Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume.

BACKGROUND: Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs). METHODS: This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution. RESULTS: The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.

[The oncology residency program in French overseas]. / L'internat d'oncologie en outre-mer français.

Once his specialty has been chosen, and according to his ranking, the new resident in oncology decides on the subdivision in which he wishes to be among the 28 existing subdivisions. Two concern overseas departments and territories: the Antilles-Guyana subdivision and the Indian Ocean subdivision. The oncology residency has its own particularities because of the demographic characteristics and epidemiology of cancers in these areas, but also because of a particular organization of care and university teaching. The training of residents in these subdivisions is little known. Over the past ten years, most of the residents have been trained in oncology-radiotherapy in these subdivisions and some of them in medical oncology. The residency program is however experiencing a revival in terms of university education in parallel with the development of technical and human equipment in the centres of these regions. This article details the training of residents in oncology in French overseas territories by contextualizing it with epidemiological data and the characteristics of the oncology care offer in these territories.

Humanizing the intensive care unit experience in a comprehensive cancer center: A patient- and family-centered improvement study.

OBJECTIVES: Improving family-centered outcomes is a priority in oncologic critical care. As part of the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Collaborative, we implemented patient- and family-centered initiatives in a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team was created to implement the initiatives. We instituted an open visitation policy (OVP) that revamped the use of the two-way communication boards and enhanced the waiting room experience by hosting ICU family-centered events. To assess the initiatives' effects, we carried out pre-intervention (PRE) and post-intervention (POST) family/caregiver and ICU practitioner surveys. RESULTS: A total of 159 (PRE = 79, POST = 80) family members and 147 (PRE = 95, POST = 52) ICU practitioners participated. Regarding the decision-making process, family members felt more included (40.5% vs. 68.8%, p < 0.001) and more supported (29.1% vs. 48.8%, p = 0.011) after the implementation of the initiatives. The caregivers also felt more control over the decision-making process in the POST survey (34.2% vs. 56.3%, p = 0.005). Although 33% of the ICU staff considered OVP was beneficial for the ICU, 41% disagreed and 26% were neutral. Only half of them responded that OVP was beneficial for patients and 63% agreed that OVP was beneficial for families. Half of the practitioners agreed that OVP resulted in additional work for staff. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our project effectively promoted patient- and family-centered care. The families expressed satisfaction with the communication of information and the decision-making process. However, the ICU staff felt that the initiatives increased their work load. Further research is needed to understand whether making this project universal or introducing additional novel practices would significantly benefit patients admitted to the ICU and their family.

Quality/risk management system in radiotherapy: Changes afoot.

The French sanitary and regulatory context in which radiotherapy centres are comprised is evolving. Risk and quality management systems are currently adapting to these evolutions. The French nuclear safety agency (ASN) decision of July 1st 2008 on quality assurance obligations in radiotherapy has reached 10 years of age, and the French high authority of health (HAS) certification system 20 years now. Mandatory tools needed for the improvement of quality and safety in healthcare are now well known. From now on, the focus of healthcare policies is oriented towards evaluation of efficiency of these new organisations designed following ASN and HAS nationwide guidelines.

Guidelines for external radiotherapy and brachytherapy procedures: 3rd edition.

The purpose of the first two editions of the guidelines for external radiotherapy procedures, published in 2007 and 2016 respectively, was to issue recommendations aimed at optimising, harmonising and standardising practices. The purpose of this third edition, which includes brachytherapy, is identical while also taking into account recent technological improvements (intensity modulation radiation therapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, and three-dimension brachytherapy) along with findings from literature. Part one describes the daily use of general principles (quality, security, image-guided radiation therapy); part two describes each treatment step for the main types of cancer.

Risk factors and clinical outcomes of systemic cancer treatment delays in Filipino patients with solid tumor malignancy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A single tertiary center study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care during the Covid-19 pandemic has been challenging especially in a developing country such as the Philippines. Oncologists were advised to prioritize chemotherapy based on the absolute benefit that the patient may receive, which outbalances the risks of Covid-19 infection. The results of this study will allow re-examination of how to approach cancer care during the pandemic and ultimately, help optimize treatment recommendations during this crisis. AIM: This study described the factors contributing to treatment delays during the pandemic and their impact on disease progression. MATERIALS AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study was done in St. Luke's Medical Center, a private tertiary healthcare institution based in Metro Manila, Philippines, composed of two facilities in Quezon City and Global City. Patients with solid malignancy with ongoing systemic cancer treatment prior to the peak of the pandemic were identified. Clinical characteristics and treatment data were compared between those with delayed and continued treatments. Multivariate analysis was done to determine factors for treatment delays and association of delays with disease progression and Covid-19 infection. Of the 111 patients, 33% experienced treatment delays and 67% continued treatment during the pandemic. There was a higher percentage of patients on palliative intent who underwent treatment delay, and 64% of delays were due to logistic difficulties. Treatment delays were significantly associated with disease progression (p < .0001). There was no evidence of association between delay or continuation of treatment and risk of Covid-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in Covid-19 infection between those who delayed and continued treatment during the pandemic; however, treatment delays were associated with a higher incidence of disease progression. Our findings suggest that the risks of cancer progression due to treatment delays exceed the risks of Covid-19 infection in cancer patients implying that beneficial treatment should not be delayed as much as possible. Logistic hindrances were also identified as the most common cause of treatment delay among Filipino patients, suggesting that efforts should be focused into assistance programs that will mitigate these barriers to ensure continuity of cancer care services during the pandemic.

Meeting the Challenges in Cancer Care Management During the SARS-Cov-2 Pandemic: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has overwhelmed the capacity of healthcare systems worldwide. Cancer patients, in particular, are vulnerable and oncology departments drastically needed to modify their care systems and established new priorities. We evaluated the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the activity of a single cancer center. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of (i) volumes of oncological activities (2020 vs 2019), (ii) patients' perception rate of the preventive measures, (iii) patients' SARS-CoV-2 infections, clinical signs thereof, and (iv) new diagnoses made during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. RESULTS: As compared with a similar time frame in 2019, the overall activity in total numbers of outpatient chemotherapy administrations and specialist visits was not statistically different (P = .961 and P = .252), while inpatient admissions decreased for both medical oncology and thoracic oncology (18% (P = .0018) and 44% (P < .0001), respectively). Cancer diagnosis plummeted (-34%), but no stage shift could be demonstrated.Acceptance and adoption of hygienic measures was high, as measured by a targeted questionnaire (>85%). However, only 46.2% of responding patients regarded telemedicine, although widely deployed, as an efficient surrogate to a consultation.Thirty-three patients developed SARS-CoV-2, 27 were hospitalized, and 11 died within this time frame. These infected patients were younger, current smokers, and suffered more comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective cohort analysis adds to the evidence that continuation of active cancer therapy and specialist visits is feasible and safe with the implementation of telemedicine. These data further confirm the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on cancer care management, cancer diagnosis, and impact of infection on cancer patients.

Preparing for the Next Pandemic: An Asian National Cancer Centers Alliance (ANCCA) Initiative.

The COVID-pandemic has shown significant impact on cancer care from early detection, management plan to clinical outcomes of cancer patients. The Asian National Cancer Centres Alliance (ANCCA) has put together the 9 "Ps" as guidelines for cancer programs to better prepare for the next pandemic. The 9 "Ps" are Priority, Protocols and Processes, Patients, People, Personal Protective Equipments (PPEs), Pharmaceuticals, Places, Preparedness, and Politics. Priority: to maintain cancer care as a key priority in the health system response even during a global infectious disease pandemic. Protocol and processes: to develop a set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and have relevant expertise to man the Disease Outbreak Response (DORS) Taskforce before an outbreak. Patients: to prioritize patient safety in the event of an outbreak and the need to reschedule cancer management plan, supported by tele-consultation and use of artificial intelligence technology. People: to have business continuity planning to support surge capacity. PPEs and Pharmaceuticals: to develop plan for stockpiles management, build local manufacturing capacity and disseminate information on proper use and reduce wastage. Places: to design and build cancer care facilities to cater for the need of triaging, infection control, isolation and segregation. Preparedness: to invest early on manpower building and technology innovations through multisectoral and international collaborations. Politics: to ensure leadership which bring trust, cohesion and solidarity for successful response to pandemic and mitigate negative impact on the healthcare system.

Clinical Outcomes Following Regionalization of Gastric Cancer Care in a US Integrated Health Care System.

PURPOSE: In 2016, Kaiser Permanente Northern California regionalized gastric cancer care, introducing a regional comprehensive multidisciplinary care team, standardizing staging and chemotherapy, and implementing laparoscopic gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy for patients eligible for curative-intent surgery. This study evaluated the effect of regionalization on outcomes. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study included gastric cancer cases diagnosed from January 2010 to May 2018. Information was obtained from the electronic medical record, cancer registry, state vital statistics, and chart review. Overall survival was compared in patients with all stages of disease, stage I-III disease, and curative-intent gastrectomy patients using annual inception cohorts. For the latter, the surgical approach and surgical outcomes were also compared. RESULTS: Among 1,429 eligible patients with gastric cancer with all stages of disease, one third were treated after regionalization, 650 had stage I-III disease, and 394 underwent curative-intent surgery. Among surgical patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy utilization increased from 35% to 66% (P < .0001), laparoscopic gastrectomy increased from 18% to 92% (P < .0001), and D2 lymphadenectomy increased from 2% to 80% (P < .0001). Dissection of ≥ 15 lymph nodes increased from 61% to 95% (P < .0001). Surgical complication rates did not appear to increase after regionalization. Length of hospitalization decreased from 7 to 3 days (P < .001). Overall survival at 2 years was as follows: all stages, 32.8% pre and 37.3% post (P = .20); stage I-III cases with or without surgery, 55.6% and 61.1%, respectively (P = .25); and among surgery patients, 72.7% and 85.5%, respectively (P < .03). CONCLUSION: Regionalization of gastric cancer care within an integrated system allowed comprehensive multidisciplinary care, conversion to laparoscopic gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy, increased overall survival among surgery patients, and no increase in surgical complications.

[Adapting to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic: Experience of the Curie Institute]. / S'adapter face à la pandémie SARS-CoV2 : l'expérience de l'Institut Curie.

The Curie Institute exclusively cares for cancer patients, who were considered particularly "vulnerable" from the start of the SARS-CoV 2 pandemic. This pandemic, which took the medical world by surprise, suddenly required the Institute's hospital to undergo rapid and multimodal restructuring, while having an impact on everyone to varying degrees. We will examine here how this hospital has coped, with the concern for a new benefit-risk balance, in times of greater medical uncertainty and scarcity of certain resources, for these "vulnerable" patients but also for their relatives and staff. We will highlight by theme the positive aspects and difficulties encountered, and then what could be useful for other hospitals as the pandemic is ongoing.

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California.

BACKGROUND: Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care. METHODS: A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers. CONCLUSIONS: Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.

Strategies to ensure efficient laboratory functioning while navigating through the COVID-19 crisis in developing countries: An early experience from a tertiary care centre in India.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) is a zoonotic viral infection that originated in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. It was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization shortly thereafter. This pandemic is going to have a lasting impact on the functioning of pathology laboratories due to the frequent handling of potentially infectious samples by the laboratory personnel. To deal with this unprecedented situation, various national and international guidelines have been put forward outlining the precautions to be taken during sample processing from a potentially infectious patient. PURPOSE: Most of these guidelines are centered around laboratories that are a part of designated COVID 19 hospitals. However, proper protocols need to be in place in all laboratories, irrespective of whether they are a part of COVID 19 hospital or not as this would greatly reduce the risk of exposure of laboratory/hospital personnel. As part of a laboratory associated with a rural cancer hospital which is not a dedicated COVID 19 hospital, we aim to present our institute's experience in handling pathology specimens during the COVID 19 era. CONCLUSION: We hope this will address the concerns of small to medium sized laboratories and help them build an effective strategy required for protecting the laboratory personnel from risk of exposure and also ensure smooth and optimum functioning of the laboratory services.

Assessing Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

Assessing tobacco product use and delivering tobacco dependence treatment is an essential part of cancer care; however, little is known about electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-cigarette use assessment in cancer treatment settings. Given the importance of tailoring tobacco treatment, it is critical to understand how ENDS use is assessed in the electronic health record (EHR) in cancer care settings. Two questionnaires were completed by tobacco treatment program leads at 42 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31, 2019). Items assessed how often smoking status and ENDS use were recorded in the EHR. An open-ended item recorded the text and response categories of each center's ENDS assessment question. All 42 centers assessed smoking status at both time periods. Twenty-five centers (59.5%) assessed ENDS use in the first half of 2019, increasing to 30 (71.4%) in the last half of 2019. By the end of 2019, 17 centers assessed smoking status at every patient visit while six assessed ENDS use at every visit. A checkbox/drop-down menu rather than scripted text was used at 30 centers (73.2%) for assessing smoking status and at 18 centers (42.9%) for assessing ENDS use. Our findings underscore the gap in systematic ENDS use screening in cancer treatment settings. Requiring ENDS use measures in the EHR as part of quality measures and providing scripted text scripts to providers may increase rates of ENDS use assessment at more cancer centers. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study identifies a gap in the systematic assessment of ENDS use among patients seen at 42 NCI-Designated cancer centers. Requiring the systematic assessment of both ENDS use and use of other tobacco products can inform evidence-based treatment of tobacco dependence and lead to improved cancer treatment outcomes.

Disparate Practice Patterns and Survival Outcomes: The Impact of Centralization of Cancer Care for Adrenocortical Carcinoma in the United States.

PURPOSE: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare but aggressive malignancy. While centralization of care to referral centers improves outcomes across common urological malignancies, there exists a paucity of data for low-incidence cancers. We sought to evaluate differences in practice patterns and overall survival in patients with adrenocortical carcinoma across types of treating facilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all patients diagnosed with adrenocortical carcinoma from 2004-2016 in the National Cancer Database. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate overall survival and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to investigate independent predictors of overall survival. The chi-square test was used to analyze differences in practice patterns. RESULTS: We identified 2,886 patients with adrenocortical carcinoma. Median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI 19.8-23.8). Academic centers had improved overall survival versus community centers on unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis (p <0.05) and had higher rates of adrenalectomy or radical en bloc resection (p <0.001), performed more open surgery (p <0.001), administered more systemic therapy (p <0.001) and had lower rates of positive surgical margins (p=0.03). On multivariable analysis, controlling for treatment modality, academic centers were associated with significantly decreased risk of death (HR 0.779, 95% CI 0.631-0.963, p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma at an academic center is associated with improved overall survival compared to community programs. There are significant differences in practice patterns, including more aggressive surgical treatment at academic facilities, but the survival benefit persists on multivariable analysis controlling for treatment modality. Further studies are needed to identify the most important predictors of survival in this at-risk population.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Impact of the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic on a tertiary referral centre for kidney cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a centralized specialist kidney cancer care pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient and pathway characteristics including prioritization strategies at the Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer located at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (RFH) before and during the surge of COVID-19. RESULTS: On 18 March 2020 all elective surgery was halted at RFH to redeploy resources and staff for the COVID-19 surge. Prioritizing of patients according to European Association of Urology guidance was introduced. Clinics and the specialist multidisciplinary team (SMDT) meetings were maintained with physical distancing, kidney surgery was moved to a COVID-protected site, and infection prevention measurements were enforced. During the 7 weeks of lockdown (23 March to 10 May 2020), 234 cases were discussed at the SMDT meetings, 53% compared to the 446 cases discussed in the 7 weeks pre-lockdown. The reduction in referrals was more pronounced for small and asymptomatic renal masses. Of 62 low-priority cancer patients, 27 (43.5%) were deferred. Only one (4%) COVID-19 infection occurred postoperatively, and the patient made a full recovery. No increase in clinical or pathological upstaging could be detected in patients who underwent deferred surgery compared to pre-COVID practice. CONCLUSION: The first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted diagnosis, referral and treatment of kidney cancer at a tertiary referral centre. With a policy of prioritization and COVID-protected pathways, capacity for time-sensitive oncological interventions was maintained and no immediate clinical harm was observed.

Preparing historically underrepresented trainees for biomedical cancer research careers at Huntsman Cancer Institute/University of Utah Health.

Given the well-documented inequities in health care outcomes by race, ethnicity, and gender, many health career pipeline programs have focused on supporting the development of a diverse and inclusive workforce. The State of Utah, is vast, but sparsely populated outside the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. More than 96% of our nearly 85,000 square miles is designated rural (<100 people/square mile) or frontier (<7 people/square mile). The Salt Lake City area is home to the Hunsman Cancer Institute, the only NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the region, also noted the limited diversity in the biomedical cancer research workforce. Our primary objective was to increase the number of underrepresented trainees who pursue higher education with the goal of a career in cancer research. PathMaker is a regional, competitive pipeline program that nurtures high school or undergraduate trainees from historically underrepresented backgrounds towards a career in cancer research. Our faculty and staff team collaboratively developed a cohort model curriculum that increased student awareness of research career options; provided academic and professional development, cultural and social support, evolutionary success strategies, active mentorship, and leadership skill development; and fostered an environment of continuous evaluation and improvement. Since pilot program initiation in May 2016, the PathMaker Research Program (PathMaker) has engaged a total of 44 underrepresented trainees in cancer research labs at Huntsman Cancer Institute, the majority still in college. Eleven trainees graduated college: five employed in STEM, one pursuing a PhD in STEM; two in medical school, and three are lost to follow-up. Alumni report high levels of satisfaction with PathMaker and will be followed and supported for academic success. PathMaker is a replicable model to increase diversity and inclusion in the biomedical cancer research workforce.

Visitation policies at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Family/caregiver visitation provides critical support for patients confronting cancer and is associated with positive outcomes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic brought historic disruptions including widespread visitation restrictions. Here, we characterize in-depth the visitor policies of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) and analyze geographic/temporal patterns across CCCs. METHODS: The public-facing CCC websites, including archived webpages, were reviewed to abstract initial visitation policies and revisions, including end-of-life (EoL) exceptions and timing of visitation restrictions relative to regional lockdowns. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were employed to analyze associations between geographic region, timing, and severity of restrictions. RESULTS: Most CCCs (n=43, 86%) enacted visitation restrictions between March 15 and April 15, 2020. About half barred all visitors for COVID-negative inpatients (n=24, 48%) or outpatients (n=26, 52%). Most (n=36, 72%) prohibited visitors for patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Most (n=40, 80%) published EoL exceptions but the specifics were highly variable. The median time from initial restrictions to government-mandated lockdowns was 1 day, with a wide range (25 days before to 26 days after). There was no association between timing of initial restrictions and geographic location (p=0.14) or severity of inpatient policies (p=1.0), even among centers in the same city. Outpatient policies published reactively (after lockdown) were more restrictive than those published proactively (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: CCCs enacted strict but strikingly variable COVID-19 visitation restrictions, with important implications for patients/families seeking cancer care. A unified, evidence-based approach to visitation policies is needed to balance proven infection control measures with the needs of patients and families.