. Visitors are also not permitted to accompany patients when admitted to the hospital or during procedures.

Standard-of-care treatment regimens have been adapted across all centers to minimize the number of hospital visits and hospitalizations and prevent “anticancer treatment-induced” complications of COVID-19.

To minimize visits and hospitalizations, strategies include converting intravenous treatments to oral or subcutaneous regimens when possible; switching from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a less-toxic approach to minimize the risk of complications requiring hospitalization; or to pause therapies when possible (stable disease reached or better). In addition, nonemergency surgeries have been postponed or replaced by radiotherapy.

To prevent anticancer treatment-induced complications of COVID-19, most centers use the paradigm that the added benefit for tumor control should be weighed against the potential risk for COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality. To prevent or reduce the risk of neutropenia and lymphopenia, for example, all centers have suggested a de-escalation of cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted treatment strategies, or to forgo second or subsequent lines of palliative treatments if response rates from up-front therapy are low.

Some of these changes may be here to stay, noted Caldas. “One of the positive messages that comes out of this is that, clearly, care can be delivered in a safe and compassionate manner without requiring as many hospital visits as in the pre-COVID-19 era,” he said. “In the future, we will take heed of the COVID-19 experience to improve delivery of cancer care.”
 

Capacity of facilities

Many healthcare systems have become overwhelmed as the pandemic has intensified, thus making it necessary to prioritize. To prepare for this possibility, CCE centers have established protocols to categorize and prioritize patients for systemic treatment or surgery. While the protocols vary by center, they are comparable with one another as they prioritize on the basis of anticipated treatment outcome, the authors note.

The guidelines in CCE centers unanimously recommend that neoadjuvant therapies and curative surgeries be the top priority, for the times when operating room and/or ICU capacity is limited. As an alternative, neoadjuvant systemic treatments may be initiated or extended to postpone surgery, and other nonsurgical interventions can be considered.

In addition, some centers agree that certain elective surgeries can be safely delayed if backed by scientific evidence. As an example, an 11-week deferment of surgery may be acceptable for patients with rectal cancer after downstaging.

Cancer centers may also need to upscale and downscale quickly, depending on how the pandemic evolves, and many have already outlined scenarios to prepare for increasing or decreasing their capacity using phased approaches.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, for example, has defined four phases of increasing severity; in Germany, capacity planning has been coordinated among 18 hospitals and the federal ministry of health, in order to prevent shortages of cancer services.

“We note that the optimal downscaling strategies depend on country- and center-specific capacities and preferences,” they write. “Therefore, it is difficult to propose a common schedule, and it will be most effective if hospitals outline their own phase-specific downscaling strategies based on the prioritization schemes and practical handles discussed above.”
 

Future research

Better strategies will be needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in cancer care, and four research priorities were identified to allow for evidence-based adjustments of cancer care protocols while the pandemic continues:

• Collect real-world data about the effects of adjustment and de-escalation of treatment regimens on outcomes
• Determine the incidence of COVID-19 in both the general population and among patients with cancer who have received systemic therapies, with large-scale serological testing
• Develop an epidemiological model that will allow estimates of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 for a patient with cancer, within a specific time frame
• Determine COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic therapies and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Several projects are currently underway, such as the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.