Predictors of poor precautionary practices towards COVID-19 among cancer patients.

Objective: Our study goal was to evaluate the behavioral response and practices of cancer patients to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the Middle East and north Africa. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated anonymous 45-question survey administered via SurveyMonkey® to cancer patients in 13 centers in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Results: During the study period (from 21 April to 30 May 2020), 3642 patients participated in the study. The majority of patients (84.81%) were worried about contracting the infection. The reported strict adherence to precautions included avoiding the following actions: hand-shaking (77.40%), hugging and kissing (82.89%), social gathering (90.09%), meeting friends (84.68%) and visiting markets (75.65%). In a multivariate analysis, patients with poor precautionary practices were about twice as likely to cancel their medical appointment or a treatment session. Conclusion: Improving cancer patients' knowledge of and adherence to precautionary measures is needed not just to reduce the risk of acquiring infection but also to minimize the interruption of their medical care.

Lay abstract COVID-19 poses a higher risk for patients with cancer than other patients; therefore, it is prudent that they adhere to precautionary measures to protect themselves from the infection. We conducted a study to evaluate the behaviors and practices of these patients in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Middle, East and North Africa. We developed a survey of 45 questions that was distributed in 13 centers in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia between 21 April and 30 May 2020. About 85% of the 3642 patients who participated in the study were worried about contracting the infection. A substantial percentage of them (10­30%) were not adhering to various precautions and social distancing rules. On the other hand, 16% of them canceled medical appointments and 12% canceled treatment sessions. Our study showed the need for better adherence of patients with cancer to the infection precautions and most importantly, the need to have a better compliance with their treatment plans, such as keeping their scheduled appointments, to avoid harms from treatment delays.

Breast Cancer in Young Women: Is It Different? A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) is one of the commonest cancers among women worldwide. Differences regarding tumor biology, presentation, genetics, and molecular subtypes may contribute to the relatively poorer prognosis among younger women. Limited information exists regarding pathologic characteristics and long-term outcomes among this group. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 695 BC patients diagnosed over a 10-year period and investigated the clinicopathological characteristics and long-term disease outcomes among patients diagnosed at age less than or equal to 40 years compared with older ones. Cox regression analysis was performed, and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to assess overall survival (OS). Results: Compared with the younger patients (⩽40 years) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression was mainly positive in older patients (>40 years) (76.2% vs 61.3% and 64.2% vs 49.6%, respectively). The most common molecular subtype in both age groups was luminal B (44.1% in older and 40.3% in younger). A clinical complete remission after neoadjuvant therapy was observed more frequently in older patients (76.7%; N = 442) in comparison with the younger patients (66.4%; N = 79) (P = .018). Recurrence and disease progression were significantly more likely to occur among younger patients accounting for 12.6% and 29.4% of the cases, compared with 6.3% and 18.2% in older patients (P = .016 and P = .006, respectively). The overall mortality was 132 (19%) of 695, with 88% cancer-related deaths. Estrogen receptor and PR expression (P ⩽ .001 and P = .003, respectively), molecular subtype (P = .002), tumor grade (P = .002), and N stage (P = .038) were the variables that were found to be significantly influenced by age. The OS was not statistically different among 2 age groups, but younger patients with luminal A molecular subtype showed significantly poor outcome (P = .019). Conclusion: Overall survival in women diagnosed with BC at age less than or equal to 40 years is not significantly worse than older patients. However, among patients with luminal A subtype, younger women had relatively poor survival. Further research is needed to understand this age-based disparity in outcomes.

The Level of Agreement Among Medical Oncologists on Adjuvant Chemotherapy Decision for Breast Cancer in Pre and Post-Oncotype DX Settings.

INTRODUCTION: The Oncotype DX assay plays an important role in the identification of the specific subset of hormone receptor (HR)-positive and node-negative breast cancer (BC) patients, who would benefit the most from adjuvant chemotherapy. The current study aimed at assessing the level of agreement among medical oncologists on adjuvant chemotherapy decisions before and after Oncotype DX, as well as the intra-observer agreement of each medical oncologist's decision of prescribing adjuvant chemotherapy based on clinicopathological and immunohistochemical parameters only and followed by Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) results. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data related to clinicopathological and immunohistochemical parameters, and Oncotype DX RS result for 145 female, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2 negative, and both node-negative and positive BC patients was performed. Initially, the data without Oncotype DX RS was sent to 16 oncologists in multiple centers in the Middle East. After one week, the same data with the shuffling of cases were sent to the oncologists with the addition of the Oncotype DX RS result for each patient. The inter and intra-observer agreement (kappa and Fleiss multi-rater kappa) among oncologists' decision of prescribing adjuvant chemotherapy pre and post-Oncotype DX RS results were assessed. Oncotype DX risk scores were used as continuous variables as well as based on old RS grouping, categorized into low (0-17), intermediate (18-30), and high risk (≥ 31) groups. A test with a p-value of < 0 .05 will be considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean age ± SD of the cohort was 51.9 ± 9.4 years. Sixty-nine patients (47.6%) were premenopausal whereas 76 patients (52.4%) were postmenopausal. The mean Oncotype DX RS was 17.8 ± 8.6 and 54.5% had low recurrence risk (RR), 37.9% had intermediate RR and only 7.6% had high RR. The majority of our cases were grade two (53.1%) and T stage one (49%), whereas 29.7% had positive one to three lymph nodes. The addition of Oncotype DX results improved the agreement among oncologists' decision from fair to moderate (kappa = 0.52; p <0.001). On average, an oncologist's decision of prescribing adjuvant chemotherapy pre and post-Oncotype DX had an agreement in 70.6% of the cases, with agreement observed mostly for cases where the initial decision of adjuvant chemotherapy was (no) and it was retained with post-Oncotype DX assay (46.1%), compared to 24.5% cases where the initial decision was (yes) and it was retained with post-Oncotype DX assay (kappa = 0.39; p <0.001). The addition of the Oncotype DX RS result avoided chemotherapy in 20.4% of cases and identified 9% of cases as candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy (kappa = 0.38; p <0.001). The disagreement was highest among cases with intermediate RR (33.6%) followed by high and low RR (31.3% and 21.6%) with a statistical significance of <0.001. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the Oncotype DX RS significantly influenced the decision to prescribe adjuvant chemotherapy among HR-positive, HER2 negative, and both node-negative and positive patients, as it increased the level of agreement among oncologists and led to a decrease in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy compared to the pre-Oncotype recommendations.

Improving Quality of Cancer Care by Participating in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Certification Program.

PURPOSE: ASCO developed the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) to ensure patient safety in oncology outpatient services. We evaluated the impact of participation in QOPI certification on patient care at our institution. METHODS: To participate in QOPI, we created a multidisciplinary team, and we chose the required modules and began QOPI participation per program requirement. In the initial round, we scored lower than the required score of 75% to be eligible for QOPI certification. We then implemented multiple measures and interventions, and we conducted multiple Plan, Do, Study, Act cycles (PSDA) cycles to achieve our goal. RESULTS: Our score in the initial round was 68%; in the second round, our score remained low at 65%; in the third round, we exceeded the target score by achieving 93%. We completed the certification process with a site visit. In October 2018, we became the first QOPI-certified center in the Middle East and Asia. CONCLUSION: We learned many lessons during our journey toward QOPI certification. Essential elements of success included timely assembly of the right multidisciplinary team and clear communication between team members within the institution and with the ASCO QOPI team.

Saudi lung cancer management guidelines 2017.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer management is getting more complex due to the rapid advances in all aspects of diagnostic and therapeutic options. Developing guidelines is critical to help practitioners provide standard of care. METHODS: The Saudi Lung Cancer Guidelines Committee (SLCGC) multidisciplinary members from different specialties and from various regions and healthcare sectors of the country reviewed and updated all lung cancer guidelines with appropriate labeling of level of evidence. Supporting documents to help healthcare professionals were developed. RESULTS: Detailed lung cancer management guidelines were finalized with appropriate resources for systemic therapy and short reviews highlighting important issues. Stage based disease management recommendation were included. A summary explanation for complex topics were included in addition to tables of approved systemic therapy. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary lung cancer guidelines was developed and will be disseminated across the country.