Objectives This cross-sectional study was designed to measure burnout and its impact on risk of depression in a medical student population, comparing the preclinical and clinical years. Design We conducted a survey of 269 medical school students in both preclinical and clinical years at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, using the Beck Depression Inventory-Fast Screen (BDI-FS), the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey and items assessing willingness to use mental health services. Burnout scores were calibrated to probability of depression caseness and classified as low risk (50%) of depression. Results There was a 39% (95% CI 33% to 45%) prevalence of depressive caseness based on a score of ≥6 on the BDI-FS. Prevalence did not vary significantly between clinical and preclinical years. The rate of burnout varied significantly between years (p=0.032), with 35% in the high-burnout category in clinical years compared with 26% in preclinical years. Those in the low burnout category had a 13% overall prevalence of depressive symptoms, those in the intermediate category had a 38% prevalence and those in the high category had a 66% prevalence of depressive symptoms. Increasing emotional exhaustion (OR for one—tertile increase in score 2.0, p=0.011) and decreasing academic efficacy (OR 2.1, p=0.007) increased the odds of being unwilling to seek help for mental health problems (11%). Conclusion While previous studies have reported significant levels of burnout and depression, our method of calibrating burnout against depression allows burnout scores to be interpreted in terms of their impact on mental health. The high prevalences, in line with previous research, point to an urgent need to rethink the psychological pressures of health professions education.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted significantly on healthcare across the globe. It has been reported to have higher incidence and be associated with worse outcomes in patients with cancer. Aim To examine the characteristics of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and to identify factors which may predict a poorer outcome. Methods Patients attending oncology services in Beaumont Hospital who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and May 2020 were included. Demographics and outcomes were determined by chart review. Results Twenty-seven patients were included in the study. The median age was 62; 59% were male. Ten patients (37%) died all of whom had metastatic or incurable locally advanced disease. Patients with lung cancer had a higher rate of COVID-19 and poorer outcomes. Those with a performance status (PS) ≥ 3 were more likely to die than those with PS ≤ 2. Compared to those who recovered, patients who died had a higher number of organs affected by cancer and a higher mean Palliative Prognostic Score. Conclusion Patients attending oncology services during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic had an increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a higher mortality rate than the general population. Those who died had more advanced cancer as demonstrated by poorer performance status, a greater burden of metastatic disease and a higher Palliative Prognostic Score.

Background: Clinical trials are often considered the gold standard in cancer care. However, patients face barriers in trial participation including distances to cancer centres and personal costs including changing employment status, cost of medications, inpatient admissions, and parking tariffs. Aim: Our aim was to compare the distances patients travelled for clinical trials compared to those receiving standard systemic anticancer therapy (SACT). We also investigated the additional costs associated with this. Methods: This was a retrospective review of electronic patient medical records. The distance from the patients’ home address to Beaumont was calculated as a one-way journey in kilometres. Patients attending for clinical trials were compared to those receiving standard of care SACT. Results: A total of 271 patients receiving standard SACT over a 5-day period and 111 patients enrolled on 24 clinical trials were included. The median one-way distance travelled by patients enrolled in clinical trials was 41.4 km, compared to 14 km in those patients’ receiving standard of care SACT. The median estimated cost was €13 vs €4.20 for those enrolled on clinical trials compared to those receiving standard of care treatment, respectively. Conclusion: Patients enrolled on clinical trials often travel more than twice as far to receive their anti-cancer treatment compared to those receiving standard of care SACT and incur an increased cost of travel expenses.

Background: The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Ireland was on February 29th 2020. From March until late April, the number of cases increased exponentially. The delivery of anti-cancer therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic was extremely challenging. In order to balance the benefits of continuing anti-cancer therapy with the associated increased hospital visits, combined with the risk of COVID-19 infection, we undertook a series of system changes in the delivery of cancer care.Methods: Patients who attended our dayward over a 4-month period were included. Data were obtained from patient and chemotherapy prescribing records. Patients were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 at two separate timepoints: prior to their visit via telephone, and using a symptom questionnaire on arrival at the hospital. If patients displayed COVID-19 symptoms, they were isolated and a viral swab arranged.Results: A total of 456 patients attended from January 1st to April 30th. The numbers of visits from January to April were 601, 586, 575, and 607, respectively. During this period, there were 2369 patient visits to the dayward and 1953 (82%) intravenous regimens administered. Of the 416 visits that did not lead to treatment, 114 (27%) were scheduled non-treatment review visits, 194 (47%) treatments were held due to disease-related illness, and 108 (26%) treatments were held due to treatment-related complications.Screening measurements were implemented on March 18th due to rising COVID-19 prevalence in the general population. Overall, 53 treatments were held due to the screening process: 19 patients (36%) elicited COVID-19 symptoms via telephone screening; 34 patients (64%) were symptomatic in our pre-assessment area and referred for swabs, of which 4 were positive. Those with a negative swab were rescheduled for chemotherapy the following week.Conclusions: With careful systematic changes, safe and continued delivery of systemic anti-cancer therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic is possible.

Summary: This commentary on a retrospective study of patients with HER2-positive biliary tract cancer highlights the importance of reflex and validated HER2 testing criteria, the discordance of next-generation sequencing and HER2 IHC, the potential prognostic and predictive role of HER2, and the necessity to define HER2 therapy resistance mechanisms. See related article by Lee et al., p. XX .