Perspectives of Gynecologic Oncologists on Minimally Invasive Surgery During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Turkish Society of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Oncology (MIJOD) Survey

Background: To evaluate gynecologic oncologists’ trends and attitudes towards the use of Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in active period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. Methods: Online national survey sent to members of Turkish Endoscopy Platform consisting of six sections and 45 questions between the dates 1-15 June 2020 in Turkey to explore their surgical practice during the pandemic in three hospital types: Education and research hospital/university hospital, state hospital and private Hospital. Participants were gynecologic oncologists who are members of Turkish Endoscopy Platform. Results: Fifty-eight percent of participants canceled all operations except for cancer surgeries and emergent operations. About a quarter of participants (28%) continued to operate laparoscopically and/or robotically. For the evaluation of the suspected adnexial mass (SAM) 64% used laparotomy and only 13 % operated by laparoscopy (L/S). For the management of low-risk early-stage endometrial cancer only fifth of the participants preferred to perform L/S. For endometrial cancer with high-intermediate risk factors more than half of participants preferred complete staging with laparotomy. For advanced stage ovarian cancer, one-fifth of the participants preferred to perform an explorative laparotomy, whilst 15 % preferred diagnostic laparoscopy to triage the patients for either NACT or cytoreductive surgery. On the contrary 41 % of participants chose to have cytology by paracentesis for neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Gynecologic oncologists with >10 years L/S experience used MIS more for SAM. Furthermore, experienced surgeons used L/S more for endometrial cancer patients. In busy COVID hospitals, more participants preferred laparotomy over L/S. Conclusion: Use of MIS decreased during the pandemic in Turkey. More experienced surgeons continued to perform MIS. Surgical treatment was the preferred approach for SAM, early-stage endometrial cancer.  However, NACT was more popular compared to radical surgery.     

Outcomes of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in Gynecologic Oncology: A Review

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a global surgical quality improvement program that started in colorectal surgery and has now expanded to numerous specialties, including gynecologic oncology. ERAS guidelines comprise multidisciplinary, evidence-based recommendations in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative period; these interventions broadly encompass patient education, anesthetic choice, multimodal pain control, avoidance of unnecessary drains, maintenance of nutrition, and prevention of emesis. Implementation of ERAS has been shown to be associated with improved clinical outcomes (length of hospital stay, complications, readmissions) and cost. Marx and colleagues first demonstrated the feasibility of ERAS in gynecologic oncology in 2003; since then, over 30 comparative studies and 4 guidelines have been published encompassing major gynecologic surgery, cytoreductive surgery, and vulvar/vaginal surgery. Implementation of ERAS in gynecologic oncology has been demonstrated to provide improvements in length of stay, complications, cost, opioid use, and patient satisfaction. Increased compliance with ERAS guidelines has been associated with greater improvement in outcomes.     

Clinical Outcomes of Up-front Surgery Versus Surgery After Induction Chemotherapy for Thymoma and Thymic Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study

IntroductionAlthough induction chemotherapy improves the resectability of thymic neoplasms, it is unclear whether surgery after induction chemotherapy can improve outcomes. We compared long-term outcomes of surgery with and without induction chemotherapy in patients with thymic neoplasms.Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively investigated the clinical information of patients with thymic neoplasms at the National Taiwan University Hospital between 2005 and 2013.ResultsOf 204 patients, 119 underwent direct surgery (group 1), 45 underwent surgery after induction chemotherapy (group 2), and 40 underwent no surgery (group 3). The 5-year overall survival rates of groups 1, 2, and 3 were as follows: for 204 patients, 96.3%, 76.4%, and 35.5% (P < .001); for 119 thymoma patients, 96.6%, 88.9%, and 100.0% (P = .835); for 85 thymic carcinoma patients, 94.7%, 69.7%, and 17.7% (P < .001); for 36 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III-IVA thymoma patients, 92.9%, 83.3%, and 100% (P = .833); and for 28 stage III-IVA thymic carcinoma patients, 75.0%, 76.2%, and 62.5%, (P = .160). Univariate analysis showed that for group 2 (P = .0208) and group 3 (P < .0001), thymic carcinoma pathology type (P = .0010) and stage IVB disease (P < .0001) were poor prognostic factors. Multivariate analysis found thymic carcinoma (P = .0026) and stage IVB disease (P = .0449) to be poor prognostic factors.ConclusionUp-front surgery leads to best overall survival, and induction chemotherapy followed by surgery may improve resectability and outcomes. Only thymic carcinoma and stage IVB disease were poor prognostic factors in multivariate analysis.     

Genitourinary Medical Oncology Expert Opinion Survey Regarding Treatment Management in the COVID-19 Pandemic

BackgroundThe worldwide Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health pandemic has restructured clinical care of patients with cancer throughout the world. The specific changes in the management of genitourinary (GU) cancers in different cancer centers owing to COVID-19 are not known, and some clinical scenarios remain controversial. We conducted an opinion survey to determine what changes in cancer treatment strategies are occurring owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.Materials and MethodsA 20-item online survey was sent on May 25, 2020 to 170 expert GU medical oncologists from Europe and North America. The survey solicited responses to changes in GU cancer management in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data was collected and managed via a secure REDCap Database.ResultsSurveys were completed by 78 (45.8%) of 170 GU oncologists between May 25, 2020 and June 25, 2020. Clinical practice changes owing to COVID-19 in at least one scenario were reported by 79.1% of responders, most pronounced in prostate cancer (71.8%) and least pronounced in urothelial cancer (23%). Preferences for change in management varied by country, with 78% (37/47) of United States oncologists indicating a change in their practice, 57% (4/7) of Canadian oncologists, and 79% (19/24) of European oncologists.ConclusionsThis study suggests international practice changes are occurring in GU cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The variability in practice changes between countries may reflect differences in COVID-19 case load during the time point of data collection. These results, based on expert opinion during this rapidly changing crisis, may inform the oncologic community regarding the effects of COVID-19 on GU cancer care.     

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 and Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Much of routine cancer care has been disrupted due to the perceived susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. Here, we systematically review the current evidence base pertaining to the prevalence, presentation and outcome of COVID-19 in cancer patients, in order to inform policy and practice going forwards. A keyword-structured systematic search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase and MedRxiv databases for studies reporting primary data on COVID-19 in cancer patients. Studies were critically appraised using the NIH National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's quality assessment tool set. The pooled prevalence of cancer as a co-morbidity in patients with COVID-19 and pooled in-hospital mortality risk of COVID-19 in cancer patients were derived by random-effects meta-analyses. In total, 110 studies from 10 countries were included. The pooled prevalence of cancer as a co-morbidity in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was 2.6% (95% confidence interval 1.8%, 3.5%, I²: 92.0%). Specifically, 1.7% (95% confidence interval 1.3%, 2.3%, I²: 57.6.%) in China and 5.6% (95% confidence interval 4.5%, 6.7%, I²: 82.3%) in Western countries. Patients most commonly presented with non-specific symptoms of fever, dyspnoea and chest tightness in addition to decreased arterial oxygen saturation, ground glass opacities on computer tomography and non-specific changes in inflammatory markers. The pooled in-hospital mortality risk among patients with COVID-19 and cancer was 14.1% (95% confidence interval 9.1%, 19.8%, I²: 52.3%). We identified impeding questions that need to be answered to provide the foundation for an iterative review of the developing evidence base, and inform policy and practice going forwards. Analyses of the available data corroborate an unfavourable outcome of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Our findings encourage future studies to report detailed social, demographic and clinical characteristics of cancer patients, including performance status, primary cancer type and stage, as well as a history of anti-cancer therapeutic interventions.     

Review on the Oncology Practice in the Midst of COVID-19 Crisis: The Challenges and Solutions

As of late 2019, the outbreak of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) –that started in China– has rapidly afflicted all over the world. The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged health-care facilities to provide optimal care. In this context, cancer care requires special attention because of its peculiar status by including patients who are commonly immunocompromised and treatments that are often highly toxic. In this review article, we have classified the main impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology practices –followed by their solutions– into ten categories, including impacts on (1) health care providers, (2) medical equipment, (3) access to medications, (4) treatment approaches, (5) patients’ referral, (6) patients’ accommodation, (7) patients’ psychological health, (8) cancer research, (9) tumor board meetings, and (10) economic income of cancer centers. The effective identification and management of all these challenges will improve the standards of cancer care over the viral pandemic and can be a practical paradigm for possible future crises.     

Clinical Activity of Ipilimumab in Acral Melanoma: A Retrospective Review

Background.

Ipilimumab improves overall survival (OS) in advanced melanoma. Acral melanoma is an uncommon clinical subtype of this disease associated with poor prognosis. The clinical activity of ipilimumab has not been well-defined in advanced acral melanoma.

Methods.

We retrospectively reviewed the demographics, treatment history, and clinical outcomes for all patients with acral melanoma treated with ipilimumab from two academic centers between February 2006 and June 2013. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we assessed for factors that correlated with OS.

Results.

A total of 35 patients with acral melanoma received ipilimumab. Melanomas arose on volar surfaces (n = 28) and subungual sites (n = 7); stage M1c disease was present in 54%, and 45% had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Best response by RECIST 1.1 criteria was complete response in 1 patient, partial response in 3, and stable disease (SD) in 4 for an objective response rate (ORR) of 11.4% and a clinical benefit rate (ORR + SD) at 24 weeks of 22.9%. Median progression-free survival was 2.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3–2.7 months); median OS was 16.7 months (95% CI: 10.9–22.5 months). Normal LDH and absolute lymphocyte count ≥1,000 at 7 weeks predicted longer OS. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were noted in 16 patients including 7 with grade 3/4 irAEs (20%).

Conclusion.

Ipilimumab is clinically active in acral melanoma with similar ORR and OS compared with unselected melanoma populations. Ipilimumab remains a viable therapeutic option for patients with advanced acral melanoma.

Implications for Practice:

Ipilimumab is a commonly used immune therapy that improves survival in metastatic melanoma. The clinical activity of ipilimumab in certain rare melanoma subtypes, such as uveal or mucosal melanomas, is suboptimal. Acral melanoma is another unusual subtype of this disease that arises on the palms, soles, and nailbeds. In this study of 35 patients with acral melanoma from 2 centers, ipilimumab was found to have activity that appears equivalent to unselected melanoma (response rate of 11.4%, median overall survival of 16.7 months). Ipilimumab remains a viable treatment option for this melanoma subpopulation.     

A Review of Canadian Cancer-Related Clinical Practice Guidelines and Resources during the COVID-19 Pandemic

(1) Background: Preventive measures taken in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have adversely affected an entire range of cancer-related medical activities. The reallocation of medical resources, staff, and ambulatory services, as well as critical shortages in pharmaceutical and medical supplies have compelled healthcare professionals to prioritize patients with cancer to treatment and screening services based on a set of classification criteria in cancer-related guidelines. Cancer patients themselves have been affected on multiple levels, and addressing their concerns poses another challenge to the oncology community. (2) Methods: We conducted a Canada-wide search of cancer-related clinical practice guidelines on the management and prioritization of individuals into treatment and screening services. We also outlined the resources provided by Canadian cancer charities and patient advocacy groups to provide cancer patients, or potential cancer patients, with useful information and valuable support resources. (3) Results: The identified provincial guidelines emphasized cancer care (i.e., treatment) more than cancer control (i.e., screening). For cancer-related resources, a clear significance was placed on knowledge & awareness and supportive resources, mainly relating to mental health. (4) Conclusion: We provided a guidance document outlining cancer-related guidelines and resources that are available to healthcare providers and patients across Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Perspectives of Young Women With Gynecologic Cancers on Fertility and Fertility Preservation: A Systematic Review

BackgroundGynecologic cancers standard treatment often requires the removal of some reproductive organs, making fertility preservation a complex challenge. Despite heightened oncofertility awareness, knowledge about fertility attitudes and decisions of young patients with gynecologic cancer is scarce. The aim of this systematic review was to highlight what is currently known about knowledge, attitudes, and decisions about fertility, fertility preservation, and parenthood among these patients.MethodsPeer-reviewed journals published in English were searched in PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE from January 1, 2000 to July 1, 2020. Childbearing, fertility, fertility preservation, pregnancy, and parenthood attitudes/decisions after gynecologic cancer from women’s perspective were evaluated.ResultsA total of 13 studies comprised the review. Most of the women valued fertility preservation procedures that could be regarded as a means to restore fertility. A unique feature identified was that fertility preservation was seen also as a way to restore gender identity perceived to be lost or threatened during diagnosis and treatment. Fertility counseling was suboptimal, with wide variability among studies reviewed. Comparisons between gynecologic cancers and other cancer types about fertility counseling rates were inconclusive. The potential negative impact of impaired fertility on patients’ mental health and quality of life was also documented.ConclusionsFertility and parenthood were important matters in patients’ lives, with the majority of patients expressing positive attitudes toward future childbearing. Results confirm that the inclusion of patients with gynecologic cancer in research studies focusing on this topic still remains low. Additionally, the provision of fertility counseling and referral by health professionals is still suboptimal.     

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Lung Cancer at a Canadian Academic Center: A Retrospective Chart Review

The large burden of COVID-19 on health care systems worldwide has raised concerns among medical oncologists about the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients. In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the impact of COVID-19 on lung cancer diagnosis and treatment before and during the COVID-19 era. New lung cancer diagnoses decreased by 34.7% during the pandemic with slightly more advanced stages of disease, there was a significant increase in the utilization of radiosurgery as the first definitive treatment, and a decrease in both systemic treatment as well as surgery compared to the pre-COVID-19 era. There was no significant delay in starting chemotherapy and radiation treatment during the pandemic compared to pre-COVID-19 time. However, we observed a delay to lung cancer surgery during the pandemic time. COVID-19 seems to have had a major impact at our lung cancer center on the diagnoses and treatment patterns of lung cancer patients. Many oncologists fear that they will see an increase in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients in the coming year. This study is still ongoing and further data will be collected and analyzed to better understand the total impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our lung cancer patient population.