Dataset Information

Radical cancer treatment is safe during COVID-19: the real-world experience of a large London-based Comprehensive Cancer Centre during the first wave

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the COVID pandemic, there was a paucity of data to support clinical decision-making for anticancer treatments. We evaluated the safety of radical treatments which were delivered whilst mitigating the risks of concurrent COVID-19 infection.

Methods

Using descriptive statistics, we report on the characteristics and short-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing radical cancer treatment during the first COVID-19 wave compared to a similar pre-pandemic period.

Results

Compared to 2019, the number of patients undergoing radical treatment in 2020 reduced by: 28% for surgery; 18% for SACT; and 10% for RT. Within SACT, 36% received combination therapy, 35% systemic chemotherapy, 23% targeted treatments, 5% immunotherapy and 2% biological therapy. A similar proportion of RT was delivered in 2019 and 2020 (53% vs. 52%). Oncological outcomes were also similar to pre-COVID-19. The COVID-19 infection rates were low: 12 patients were positive pre surgery (1%), 7 post surgery (<1%), 17 SACT patients (2%) and 3 RT patients (<1%). No COVID-19-related deaths were reported.

Conclusions

Whilst there were fewer patients receiving radical anticancer treatments, those who did receive treatment were treated in a safe environment. Overall, cancer patients should have the confidence to attend hospitals and be reassured of the safety measures implemented.

SUBMITTER: Russell B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9284490 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to compare the outcomes of COVID-19-positive disease in patients with a history of cancer to those without.MethodsWe retrospectively collected clinical data and outcomes of COVID-19 positive cancer patients treated consecutively in five North London hospitals (cohort A). Outcomes recorded included time interval between most recent anti-cancer treatment and admission, severe outcome [a composite endpoint of intensive care unit (ITU) admission, ventilation and/or death] and mortality. Outcomes were compared with consecutively admitted COVID-19 positive patients, without a history of cancer (cohort B), treated at the primary centre during the same time period (1 March-30 April 2020). Patients were matched for age, gender and comorbidity.ResultsThe median age in both cohorts was 74 years, with 67% male, and comprised of 30 patients with cancer, and 90 without (1:3 ratio). For cohort B, 579 patients without a history of cancer and consecutively admitted were screened from the primary London hospital, 105 were COVID-19 positive and 90 were matched and included. Excluding cancer, both cohorts had a median of two comorbidities. The odds ratio (OR) for mortality, comparing patients with cancer to those without, was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-2.5], and severe outcome (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.4-2.0) suggesting no increased risk of death or a severe outcome in patients with cancer. Cancer patients who received systemic treatment within 28 days had an OR for mortality of 4.05 (95% CI 0.68-23.95), p = 0.12. On presentation anaemia, hypokalaemia, hypoalbuminaemia and hypoproteinaemia were identified predominantly in cohort A. Median duration of admission was 8 days for cancer patients and 7 days for non-cancer.ConclusionA diagnosis of cancer does not appear to increase the risk of death or a severe outcome in COVID-19 patients with cancer compared with those without cancer. If a second spike of virus strikes, rational decision making is required to ensure optimal cancer care.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions. DESIGN:Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Patients with cancer treated by the English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:64 patient experience measures covering all aspects of cancer care (pre-diagnosis to discharge). METHODS:Using mixed effects logistic regression, we explored whether poorer scores in London hospitals could be explained by patient case-mix (age, gender, ethnicity and cancer type). Because patients referred to tertiary centres and/or with complex medical problems may report more critical experiences, we also explored whether the experiences reported in London may reflect higher concentration of teaching hospitals in the capital. Finally, using the data from the (general) Adult Inpatients Survey, we explored whether the extent of poorer experience reported by London patients was similar for respondents to either survey. RESULTS:For 52/64 questions, there was evidence of poorer experience in London, with the percentage of patients reporting a positive experience being lower compared with the rest of England by a median of 3.7% (IQR 2.5-5.4%). After case-mix adjustment there was still evidence for worse experience in London for 45/64 question [corrected]. In addition, adjusting for teaching hospital status made trivial difference to the case-mix-adjusted findings. There was evidence that London versus rest-of-England differences were greater for patients with cancer compared with (general) hospital inpatients for 10 of 16 questions in both the Cancer Patient Experience and the Adult Inpatients Surveys. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse care experiences and by and large these differences are not explained by patient case-mix or teaching hospital status. Efforts to improve care in London should aim to meet patient expectations and improve care quality.