Dataset Information

Changes in breast cancer management during the Corona Virus Disease 19 pandemic: An international survey of the European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists (EUBREAST).

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) had a worldwide negative impact on healthcare systems, which were not used to coping with such pandemic. Adaptation strategies prioritizing COVID-19 patients included triage of patients and reduction or re-allocation of other services. The aim of our survey was to provide a real time international snapshot of modifications of breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:A survey was developed by a multidisciplinary group on behalf of European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists and distributed via breast cancer societies. One reply per breast unit was requested. RESULTS:In ten days, 377 breast centres from 41 countries completed the questionnaire. RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 prior to treatment was reported by 44.8% of the institutions. The estimated time interval between diagnosis and treatment initiation increased for about 20% of institutions. Indications for primary systemic therapy were modified in 56% (211/377), with upfront surgery increasing from 39.8% to 50.7% (p < 0.002) and from 33.7% to 42.2% (p < 0.016) in T1cN0 triple-negative and ER-negative/HER2-positive cases, respectively. Sixty-seven percent considered that chemotherapy increases risks for developing COVID-19 complications. Fifty-one percent of the responders reported modifications in chemotherapy protocols. Gene-expression profile used to evaluate the need for adjuvant chemotherapy increased in 18.8%. In luminal-A tumours, a large majority (68%) recommended endocrine treatment to postpone surgery. Postoperative radiation therapy was postponed in 20% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS:Breast cancer management was considerably modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data provide a base to investigate whether these changes impact oncologic outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Gasparri ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7256546 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Changes in breast cancer management during the Corona Virus Disease 19 pandemic: An international survey of the European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists (EUBREAST).

Gasparri Maria Luisa ML Gentilini Oreste Davide OD Lueftner Diana D Kuehn Thorsten T Kaidar-Person Orit O Poortmans Philip P

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 20200529

<h4>Background</h4>Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) had a worldwide negative impact on healthcare systems, which were not used to coping with such pandemic. Adaptation strategies prioritizing COVID-19 patients included triage of patients and reduction or re-allocation of other services. The aim of our survey was to provide a real time international snapshot of modifications of breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic.<h4>Methods</h4>A survey was developed by a multidisciplinary gr ...[more]

PMID: 32502796

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn light of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, how resources are managed and the critically ill are allocated must be reviewed. Although ethical recommendations have been published, strategies for dealing with overcapacity of critical care resources have so far not been addressed.ObjectivesAssess expert opinion for allocation preferences regarding the growing imbalance between supply and demand for medical resources.DesignA 10-item questionnaire was developed and sent to the most prominent members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC).SettingSurvey via a web-based platform.PatientsRespondents were members of the National Anaesthesiologists Societies Committee and Council Members of the ESAIC; 74 of 80 (92.5%), responded to the survey.Measurements and main resultsResponses were analysed thematically. The majority of respondents (83.8%), indicated that resources for COVID-19 were available at the time of the survey. Of the representatives of the ESAIC governing bodies, 58.9% favoured an allocation of excess critical care capacity: 69% wished to make them available to supraregional patients, whereas 30.9% preferred to keep the resources available for the local population. Regarding the type of distribution of resources, 35.3% preferred to make critical care available, 32.4% favoured the allocation of medical equipment and 32.4% wished to support both options. The majority (59.5%) supported the implementation of a central European institution to manage such resource allocation.ConclusionExperts in critical care support the allocation of resources from centres with overcapacity. The results indicate the need for centrally administered allocation mechanisms that are not based on ethically disputable triage systems. It seems, therefore, that there is wide acceptance and solidarity among the European anaesthesiological community that local medical and human pressure should be relieved during a pandemic by implementing national and international re-allocation strategies among healthcare providers and healthcare systems.

Project description:BackgroundTo date, there is no coordinated strategy for end-of-life (EOL) cancer care research in Europe. The PRISMA (Reflecting the Positive Diversities of European Priorities for Research and Measurement in End-of-life Care) project is aiming to develop a programme integrating research and measurement in EOL care. This survey aimed to map and describe present EOL cancer care research in Europe and to identify priorities and barriers.Material and methodsA questionnaire of 62 questions was developed and 201 researchers in 41 European countries were invited to complete it online in May 2009. An open invitation to participate was posted on the internet.ResultsInvited contacts in 36 countries sent 127 replies; eight additional responses came through websites. A total of 127 responses were eligible for analysis. Respondents were 69 male and 58 female, mean age 49 (28-74) years; 85% of the scientific team leaders were physicians. Seventy-one of 127 research groups were located in a teaching hospital or cancer centre. Forty-five percent of the groups had only one to five members and 28% six to ten members. Sixty-three of 92 groups reported specific funding for EOL care research. Seventy-five percent of the groups had published papers in journals with impact factor ? 5 in the last 3 years; 8% had published in journals with impact factor >10. Forty-four out of 90 groups reported at least one completed Ph.D. in the last 3 years. The most frequently reported active research areas were pain, assessment and measurement tools, and last days of life and quality of death. Very similar areas--last days of life and quality of death, pain, fatigue and cachexia, and assessment and measurement tools--were ranked as the most important research priorities. The most important research barriers were lack of funding, lack of time, and insufficient knowledge/expertise.ConclusionsMost research groups in EOL care are small. The few large groups (14%) had almost half of the reported publications, and more than half of the current Ph.D. students. There is a lack of a common strategy and coordination in EOL cancer care research and a great need for international collaboration.

Project description:Background: The role of real-world evidence (RWE) in the development of anticancer therapies has been gradually growing over time. Regulators, payers and health technology assessment agencies, spurred by the rise of the precision medicine model, are increasingly incorporating RWE into their decision-making regarding the authorization and reimbursement of novel antineoplastic treatments. However, it remains unclear how this trend is viewed by clinicians in the field. This study aimed to investigate the opinions of these stakeholders with respect to RWE and its suitability for informing regulatory, reimbursement-related and clinical decisions in oncology. Methods: An online survey was disseminated to clinicians belonging to the network of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer between May and July 2021. Results: In total, 557 clinicians across 30 different countries participated in the survey, representing 13 distinct cancer domains. Despite seeing the methodological challenges associated with its interpretation as difficult to overcome, the respondents mostly (75.0%) perceived RWE positively, and believed such evidence could be relatively strong, depending on the designs and data sources of the studies from which it is produced. Few (4.6%) saw a future expansion of its influence on decision-makers as a negative evolution. Furthermore, nearly all (94.0%) participants were open to the idea of sharing anonymized or pseudonymized electronic health data of their patients with external parties for research purposes. Nevertheless, most clinicians (77.0%) still considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be the gold standard for generating clinical evidence in oncology, and a plurality (49.2%) thought that RWE cannot fully address the knowledge gaps that remain after a new antitumor intervention has entered the market. Moreover, a majority of respondents (50.7%) expressed that they relied more heavily on RCT-derived evidence than on RWE for their own decision-making. Conclusion: While cancer clinicians have positive opinions about RWE and want to contribute to its generation, they also continue to hold RCTs in high regard as sources of actionable evidence.

Dataset Information

Changes in breast cancer management during the Corona Virus Disease 19 pandemic: An international survey of the European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists (EUBREAST).

Publications

Changes in breast cancer management during the Corona Virus Disease 19 pandemic: An international survey of the European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists (EUBREAST).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets