PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic affected health care systems globally and resulted in the interruption of usual care in many health care facilities, exposing vulnerable patients with cancer to significant risks. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of this pandemic on cancer care worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a validated web-based questionnaire of 51 items. The questionnaire obtained information on the capacity and services offered at these centers, magnitude of disruption of care, reasons for disruption, challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimation of patient harm during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 356 centers from 54 countries across six continents participated between April 21 and May 8, 2020. These centers serve 716,979 new patients with cancer a year. Most of them (88.2%) reported facing challenges in delivering care during the pandemic. Although 55.34% reduced services as part of a preemptive strategy, other common reasons included an overwhelmed system (19.94%), lack of personal protective equipment (19.10%), staff shortage (17.98%), and restricted access to medications (9.83%). Missing at least one cycle of therapy by > 10% of patients was reported in 46.31% of the centers. Participants reported patient exposure to harm from interruption of cancer-specific care (36.52%) and noncancer-related care (39.04%), with some centers estimating that up to 80% of their patients were exposed to harm. CONCLUSION: The detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care is widespread, with varying magnitude among centers worldwide. Additional research to assess this impact at the patient level is required.

Stage III NSCLC is a heterogeneous disease requiring a multimodal management approach. We conducted a real-world, global study to characterize patients, treatment patterns, and their associated clinical outcomes for stage III NSCLC. KINDLE was a retrospective study in patients with stage III NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer, seventh edition) diagnosed between January 2013 and December 2017, with at least 9 months of documented follow-up since index diagnosis. In addition to descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier methodology evaluated survival estimates; two-sided 95% confidence interval was computed. Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses. A total of 3151 patients from more than 100 centers across 19 countries from Asia, Middle East, Africa, and Latin America were enrolled. Median age was 63.0 years (range: 21.0-92.0); 76.5% were males, 69.2% had a smoking history, 53.7% had adenocarcinoma, and 21.4% underwent curative resection. Of greater than 25 treatment regimens, concurrent chemoradiotherapy was the most common (29.4%). The overall median progression-free survival (95% confidence interval) and median overall survival (mOS) were 12.5 months (12.06-13.14) and 34.9 months (32.00-38.01), respectively. Significant associations (p < 0.05) were observed for median progression-free survival and mOS with respect to sex, region, smoking status, stage, histology, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status. In univariate and multivariate analyses, younger age, stage IIIA, better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and surgery as initial therapy predicted better mOS. KINDLE reveals the diversity in treatment practices and outcomes in stage III NSCLC in a real-world setting in the preimmuno-oncology era. There is a high unmet medical need, necessitating novel approaches to optimize outcomes.

PURPOSE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ASCO launched a Global Webinar Series to address various aspects of cancer care during the pandemic. Here we present the lessons learned and recommendations that have emerged from these webinars. METHODS: Fifteen international health care experts from different global regions and oncology disciplines participated in one of the six 1-hour webinars to discuss the latest data, share their experiences, and provide recommendations to manage cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These sessions include didactic presentations followed by a moderated discussion and questions from the audience. All recommendations have been transcribed, categorized, and reviewed by the experts, who have also approved the consensus recommendations. RESULTS: The summary recommendations are divided into different categories, including risk minimization; care prioritization of patients; health care team management; virtual care; management of patients with cancer undergoing surgical, radiation, and systemic therapy; clinical research; and recovery plans. The recommendations emphasize the protection of patients and health care teams from infections, delivery of timely and appropriate care, reduction of harm from the interruption of care, and preparation to handle a surge of new COVID-19 cases, complications, or comorbidities thereof. CONCLUSION: The recommendations from the ASCO Global Webinar Series may guide practicing oncologists to manage their patients during the ongoing pandemic and help organizations recover from the crisis. Implementation of these recommendations may improve understanding of how COVID-19 has affected cancer care and increase readiness to manage the current and any future outbreaks effectively.

PURPOSEThis study investigated the features of oncology patients with confirmed Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) at the Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs-Riyadh during the outbreak of June 2015 to determine the clinical course and outcome of affected patients.METHODSThe patients' demographic information, cancer history, treatment pattern, information about MERS-coronavirus (CoV) infection, history of travel, clinical symptoms, test results, and outcome were collected and analyzed as part of a quality improvement project to improve the care and safety of our patients. Only patients with confirmed infection were included.RESULTSA total of 19 patients were identified, with a median age of 66 years (range, 16-88 years), and 12 patients (63%) were males. The most common underlying disease was hematologic malignancies (47.4%), followed by colorectal cancer (21%) and lung cancer (15.8%). Hypertension and diabetes mellitus were the most common comorbidities (57.9% and 52.6%, respectively). Infection was diagnosed by nasopharyngeal swab in all patients. All patients contracted the infection during their hospitalization for other reasons. Sixteen patients (80%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 13 patients (81%) had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 11 were intubated (68.75%), 9 had acute renal injury (56.25%), and 3 required dialysis (18.75%). Only 3 patients (15.8%) with early-stage cancers survived. Patients with hematologic malignancies and advanced solid tumors had a 100% case fatality rate. The majority of the causes of death were due to multi-organ failure and septic shock.CONCLUSIONMERS-CoV infection resulted in a high case fatality rate in patients with malignancy. Therefore, it is critical to implement effective primary preventive measures to avoid exposure of patients with cancer to the virus. (c) 2020 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with cancer in rural settings and distant geographical areas will be affected the most by curfews. Virtual management (telemedicine) has been shown to reduce health costs and improve access to care. Objective: The aim of this survey is to understand oncologists’ awareness of and views on virtual management, challenges, and preferences, as well as their priorities regarding the prescribing of anticancer treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We created a self-administrated electronic survey about the virtual management of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated its clinical sensibility and pilot tested the instrument. We surveyed practicing oncologists in Gulf and Arab countries using snowball sampling via emails and social media networks. Reminders were sent 1 and 2 weeks later using SurveyMonkey. Results: We received 222 responses from validated oncologists from April 2-22, 2020. An awareness of virtual clinics, virtual multidisciplinary teams, and virtual prescriptions was reported by 182 (82%), 175 (79%), and 166 (75%) respondents, respectively. Reported challenges associated with virtual management were the lack of physical exam (n=134, 60%), patients’ awareness and access (n=131, 59%), the lack of physical attendance of patients (n=93, 42%), information technology (IT) support (n=82, 37%), and the safety of virtual management (n=78, 35%). Overall, 111 (50%) and 107 (48%) oncologists did not prefer the virtual prescription of chemotherapy and novel immunotherapy, respectively. However, 188 (85%), 165 (74%), and 127 (57%) oncologists preferred the virtual prescription of hormonal therapy, bone modifying agents, and targeted therapy, respectively. In total, 184 (83%), 183 (83%), and 176 (80%) oncologists preferred to continue neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and perioperative treatments, respectively. Overall, 118 (53%) respondents preferred to continue first-line palliative treatment, in contrast to 68 (30%) and 47 (21%) respondents indicating a preference to interrupt second- and third-line palliative treatment, respectively. For administration of virtual prescriptions, all respondents preferred the oral route and 118 (53%) preferred the subcutaneous route. In contrast, 193 (87%) did not prefer the intravenous route for virtual prescriptions. Overall, 102 (46%) oncologists responded that they would “definitely” prefer to manage patients with cancer virtually. Conclusions: Oncologists have a high level of awareness of virtual management. Although their survey responses indicated that second- and third-line palliative treatments should be interrupted, they stated that neoadjuvant, adjuvant, perioperative, and first-line palliative treatments should continue. Our results confirm that oncologists’ views on the priority of anticancer treatments are consistent with the evolving literature during the COVID-19 pandemic. Challenges to virtual management should be addressed to improve the care of patients with cancer.