COVID-19 in cancer patients: update from the joint analysis of the ESMO-CoCARE, BSMO, and PSMO international databases.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has significantly affected patients with cancer and revealed unanticipated challenges in securing optimal cancer care across different disciplines. The European Society for Medical Oncology COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international, real-world database, collecting data on the natural history, management, and outcomes of patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This is the 2nd CoCARE analysis, jointly with Belgian (Belgian Society of Medical Oncology, BSMO) and Portuguese (Portuguese Society of Medical Oncology, PSMO) registries, with data from January 2020 to December 2021. The aim is to identify significant prognostic factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality (primary outcomes), as well as intensive care unit admission and overall survival (OS) (secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses by pandemic phase and vaccination status were carried out. RESULTS: The cohort includes 3294 patients (CoCARE: 2049; BSMO: 928, all hospitalized by eligibility criteria; PSMO: 317), diagnosed in four distinct pandemic phases (January to May 2020: 36%; June to September 2020: 9%; October 2020 to February 2021: 41%; March to December 2021: 12%). COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 54% (CoCARE/PSMO), ICU admission 14%, and COVID-19 mortality 22% (all data). At a 6-month median follow-up, 1013 deaths were recorded with 73% 3-month OS rate. No significant change was observed in COVID-19 mortality among hospitalized patients across the four pandemic phases (30%-33%). Hospitalizations and ICU admission decreased significantly (from 78% to 34% and 16% to 10%, respectively). Among 1522 patients with known vaccination status at COVID-19 diagnosis, 70% were non-vaccinated, 24% had incomplete vaccination, and 7% complete vaccination. Complete vaccination had a protective effect on hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [0.14-0.38]), ICU admission (odds ratio = 0.29 [0.09-0.94]), and OS (hazard ratio = 0.39 [0.20-0.76]). In multivariable analyses, COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with patient/cancer characteristics, the first pandemic phase, the presence of COVID-19-related symptoms or inflammatory biomarkers, whereas COVID-19 mortality was significantly higher in symptomatic patients, males, older age, ethnicity other than Asian/Caucasian, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, body mass index <25, hematological malignancy, progressive disease versus no evident disease, and advanced cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: The updated CoCARE analysis, jointly with BSMO and PSMO, highlights factors that significantly affect COVID-19 outcomes, providing actionable clues for further reducing mortality.

Changes in anticancer treatment plans in patients with solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19: analysis of the nationwide BSMO-COVID registry providing lessons for the future.

BACKGROUND: Solid cancer is an independent prognostic factor for poor outcome with COVID-19. As guidelines for patient management in that setting depend on retrospective efforts, we here present the first analyses of a nationwide database of patients with cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium, with a focus on changes in anticancer treatment plans at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Nineteen Belgian hospitals identified all patients with a history of solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Demographic, cancer-specific and COVID-specific data were pseudonymously entered into a central Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO)-COVID database. The association between survival and primary cancer type was analyzed through multivariate multinomial logistic regression. Group comparisons for categorical variables were carried out through a Chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 928 patients were registered in the database; most of them were aged ≥70 years (61.0%) and with poor performance scores [57.2% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≥2]. Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was 19.8%. In multivariate analysis, a trend was seen for higher mortality in patients with lung cancer (27.6% versus 20.8%, P = 0.062) and lower mortality for patients with breast cancer (13.0% versus 23.3%, P = 0.052) compared with other tumour types. Non-curative treatment was associated with higher 30-day COVID-related mortality rates compared with curative or no active treatment (25.8% versus 14.3% versus 21.9%, respectively, P < 0.001). In 33% of patients under active treatment, the therapeutic plan was changed due to COVID-19 diagnosis, most frequently involving delays/interruptions in systemic treatments (18.6%). Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was not significantly different between patients with and without treatment modifications (21.4% versus 20.5%). CONCLUSION: Interruption in anticancer treatments at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with a reduction in COVID-related mortality in our cohort of patients with solid cancer, highlighting that treatment continuation should be strived for, especially in the curative setting.

Short and medium-term outcomes of patients with solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium according to cancer diagnosis and treatment characteristics

Background: Solid cancer is an independent prognostic factor for COVID-19 related mortality. Adverse prognostic factors in these patients include low performance status, lung cancer, advanced cancer stage and recent diagnosis. In this study, we further evaluated prognostic effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment variables and characterized changes in anticancer treatment plans due to COVID-19 diagnosis in a nation-wide cohort study. Methods: Patients with a history of solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021 in one of the 20 participating institutions in Belgium were included. Patient demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 hospitalization course and treatment, cancer and anticancer treatment characteristics, treatment changes due to COVID-19 and clinical outcomes in-hospital and during follow-up were retrospectively registered in a central database. The primary objective was to evaluate potential differences in 30-day and 3-month COVID-19-related mortality according to cancer and anticancer treatment characteristics. Results: A total of 946 patients (median age 73y, interquartile range 64-81y) were included. Pre-existing comorbidities were present in 90.1% of patients, and 21.9% had a history of > 1 malignancy. Half of the patients (n = 463, 49.3%) had received anticancer treatment ≤3 months before COVID-19 diagnosis (“active cancer”), of whom 286 (63.1%) in the non-curative setting. The overall 30-day and 3-month COVID-19- related mortality rates in this cohort were 21.4% (n = 178) and 24.1% (n = 194), respectively. COVID- related 3-month mortality was comparable in patients with active cancer (n = 96, 24.3%) and in patients with non-active cancer (n = 97, 24.0%), but within the first group COVID-related mortality was higher in those receiving systemic treatment in the non-curative (28.3%) versus the curative setting (15.2%). A change in the anticancer treatment plan due to COVID-19 was recorded in 148/463 patients with active cancer (32.0%). In patients with changes in systemic treatment plans (n = 146), treatment was delayed in 94 patients (in half of cases for > 1 month) and cancelled in 42 patients. The main reason for modifications in anti-cancer treatment was COVID-19 related complications (79.6%), followed by fear for/existence of anticancer treatment related toxicity (14.8%). Conclusions: Our nation-wide analysis in patients with solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 shows comparable 3-month mortality among patients who did and who did not receive anticancer treatment in the three months before COVID-19 diagnosis. Changes in anticancer treatment were very frequent in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Further monitoring of the long-term impact of COVID-19-related changes to anticancer treatment plans is warranted.

Demographic and laboratory determinants of humoral immune responses and impact of different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine platforms in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Patients (pts) with cancer have increased mortality from COVID-19 and their vaccination is crucial to prevent severe infection. We aimed to identify demographic and laboratory determinants of humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in pts with cancer and investigate differences in responses based on the vaccine platform. Methods: We searched for records in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL up to 28/09/21, as well as conference proceedings from ASCO and ESMO 2021. We included studies of pts ≥16 yr with a cancer diagnosis, who were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Studies were excluded if ≥10% of the participants had other causes of immunosuppression or baseline anti- SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies (Ab)/previous COVID-19 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021282338). For this subgroup analysis of studies that reported a proportion of pts with cancer and positive Ab titers at any timepoint following complete vaccination, a random-effects model was used to estimate the humoral response rate (HRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: We included 64 records, reporting data from 10,511 cancer pts. The HRR in the overall population and by subgroup are shown in Table. Elder patients with hematologic cancers (59%, CI 47-70%,N= 667) and patients with lymphopenia (50%, CI 25-75%, N = 111) or hypogammaglobulinemia (36%, CI 19-57%, N=226) were the subgroups with lower HRR. Male (77%, CI 69-84%, N = 2,659) and Asian (84%, CI 54-96%, N = 37) pts showed a trend to lower HRR when compared with females and other races, respectively. Pts vaccinated with mRNA vaccine platforms (79%, CI 74-83%, N = 9,404) had numerically higher HRR than those receiving the adenovirus vaccines (28%, CI 19-40%, N = 74). Conclusions: This study highlights demographic and laboratory determinants of weaker immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, permitting better identification of more vulnerable pts. Despite the small number of pts included receiving adenovirus vaccines, these data also suggest prioritizing mRNA platform vaccination in pts with cancer.

Impact of cancer diagnosis, stage, and systemic therapies on immunogenicity after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer: A systematic review and metaanalysis

Background: Patients (pts) with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19. Both underlying malignancy and anti-cancer treatments influence the immune system, potentially impacting the level of vaccine protection achieved. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and conference proceedings (ASCO annual meetings and ESMO congress) up to 28/09/21, was conducted to identify studies reporting anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein immunoglobulin G seroconversion rates (SR) at any time point after complete COVID-19 immunization (mRNA- or adenoviral-based vaccines) in cancer pts. Complete immunization was defined as 1 dose of JNJ-78436735 vaccine or 2 doses of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the impact of cancer diagnosis, disease stage, and anticancer therapies on the SR. Overall effects were pooled using random-effects models and reported as pooled SR with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of 1,548 identified records, 64 studies were included in this analysis reporting data from 10,511 subjects. The Table shows the SR in the overall population and specific subgroups. In pts with solid malignancies (SM), disease stage and primary site did not significantly impact the SR. In pts with hematologic malignancies (HM), SR were significantly lower in pts with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) compared to acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and multiple myeloma (MM). Concerning the impact of cancer therapies on SR, pts with SM undergoing chemotherapy had numerically lower SR (N = 1,234, SR 87%, CI 81-92) compared to those treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (N = 574, SR 94%, CI 88-97) or endocrine therapy (N = 326, SR 94%, CI 86-97) with or without another targeted therapy. Pts with HM treated with anti-CD20 therapy (within the last 12 months: N = 360, SR 7%, CI 2-20;or more than 12m: N = 175, SR 59%, CI 35-80), immune-modulating agents (BTK or BCL2 inhibitors) (N = 462, SR 47%, CI 32-64%) or other immunotherapies (anti-CD19/CART or anti-CD38) (N = 293, SR 37%, CI 23-53) had lower SR compared to pts treated with autologous (N = 353, SR 77%, CI 67- 85) or allogenic stem cell transplantation (N = 509, SR 77%, CI 68-84). Conclusions: SR varies between cancer types and anticancer therapies with some cancer pts having low protection against COVID- 19 even after complete vaccination.

The impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals-one year on: lessons learned from the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey series.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the well-being and job performance of oncology professionals globally. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate and monitor well-being since COVID-19 in relation to work, lifestyle and support factors in oncology professionals 1 year on since the start of the pandemic. METHODS: An online, anonymous survey was conducted in February/March 2021 (Survey III). Key outcome variables included risk of poor well-being or distress (expanded Well-Being Index), feeling burnout (single item from expanded Well-Being Index), and job performance since COVID-19. Longitudinal analysis of responses to the series of three surveys since COVID-19 was carried out, and responses to job demands and resources questions were interrogated. SPSS V.26.0/V.27.0 and GraphPad Prism V9.0 were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Responses from 1269 participants from 104 countries were analysed in Survey III: 55% (n = 699/1269) female, 54% (n = 686/1269) >40 years, and 69% (n = 852/1230) of white ethnicity. There continues to be an increased risk of poor well-being or distress (n = 464/1169, 40%) and feeling burnout (n = 660/1169, 57%) compared with Survey I (25% and 38% respectively, P < 0.0001), despite improved job performance. Compared with the initial period of the pandemic, more participants report feeling overwhelmed with workload (45% versus 29%, P < 0.0001). There remain concerns about the negative impact of the pandemic on career development/training (43%), job security (37%). and international fellowship opportunities (76%). Alarmingly, 25% (n = 266/1086) are considering changing their future career with 38% (n = 100/266) contemplating leaving the profession. CONCLUSION: Oncology professionals continue to face increased job demands. There is now significant concern regarding potential attrition in the oncology workforce. National and international stakeholders must act immediately and work closely with oncology professionals to draw up future-proof recovery plans.

The concerns of oncology professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey II.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant changes to professional and personal lives of oncology professionals globally. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration aimed to provide contemporaneous reports on the impact of COVID-19 on the lived experiences and well-being in oncology. METHODS: This online anonymous survey (July-August 2020) is the second of a series of global surveys launched during the course of the pandemic. Longitudinal key outcome measures including well-being/distress (expanded Well-being Index-9 items), burnout (1 item from expanded Well-being Index), and job performance since COVID-19 were tracked. RESULTS: A total of 942 participants from 99 countries were included for final analysis: 58% (n = 544) from Europe, 52% (n = 485) female, 43% (n = 409) ≤40 years old, and 36% (n = 343) of non-white ethnicity. In July/August 2020, 60% (n = 525) continued to report a change in professional duties compared with the pre-COVID-19 era. The proportion of participants at risk of poor well-being (33%, n = 310) and who reported feeling burnout (49%, n = 460) had increased significantly compared with April/May 2020 (25% and 38%, respectively; P < 0.001), despite improved job performance since COVID-19 (34% versus 51%; P < 0.001). Of those who had been tested for COVID-19, 8% (n = 39/484) tested positive; 18% (n = 7/39) felt they had not been given adequate time to recover before return to work. Since the pandemic, 39% (n = 353/908) had expressed concerns that COVID-19 would have a negative impact on their career development or training and 40% (n = 366/917) felt that their job security had been compromised. More than two-thirds (n = 608/879) revealed that COVID-19 has changed their outlook on their work-personal life balance. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the well-being of oncology professionals globally, with significantly more in distress and feeling burnout compared with the first wave. Collective efforts from both national and international communities addressing support and coping strategies will be crucial as we recover from the COVID-19 crisis. In particular, an action plan should also be devised to tackle concerns raised regarding the negative impact of COVID-19 on career development, training, and job security.

The future of the oncology workforce since COVID-19: Results of the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey series

Background: The ESMO Resilience Task Force has investigated wellbeing since COVID-19 in relation to work, lifestyle and support factors in oncology professionals globally. We reported on the significant impact of the initial surge of the pandemic on wellbeing and job performance (Banerjee et al. 2021). As the pandemic continues, it is imperative to understand experiences and concerns to better inform support measures for the oncology workforce. Methods: Three anonymous online surveys were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (S1, Apr/May 2020;S2, Jul/Aug 2020;S3, Feb/Mar 2021). Longitudinal analysis of responses at these timepoints were conducted. Here, we present responses to questions on job demands and resources, and perceived job performance since COVID-19 (JP-CV). Results: We analysed 3894 individual responses (S1, n=1520;S2, n=942;S3, n=1432): 53% (n=1961/3731) female, 45% (n=1679/3731) =/<40 years, 31% (n=1132/3692) non-white ethnicity, >100 countries. There has been significant increases from S1 to S3 (p<0.001) in feeling overwhelmed with workload (29% vs 45%);COVID-19-related clinical (14% vs 58%) and research (16% vs 64%) work;out-of-hours work (16% vs 41%), shift work (12% vs 26%) and overall working hours (17% vs 47%);and inadequate time for personal/family life (35% vs 45%). 59% (n=1156/1946) were unable to take allocated annual leave. While JP-CV has improved (34% vs 49%, p<0.001), there remained concerns about the negative impact of the pandemic on career development/training (43%), job security (37%) and international fellowship opportunities (76%). Overall, less than half had felt supported by their work management, professional societies or government, and/or had access to wellbeing support services. 25% (n=266/1086) were considering changing their future career with 38% (n=100/266) contemplating leaving the profession. Conclusions: Since COVID-19, oncology professionals have reported increased job demands, concerns over career development/training and job security, and inadequate time for personal life. There is a real threat of potential attrition in the current workforce. National and international stakeholders must act together to ensure robust recovery plans as we emerge from the COVID-19 crisis. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: ESMO. Disclosure: K.H.J. Lim: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, Speaker honorarium: Janssen;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Trainees committee representative for the North West deanery: Royal College of Physicians (UK);Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Trainees representative at the RCP Patient Safety Committee: Royal College of Physicians (UK);Non-Financial Interests, Officer, ACP representative at the RCP Student and Foundation Doctor Network (SFDN): Royal College of Physicians (UK);Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Trainees committee member: Association of Cancer Physicians (ACP) UK;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Young Oncologists Committee (YOC): ESMO;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Resilience Task Force (RTF): ESMO;Other, Currently funded by Wellcome-Imperial 4i Clinical Research Fellowship: Wellcome Trust. K. Punie: Other, Institutional, Other, institution received speaker fees or honoraria for consultancy/advisory roles: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Hoffmann La Roche, Mundi Pharma, PharmaMar, Teva, Vifor Pharma;Other, Institutional, Research Grant: Sanofi;Other, Personal, Other, Travel support: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar and Roche. C. Oing: Other, Personal, Other, research funding and honoraria: Roche;Other, Personal, Other, travel grant and honoraria: Medac Pharma and Ipsen Pharma;Other, Personal, Other, travel grant: PharmaMar. E. Elez: Other, Personal, Other, personal fees: Hoffman La - Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Amgen, Merck Serono, ArrayBiopharma, Sanof. T.M.S. Amaral: Other, Personal, Other, personal fees: Pierre Fabre and CeCaVa;Other, Personal, Other, personal fees and travel grants: BMS;Other, Perso al, Other, grants, personal fees and travel grants: Novartis;Other, Personal, Other, grants: Neracare, Sanofi and SkylineDx. P. Garrido Lopez: Other, Personal, Other, personal fees: Roche, MSD, BMS, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Blueprint Medicines, Takeda, Gilead, and ROVI. M. Lambertini: Other, Personal, Other, Consultant: Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly and Novartis;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Theramex, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Lilly. C.B. Westphalen: Other, Personal, Other, honoraria, travel support and advisory board: Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Roche, Servier, Shire/Baxalta, RedHil, and Taiho;Other, Personal, Other, speaker honoraria: Ipsen;Other, Personal, Advisory Board: GSK, Sirtex, and Rafael. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Other, Personal, Advisory Role, personal fees for advisory role: Neogene Tx;Other, Institutional, Other, grants and fees paid to institution: BMS, MSD, Novartis, BioNTech, Amgen;Other, Institutional, Other, fees paid to institution: Achilles Tx, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Third Rock Ventures, Vaximm. C. Hardy: Other, Personal, Other, Director of a private company Hardy People Ltd.: Hardy People Ltd. S. Banerjee: Other, Institutional, Research Grant: AstraZeneca, Tesaro and GSK;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, GSK, Clovis, Genmab, Merck Serono, Mersana, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Mortality in adult patients with solid or hematological cancers and SARS-CoV-2 infection with a specific focus on lung and breast malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection and a diagnosis of cancer are at high risk of severe symptomatic disease (COVID-19) and death. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies, to estimate the case-fatality rate (CFR) of patients with solid or hematological tumors and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed library up to 31 January, 2021, was performed in order to identify publications reporting the CFR among adult patients with solid or hematological tumors and SARS-CoV-2 infection. CFR was defined as the rate of deaths among SARS-CoV-2-positive cancer patients. Moreover, we separately assessed the CFR among patients with lung and breast cancer. Studies with at least 10 patients were included. The CFR was assessed through a random effect model, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The Higgins I2 index was computed to assess the heterogeneity between studies. Results: The systematic search of the literaturereturned 1,727studies. 1,551 were excluded on the basis of the title, 29 based on the abstract, and 3 were duplicates. A total of 144 studies were selected, including 35,725 patients with solid or hematological tumors and SARS-CoV-2 infection. In total, 46 and 32 studies reported the CFR among COVID-19 patients with lung (total N = 1,555) and breast (total N = 1.398) cancer, respectively. Overall, the CFR was 25.5% (95% CI 23.1%-28.1%, Egger test p < 0.001). A sensitivity analysis, after excluding studies with less than 100 patients, showed a CFR of 22.1% (95% CI 19.4%-25.2%). The CFR among patients with lung cancer and SARSCoV2 infection was 33.4% (95% CI 28.1%-39.6%) when including all studies and 26.3% (95% CI 17.6%-39.2%) at the sensitivity analysis after excluding studies with less than 100 patients. The CFR among patients with breast cancer and SARS-CoV2 infection was 13.7% (95% CI 9.1%-20.7%) when including all studies and 13.0% (95% CI 7.6%-22.1%) at the sensitivity analysis after excluding studies with less than 100 patients. Conclusions: One year after the outbreak of the pandemic, this large metaanalysis reports the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer. This population experienced a high probability of mortality, with a comparatively higher CFR in patients with lung cancer, and a comparatively lower CFR in patients with breast cancer. Patients with an underlying diagnosis of cancer require special attention with aggressive preventive measures that also include early access to COVID-19 vaccination.

The impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals: results of the ESMO Resilience Task Force survey collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on well-being has the potential for serious negative consequences on work, home life, and patient care. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate well-being in oncology over time since COVID-19. METHODS: Two online anonymous surveys were conducted (survey I: April/May 2020; survey II: July/August 2020). Statistical analyses were performed to examine group differences, associations, and predictors of key outcomes: (i) well-being/distress [expanded Well-being Index (eWBI; 9 items)]; (ii) burnout (1 item from eWBI); (iii) job performance since COVID-19 (JP-CV; 2 items). RESULTS: Responses from survey I (1520 participants from 101 countries) indicate that COVID-19 is impacting oncology professionals; in particular, 25% of participants indicated being at risk of distress (poor well-being, eWBI ≥ 4), 38% reported feeling burnout, and 66% reported not being able to perform their job compared with the pre-COVID-19 period. Higher JP-CV was associated with better well-being and not feeling burnout (P < 0.01). Differences were seen in well-being and JP-CV between countries (P < 0.001) and were related to country COVID-19 crude mortality rate (P < 0.05). Consistent predictors of well-being, burnout, and JP-CV were psychological resilience and changes to work hours. In survey II, among 272 participants who completed both surveys, while JP-CV improved (38% versus 54%, P < 0.001), eWBI scores ≥4 and burnout rates were significantly higher compared with survey I (22% versus 31%, P = 0.01; and 35% versus 49%, P = 0.001, respectively), suggesting well-being and burnout have worsened over a 3-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: In the first and largest global survey series, COVID-19 is impacting well-being and job performance of oncology professionals. JP-CV has improved but risk of distress and burnout has increased over time. Urgent measures to address well-being and improve resilience are essential.

The impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals: Initial results of the ESMO resilience task force survey collaboration

Background: The impact of the COVID-19 (CV-19) pandemic on wellbeing has the potential for serious negative consequences on work, home life and patient care. The ESMO Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate wellbeing in oncology over time since CV-19. Methods: 2 online surveys were conducted (survey I April/May;survey II July/August 2020). Statistical analyses were used to examine group differences, associations and to explore predictors of key outcomes: 1) wellbeing/distress (Wellbeing Index (WBI-9)), 2) burnout (1 item);and 3) CV-19 job performance (2 item CJP;standard of care and job delivery compared to pre-CV 19). Results: Survey I had 1520 participants from 101 countries. Responses indicate that CV-19 is impacting the oncology workforce resulting in a number of changes to work and personal lives. 25% were at risk of distress (poor wellbeing, WBI ≥4);38% reported feeling burnout and 66% were not able to perform their job compared to pre-CV-19. Higher CJP was significantly associated with better wellbeing and not feeling burnout (p<0.01). Differences were seen in wellbeing and CJP between countries (p<0.001) and related to CV-19 country mortality rate (p<0.05). The main predictors of wellbeing, burnout and CJP were resilience and changes to work hours. Others frequently identified were coping strategies, ethnicity, concern about training/career, worried about current wellbeing, and working conditions. In Survey II, results from 942 participants are undergoing analysis. Overall, comparisons between surveys show overall wellbeing and burnout rates have worsened overtime but CJP has improved. Among 272 participants who completed both surveys, WBI scores ≥4 (indicating higher risk of distress) and burnout rates were higher in survey II compared to survey I (22% vs 31% p=0.01;35% vs 49% p=0.001 respectively) suggesting wellbeing and burnout may be worsening overtime. CJP improved (38% vs 54% p<0.001). Conclusions: In the largest global survey series, COVID-19 is impacting on the wellbeing and job performance of oncology professionals. Risk of distress and burnout has increased over time. Urgent measures to address wellbeing and improve resilience are essential. Legal entity responsible for the study: ESMO. Funding: ESMO. Disclosure: S. Banerjee: Research grant/Funding (institution): AstraZeneca;Research grant/Funding (self): GSK;Honoraria (self): Amgen;Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca;Honoraria (self): MSD;Honoraria (self): GSK;Honoraria (self): Clovis;Honoraria (self): Genmab;Honoraria (self): Merck Serono;Honoraria (self): Mersana;Honoraria (self): Pfizer;Honoraria (self): Seattle Genetics;Honoraria (self): Tesaro. C. Oing: Research grant/Funding (institution): PharmaMar;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ipsen;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: PharmaMar;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Medac. K. Punie: Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca;Honoraria (self): Eli Lilly;Honoraria (self): Novartis;Honoraria (self): Pfizer;Honoraria (self): Pierre Fabre;Honoraria (self): Hoffmann La Roche;Honoraria (self): Vifor Pharma;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Eli Lilly;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Mundi Pharma;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Novartis;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Pfizer;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Hoffmann La Roche;Honoraria (self): Teva;Research grant/Funding (institution): Sanofi;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AstraZeneca;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pfizer;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: PharmaMar;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Hoffmann La Roche. M. Lambertini: Advisory/Consultancy: Roche;Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis;Honoraria (institution): Theramex;Honoraria (institution): Takeda;Honoraria (institution): Roche;Honoraria (institution): Lilly;Honoraria (institution): Pfizer;Honoraria (institution): Novartis. C. Benedikt Westphalen: Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Bayer;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Celge e;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ipsen;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: MedScape;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Rafael Pharmaceuticals;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: RedHIll;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Servier;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Shire;Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Taiho;Research grant/Funding (institution): Roche. P. Garrido Lopez: Advisory/Consultancy: AbbVie;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: AstraZeneca;Advisory/Consultancy: BluePrint Medicine;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Boerhinger Ingelheim;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: BMS;Advisory/Consultancy: Gilead;Advisory/Consultancy: Guardant Health;Advisory/Consultancy: Janssen;Advisory/Consultancy: Lilly;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: MSD;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Novartis;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Pfizer;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Roche;Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Takeda;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Rovi;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Sysmex. T.M.S. Amaral: Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: BMS;Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis;Honoraria (self): PIerre Fabre;Honoraria (institution): Neracare;Honoraria (institution): Sanofi. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory/Consultancy: AIMM THerapeutics;Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen;Advisory/Consultancy: AZ;Advisory/Consultancy: Bayer;Advisory/Consultancy: BioNtech;Advisory/Consultancy: BMS;Advisory/Consultancy: GSK;Advisory/Consultancy: Gateta;Advisory/Consultancy: Immunocore;Advisory/Consultancy: Ipsen;Advisory/Consultancy: Merck Serono;Advisory/Consultancy: MSD;Advisory/Consultancy: Molecular Partners;Advisory/Consultancy: Roche;Advisory/Consultancy: Sanofi;Advisory/Consultancy: Seattle Genetics;Advisory/Consultancy: Third Rock Venture;Advisory/Consultancy: Vaximm;Research grant/Funding (institution): Neogene;Research grant/Funding (institution): Amgen;Research grant/Funding (institution): BMS;Research grant/Funding (institution): BIoNthech;Research grant/Funding (institution): MSD;Research grant/Funding (institution): Novartis;Advisory/Consultancy: Genentech. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.