The experience of surgical cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large cancer centre in London.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on the experiences of patients across all health disciplines, especially those of cancer patients. The study aimed to understand the experiences of cancer patients who underwent surgery during the first two waves of the pandemic at Guy's Cancer Centre, which is a large tertiary cancer centre in London. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted for this study. Firstly, a survey was co-designed by the research team and a patient study group. Patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were invited to take part in this survey. Results were analysed descriptively. Three discussion groups were then conducted to focus on the main themes from the survey findings: communication, COVID-19 risk management and overall experience. These discussion groups were transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis using the NVivo software package. RESULTS: Out of 1657 patients invited, a total of 250 (15%) participants took part in the survey with a mean age of 66 (SD 12.8) and 52% females. The sample was representative of a wide range of tumour sites and was reflective of those invited to take part. Overall, the experience of the cancer patients was positive. They felt that the safety protocols implemented at the hospital were effective. Communication was considered key, and patients were receptive to a change in the mode of communication from in-person to virtual. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the immense challenges faced by our Cancer Centre, patients undergoing surgery during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had a generally positive experience with minimal disruptions to their planned surgery and ongoing care. Together with the COVID-19 safety precautions, effective communication between the clinical teams and the patients helped the overall patient experience during their surgical treatment.

Real-world data evaluating Guy's rapid diagnostic clinic as an alternate pathway for patients with FIT levels below 10.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic clinics (RDCs) as an alternative pathway for patients with concerning symptoms and a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) result <10. Our primary endpoint was rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Second endpoints were rates of other cancers and gastrointestinal (GI) serious benign conditions. Finally, we analysed the specific pathway followed by FIT <10 patients with cancer at Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) RDC. DESIGN: A retrospective and prospective cohort study. SETTING: GSTT RDC, one of England's largest single-centre RDCs. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of FIT <10 patients were analysed descriptively. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an FIT result <10, seen at GSTT RDC between 1 January 2020 and 5 May 2023. RESULTS: A total of 1299 patients with an FIT<10 were seen at GSTT RDC between January 2020 and May 2023. Of these, 66% (n=861) reported weight loss, 62% (n=805) pain, 37% (n=481) fatigue, 34% (n=444) were anaemic and 23% (n=301) had nausea and vomiting. Among these patients, 7% (n=88) received a cancer diagnosis, 36% (n=462) were identified as having a serious benign condition. Within the patients with cancer, 9% (n=8) were diagnosed with CRC. Among patients with serious benign conditions, 7% (n=31) were referred to colorectal, hepatopancreatobiliary, or upper GI specialists. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of RDCs as an alternate pathway for FIT <10 patients with ongoing clinical concerns. These results contribute to enhancing patient care and optimising resource allocation within the healthcare system.

Managing the cancer backlog: a national population-based study of patient mobility, waiting times and 'spare capacity' for cancer surgery.

Background: Waiting times for cancer treatments continue to increase in many countries. In this study we estimated potential 'spare surgical capacity' in the English NHS and identified regions more likely to have spare capacity based on patterns of patient mobility (the extent to which patients receive surgery at hospitals other than their nearest). Methods: We identified patients who had an elective breast or colorectal cancer surgical resection between January 2016 and December 2018. We estimated each hospital's 'maximum surgical capacity' as the maximum 6-month moving average of its surgical volume. 'Spare surgical capacity' was estimated as the difference between maximum surgical capacity and observed surgical volume. We assessed the association between spare surgical capacity and whether a hospital performed more or fewer procedures than expected due to patient mobility as well as the association between spare surgical capacity and whether or not waiting times targets for treatment were likely to be met. Findings: 100,585 and 49,445 patients underwent breast and colorectal cancer surgery respectively. 67 of 166 hospitals (40.4%) providing breast cancer surgery and 82 of 163 hospitals (50.3%) providing colorectal cancer surgery used less than 80% of their maximum surgical capacity. Hospitals with a 'net loss' of patients to hospitals further away had more potential spare capacity than hospitals with a 'net gain' of patients (p < 0.001 for breast and p = 0.01 for colorectal cancer). At the national level, we projected an annual potential spare capacity of 8389 breast cancer and 4262 colorectal cancer surgical procedures, approximately 25% of the volumes actually performed. Interpretation: Spare surgical capacity potentially exists in the present configuration of hospitals providing cancer surgery and requires regional allocation for efficient utilisation. Funding: National Institute for Health Research.

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

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urological cancers: The surgical experience of two cancer hubs in London and Milan.

Objective: To report on the outcomes of urological cancer patients undergoing radical surgery between March-September 2020 (compared with 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Materials and Methods: Since March 2020, both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal 'green' pathway, whereby patients were required to isolate for 14 days prior to admission and report a negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test within 3 days of surgery. COVID-19 positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. Surgical outcomes assessed were: American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade; surgery time; theatre time; intensive care unit (ICU) stay >24 h; pneumonia; length of stay (LOS); re-admission. Postoperative COVID-19 infection rates and associated mortality were also recorded. Results: At IEO, uro-oncological surgery increased by 4%, as compared with the same period in 2019 (n = 515 vs. 534). The main increase was observed for renal (16%, n = 98 vs. 114), bladder (24%, n = 45 vs. 56) and testicular (27%, n = 26 vs. 33). Patient demographics were all comparable between 2019 and 2020. Only one bladder cancer patient developed COVID-19, reporting mild/moderate disease. There was no COVID-19 associated mortality. In the SELCA cohort, uro-oncological surgery declined by 23% (n = 403 vs. 312) compared with the previous year. The biggest decrease was seen for prostate (-42%, n = 156 vs. 91), penile (-100%, n = 4 vs. 0) and testicular cancers (-46%, n = 35 vs. 24). Various patient demographic characteristics were notably different when comparing 2020 versus 2019. This likely reflects the clinical decision of deferring COVID-19 vulnerable patients. One patient developed COVID-19, with no COVID-19 related mortality. Conclusion: The COVID-19 minimal 'green' pathways that were put in place have shown to be safe for uro-oncological patients requiring radical surgery. There were limited complications, almost no peri-operative COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19-related mortality in either cohort.

Association between COVID-19 burden and delays to diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients in England.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive for cancer care. Here, we examined the effect COVID-19 had on performance of the 62-day Cancer Waiting Time (CWT) target set by the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: Data were retrospectively obtained on COVID-19 hospitalisations and CWT for NHS hospitals in England (n = 121). We produced a 'COVID-19 burden' to describe the proportion of each provider's beds occupied with COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 burden was examined against CWT performance for 1st April - 30th May 2020 (Wave 1), and 1st October - 30th November 2020 (Wave 2). Two-tailed Spearman correlations were used to identify relationships between COVID-19 burden and CWT performance amongst different referral (i.e., 2-week-wait (2 W W) and internal specialist) and tumour types. Significantly correlated variables were further examined using linear regression models. RESULTS: COVID-19 burden was negatively associated with the percentage of 2 W W pathway referrals that met the CWT target in Wave 1 (r= -0.30, p = 0.001) and Wave 2 (r= -0.21, p = 0.02). These associations were supported by the results from our linear regression models (B for wave 1: -0.71; 95 %CI: -1.03 to -0.40; B for wave 2: -0.38; 95 %CI: -0.68 to -0.07). No associations were found between COVID-19 burden and internal specialist referrals or tumour type. CONCLUSION: Increased COVID-19 burden was associated with lower compliance with CWT targets amongst urgent referrals from primary care in England. This will likely be an ongoing issue due to the backlog of patients awaiting investigations and treatment. POLICY SUMMARY: As the number of cancer referrals improve, we highlight the need for changes to primary and secondary care to manage the backlog within cancer diagnostic services to alleviate the impact of COVID-19.

Continuity of Cancer Care: The Surgical Experience of Two Large Cancer Hubs in London and Milan.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a large effect on the management of cancer patients. This study reports on the approach and outcomes of cancer patients receiving radical surgery with curative intent between March and September 2020 (in comparison to 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal pathway where patients were required to self-isolate prior to admission and were swabbed for COVID-19 within 72 h of surgery. Positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. At IEO, radical surgeries declined by 6% as compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 1477 vs. 1560, respectively). Readmissions were required for 3% (n = 41), and <1% (n = 9) developed COVID-19, of which only one had severe disease and died. At SELCA, radical surgeries declined by 34% (n = 1553 vs. 2336). Readmissions were required for 11% (n = 36), <1% (n = 7) developed COVID-19, and none died from it. Whilst a decline in number of surgeries was observed in both centres, the implemented COVID-19 minimal pathways have shown to be safe for cancer patients requiring radical treatment, with limited complications and almost no COVID-19 infections.

The impact of national non-pharmaceutical interventions ('lockdowns') on the presentation of cancer patients.

One of the most ignored aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the impact of public health measures by governments on wider health and welfare. From March 2020, hospitals in the UK saw a dramatic reduction in patients with cancer presenting due to multifactorial reasons. The impact of the pandemic on patients with cancer in the South East London Cancer Alliance was studied. The specific aims were (1) to examine the reduction in cancer diagnoses during the first wave of the pandemic and (2) to examine the stage of diagnosis of patients with cancer presenting during the pandemic compared with that of patients presenting before the pandemic. There was an 18.2% reduction in new cancer diagnoses (an estimate of 987 cancers), when compared with 2019. This fall in cancer diagnoses was most marked in patients with prostate (51.4%), gynaecological (29.7%), breast (29.5%) and lung (23.4%) cancers. There was an overall 3.9% increase in advanced stage presentation (Stages 3 and 4), with an overall 6.8% increase in Stage 4 cancers during this period. The greatest shifts were seen in lung (increase of 6.3%, with an 11.2% increase in Stage 4 cancer alone) and colorectal (5.4%) cancers. For prostate cancer, there was an increase in 3.8% in those presenting with Stage 4 disease. For breast cancer, there was an 8% reduction in patients diagnosed with Stage 1 cancer with commensurate increases in the proportion of those with Stage 2 disease. The experiences in cancer are a salient warning that pandemic control measures and policy need to balance all health and welfare. Alternative strategies need to be adopted during further waves of the current and any future pandemic to ensure that patients with cancer are prioritised for diagnosis and treatment to prevent late-stage presentation and an increase in avoidable deaths.

Monitoring access to nationally commissioned services in England.

BACKGROUND: For over 20 years, the National Health Service in England has run a system of national planning for highly specialised healthcare services. The aim is to ensure that very rare diseases are treated, and very complex procedures performed, in only a few centres, each of which maintains a volume high enough to maintain excellent outcomes. The commissioning strategy for the provision of these national services in England is strongly centralising. Centralising does however create a duty to ensure that patients distant from the treatment centres are not thereby disadvantaged. The commissioning process ensures sufficient capacity to treat the entire national caseload of clinically eligible patients. The aim of this paper is to apply the Systematic Component of Variation (SCV) to study access to services commissioned by the National Specialised Commissioning Team (NSCT) in England. The discussion focuses on the potential explanations for a high level of systematic variation between areas and on the use of the SCV to support the monitoring and development of these nationally commissioned services. METHOD: Data from nationally commissioned services for the year ending 2011 were received from treating hospital. Mid year age and sex appropriate population estimates were then obtained to provide denominator data. Data were analysed at the geographic level of strategic health authority. RESULTS: 30 services met all requirements for analysis. There is no apparent relationship between SCV and number of locations from which the service is provided. On inspection high SCV is more common among recently commissioned services. DISCUSSION: The importance of the SCV lies in its ability to support the development of highly specialised services. Once the random variation has been accounted for, the reasons for a systematic component can be explored. While no absolute cut- off exists, the SCV can be used to gauge and explore services that are potentially not covering the national caseload. The reason for a high SCV may not be immediately apparent; thus the SCV can aid those responsible for commissioning the service to seek potential explanations and identify improvements. CONCLUSION: We have reviewed spatial variation in access to a set of highly specialised services in England. On inspecting our results, we believe that they suggest that equity of access can usually be achieved at about five years after establishing a service, and this is not dependent, within the geography of England, on the number of centres designated.