Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on training conditions and education in oncologic disciplines: a survey-based analysis.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to changes in global health care. Medical societies had to update guidelines and enhance new services such as video consultations. Cancer treatment had to be modified. The aim of this study is to ensure optimal care for cancer patients with the help of high-quality training even in times of crisis. We therefore conducted a nationwide survey of physicians in training in oncological disciplines during the pandemic to assess the impact on their education. METHODS: The survey was sent to tumour centres, hospitals, specialist societies, and working and junior research groups and distributed via newsletters and homepages. Interim results and a call for participation were published as a poster (DEGRO) [26] and in the German Cancer Society (DKG) journal FORUM [42]. The survey contained 53 questions on conditions of education and training and on clinical and scientific work. Statistics were carried out with LimeSurvey and SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: Between February and November 2022, 450 participants answered the survey, with radio-oncologists being the largest group (28%). Most colleagues (63%) had access to digital training methods. Virtual sessions were rated as a good alternative, especially as multidisciplinary meetings (54%) as well as in-house and external training programs (48%, 47%). The time spent by training supervisors on education was rated as less than before the pandemic by 57%. Half of all participants perceived communication (54%), motivation (44%) and atmosphere (50%) in the team as bad. The participants felt strongly burdened by extra work (55%) and by a changed team atmosphere (49%). One third felt a change in the quality of training during the pandemic and rated it as negative (35%). According to 37% of the participants, this had little influence on their own quality of work. Additional subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in gender, specialty and education level. CONCLUSION: In order to improve oncology training in times of crisis, access to digital training options and meetings should be ensured. Participants wish for regular team meetings in person to enable good team spirit, compensation for overtime work and sufficient time for training supervisors for discussion and feedback.

Treatment of Cesarean Scar and Cervical Pregnancies Using the Ovum Aspiration Set for Intrachorial Methotrexate Injection as a Conservative, Fertility-Preserving Procedure.

Background and Objectives: Cesarean scar and cervical pregnancies are rare forms of ectopic pregnancies, occurring in 1 in 2000 and 1 in 9000 pregnancies, respectively. Both entities are medically challenging due to their high morbidity and mortality potential. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed all cesarean scar and cervical pregnancies from 2010 to 2019 in the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics of the University Hospital Freiburg, treated with both intrachorial (using the ovum aspiration set) and systemic methotrexate application. Results: We identified seven patients with a cesarean scar and four patients with cervical pregnancies. At diagnosis, the median gestational age was 7 + 1 (range: 5 + 5-9 + 5) weeks and the mean value of ß-hCG was 43,536 (range: 5132-87842) mlU/mL. On average, one dose of intrachorial and two doses of systemic methotrexate were administered per patient. The efficacy rate was 72.7% with three patients (27.3%) needing an additional surgical or interventional procedure. The uterus was preserved in 100% of the patients. Out of the eight patients with follow-up data, five reported subsequent pregnancies (62.5%) that resulted in six live births. None had recurrent cesarean scars or cervical pregnancies. In the subgroup analyses, when comparing cesarean scar pregnancies to cervical pregnancies, patient characteristics, treatment modality, and the outcome did not differ significantly, except for parity (2 versus 0, p = 0.02) and the duration since the last pregnancy (3 vs. 0.75 years, p = 0.048). When comparing cases with successful and failed methotrexate-only treatments, the maternal age was significantly higher in the successful group (34 vs. 27 years, p = 0.02). Localization of the gestation, gestational and maternal age, ß-hCG, and history of preceding pregnancies were non-predictive for the efficacy of the treatment. Conclusions: The combined application of intrachorial and systemic methotrexate for the treatment of cesarean scar and cervical pregnancies has been proven effective, well-tolerated, organ- and fertility-conserving with a low complication rate.