Incident Cardiovascular Diseases Among Survivors of High-Risk Stage II-III Colorectal Cancer: A Cluster-Wide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and survival of colorectal cancer (CRC) are increasing. There is an increasing number of long-term survivors, many of whom are elderly and have comorbidities. We conducted a population-based study in Hong Kong to assess the long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence associated with adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy among CRC survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the population-based electronic medical database of Hong Kong, we identified adults who were diagnosed with high-risk stage II-III CRC and treated with radical surgery followed by adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy between 2010 and 2019. We evaluated the cause-specific cumulative incidence of CVD (including ischemic heart disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathy, and stroke) using the flexible parametric competing risk modeling framework. The control group without a history of CVD was selected from among a noncancer random sample from primary care clinics in the same geographic area. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,037 treated patients with CRC and 5,078 noncancer controls. The adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio (HR) for CVD in the cancer cohort compared with the control group was 2.11 (95% CI, 1.39-3.20). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year cause-specific cumulative incidences were 2.0%, 4.5%, and 5.4% in the cancer cohort versus 1.2%, 3.0%, and 3.8% in the control group, respectively. Age at cancer diagnosis (HR per 5-year increase, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.24), male sex (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.06-1.86), comorbidity (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.36-2.61 for 1 comorbidity vs none, and HR, 6.61; 95% CI, 4.55-9.60 for ≥2 comorbidities vs none), diabetes (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.04-1.84), hypertension (HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.39-4.50), and dyslipidemia/hyperlipidemia (HR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.68-3.81) were associated with incident CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was associated with an increased risk of CVD among survivors of high-risk stage II-III CRC. Cardiovascular risk monitoring of this group throughout cancer survivorship is advisable.

Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the clinical picture and tumour stage at the time of presentation of patients with colorectal cancer? A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosis delay, symptoms, and stage of patients with CRC during the pandemic with a control cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients referred to the CRC multidisciplinary team between September 2019 and January 2020 (cohort 1, control group) were compared with those who presented between September 2020 and March 2021 (cohort 2, pandemic group). RESULTS: 389 patients were included, 169 in cohort 1 and 220 in cohort 2. No differences were observed in the main characteristics of the patients. CRC screening and anaemia were the most common causes leading to the diagnosis of the tumour in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). Diagnostic and therapeutic delay was longer in cohort 2 [6.4 (95% CI 5.8-6.9) vs. 4.8 (95% CI 4.3-5.3) months, p<0.001]. More patients required non-elective treatment in the pandemic cohort (15.5% vs. 9.5%, p=0.080). The tumour stage was more advanced in patients in cohort 2 [positive nodes in 52.3% vs. 36.7% (p=0.002), and metastatic disease in 23.6% vs. 16.6% (p=0.087)]. CONCLUSION: CRC patients in the pandemic cohort had a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay and less patients were diagnosed because of CRC screening. In addition, patients with CRC during the pandemic needed non-elective treatment more frequently than patients in the control cohort, and their tumour stage tended to be more advanced.

Digital Trends, Digital Literacy, and E-Health Engagement Predictors of Breast and Colorectal Cancer Survivors: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.

Introduction: Advances in information and communication technology (ICT) and post-COVID-19 tectonic changes in healthcare delivery have made it possible for cancer survivors to obtain disease-related information for remote management online rather than through healthcare providers. To comprehend and evaluate health information, digital literacy is crucial. Objectives: This study examined cancer survivors' information-seeking behaviour, information sources, digital health literacy, and digital trends, as well as potential determinants of e-health information receptivity and online resource use. Methods: A national 30-item cross-sectional survey using a representative random sample of cancer survivors from Jordan's cancer registry was conducted. Chi-square tests established categorical variable relationships. Using the mean and standard deviation, we calculated the Likert scale's ordinal data average. A p-value < 0.05 was statistically significant. Logistic regression identified predictors of interest in late-trajectory information acquisition and use of e-health platforms (apps, portals) for cancer self-management. Results: Lower digital literacy and electronic searching were associated with older age and lower income, education, and employment status (p ≤ 0.001). Digital literacy independently predicted m-health app use for remote management and interest in cancer supportive care information. Digitally literate survivors preferred the use of digital platforms (p ≤ 0.001). Information acquisition barriers included "reliability" (26%, n = 25) and "health information trustworthiness" (16.2%, n = 25). Following treatment completion, Internet-seeking behaviour decreased significantly when compared to the early cancer trajectory. Conclusion: Our findings imply that Jordanian cancer survivors' low digital literacy may hinder information acquisition and technology-enabled cancer care. Digital interventions for cancer survivors should be adaptable to varying levels of digital health literacy. Healthcare policymakers should recognise digital inequities and devise focused initiatives to bridge the digital divide while responding to the urgent need to digitalise cancer care delivery.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment of colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Modifications to practice during COVID pandemic impacted health maintenance and treatment of cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients presenting to our institution with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer pre-COVID (January 2017 to December 2019) and post-COVID (January to December 2020). RESULTS: The total number of patients with a new diagnosis of CRC was 2196. The pre-COVID period had 1891 patients whereas post-COVID period had 305. The median number of patients diagnosed with CRC per month was 50 and 35.5 pre and post-COVID, respectively. Time to treatment initiation was similar with no difference in stage at presentation for the pre and post-COVID periods. CONCLUSION: There was a significant decrease in colorectal cancer diagnosis number and rate (p < 0.01) during the COVID era with no difference in staging at diagnosis or time to treatment initiation.

Time to diagnosis and treatment in younger adults with colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies. RESULTS: 55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies; N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies; N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes. DISCUSSION: Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evidence to determine if longer intervals are associated with advanced stage or worse survival. OTHER: This study's protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020179707).

Healthcare Professional and Patient Perceptions of Changes in Colorectal Cancer Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Health Inequalities.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way in which people were diagnosed and treated for cancer. We explored healthcare professional and patient perceptions of the main changes to colorectal cancer delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they impacted on socioeconomic inequalities in care. METHODS: In 2020, using a qualitative approach, we interviewed patients (n = 15) who accessed primary care with colorectal cancer symptoms and were referred for further investigations. In 2021, we interviewed a wide range of healthcare professionals (n = 30) across the cancer care pathway and gathered national and local documents/guidelines regarding changes in colorectal cancer care. RESULTS: Changes with the potential to exacerbate inequalities in care, included: the move to remote consultations; changes in symptomatic triage, new COVID testing procedures/ways to access healthcare, changes in visitor policies and treatment (e.g., shorter course radiotherapy). Changes that improved patient access/convenience or the diagnostic process have the potential to reduce inequalities in care. DISCUSSION: Changes in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic have the ongoing potential to exacerbate existing health inequalities due to changes in how patients are triaged, changes to diagnostic and disease management processes, reduced social support available to patients and potential over-reliance on digital first approaches. We provide several recommendations to help mitigate these harms, whilst harnessing the gains.

The Early Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Lung, Colorectal, and Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVES: During the coronavirus-19 pandemic, experts recommended delaying routine cancer screening and modifying treatment strategies. We sought to understand the sequalae of these recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-center analysis of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of lung, colorectal, and breast cancer. Data was collected from our institutional cancer registry. Prepandemic (2016-2019) was compared with pandemic (2020) data. RESULTS: Three thousand three sixty one screening chest computed tomography scans (CTs), 35,917 colonoscopies, and 48,093 screening mammograms were performed. There was no difference in CTs [81.0 (SEM10.0) vs. 65.6 (SEM3.29), P =0.067] or mammograms [1017.0 (SEM171.8) vs. 809.4 (SEM56.41), P =0.177] in 2020 versus prepandemic. There were fewer colonoscopies in 2020 [651.4 (SEM103.5) vs. 758.91 (SEM11.79), P =0.043]. There was a decrease in cancer diagnoses per month in 2020 of lung [22.70 (SEM1.469) vs. 28.75 (SEM0.8216), P =0.003] and breast [38.56 (SEM6.133) vs. 51.82 (SEM1.257), P =0.001], but not colorectal [13.11 (SEM1.467) vs. 15.88 (SEM0.585), P =0.074] cancer. There was no change in stage at presentation for lung ( P =0.717), breast ( P =0.115), or colorectal cancer ( P =0.180). Lung had a shorter time-to-treatment in 2020 [38.92 days (SEM 2.48) vs. 66 (SEM1.46), P =0.002]. CONCLUSIONS: In 2020, there was no difference in screening studies for lung and breast cancer but there was a decrease in new diagnoses. Although there were fewer colonoscopies performed in 2020, there was no change in new colorectal cancer diagnoses. Despite changes in guidelines during the pandemic, the time-to-treatment for lung cancer was shorter and was unchanged for colorectal and breast cancer. These findings highlight the importance of continuing care for a vulnerable patient population despite a pandemic.

Limited impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands in 2020.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on the health services worldwide. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on colorectal cancer (CRC) care in the Netherlands in 2020. METHODS: CRC patients, diagnosed in 2018-2020 in the Netherlands, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). The year 2020 was divided in four periods reflecting COVID-19 developments in the Netherlands (pre-COVID, 1st peak, recovery period, 2nd peak) and compared with the same periods in 2018/2019. Patient characteristics and treatment were compared using the Chi-squared test. Median time between diagnosis and treatment, and between (neo)adjuvant therapy and surgery were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: In total, 38,021 CRC patients were diagnosed in 2018/2019 (n = 26,816) and 2020 (n = 11,205). Median time between diagnosis and initial treatment decreased on average 4 days and median time between neoadjuvant radiotherapy and surgery in clinical stage II or III rectal cancer patients increased on average 34 days during the three COVID-19 periods compared to the same periods of 2018/2019. The proportion of colon cancer patients that underwent elective surgery significantly decreased with 3.0% during the 1st peak. No differences were found in the proportion of patients who received (neo)adjuvant therapy, systemic therapy, or no anti-cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Only minor changes in the care for CRC patients occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly during the 1st peak. In conclusion, the impact on CRC care in the Netherlands was found to be limited. However, long-term effects cannot be precluded.

Access to telehealth services for colorectal cancer patients in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic yielded rapid telehealth deployment to improve healthcare access, including for surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted a secret shopper study to assess telehealth availability for new patient and follow-up colorectal cancer care visits in a random national sample of Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals and investigated predictive facility-level factors. RESULTS: Of 397 hospitals, 302 (76%) offered telehealth for colorectal cancer patients (75% for follow-up, 42% for new patients). For new patients, NCI-designated Cancer Programs offered telehealth more frequently than Integrated Network (OR: 0.20, p = 0.01), Academic Comprehensive (OR: 0.18, p = 0.001), Comprehensive Community (OR: 0.10, p < 0.001), and Community (OR: 0.11, p < 0.001) Cancer Programs. For follow-up, above average timeliness of care hospitals offered telehealth more frequently than average hospitals (OR: 2.87, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We identified access disparities and predictive factors for telehealth availability for colorectal cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors should be considered when constructing telehealth policies.

Melbourne colorectal collaboration: a multicentre review of the impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer in Melbourne, Australia.

BACKGROUND: As coronavirus (COVID-19) cases continue to rise, healthcare workers have been working overtime to ensure that all patients receive care in a timely manner. Our study aims to identify the impact and outcomes of COVID-19 on colorectal cancers presentations across the five major colorectal units in Melbourne, Australia. METHODS: This is a retrospective study from a prospectively collected database from the binational colorectal cancer audit (BCCA) registry, as well as inpatient records. All patients with colorectal cancer between Pre-COVID-19 period (1 July 2018-2030 June 2019) and COVID-19 period (1 July 2020-2030 June 2021) were compared. Benign pathology and other cancer types were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 1609 patients were included in the study (700 Pre-COVID-19 period, 906 COVID-19 period). During COVID-19 period, there was a higher proportion of emergency surgery (28.1% vs. 19.8%; P < 0.001), a higher nodal (P = 0.024) and metastatic stage (P = 0.018) at presentation, but no increase in the rate of return to operating theatres (P = 0.240), inpatient death (P = 0.019) or 30-day readmission (P = 0.000). There was also no difference in the post-operative surgical complications (P = 0.118). Utility of neoadjuvant therapy did not increase during the pandemic (P = 0.613). CONCLUSION: The heightened measures in the healthcare system ensured CRC patients still received their surgery in a timely fashion. With the current rise in the new strain of COVID-19 (Omicron), we have to continue to come up with new strategies to provide timely access to CRC care.

Report from the Ready for the Next Round Thought-Leadership Roundtables on Building Resilience in Cancer Care and Control in Canada-Colorectal Cancer Canada; 2021.

(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated vulnerabilities in the Canadian health care system and exposed gaps and challenges across the cancer care continuum. Canada is experiencing significant disruptions to cancer-related services, and the impact these disruptions (delays/deferrals/cancellations) have on the health care system and patients are yet to be determined. Given the potential adverse ramifications, how can Canada's health care systems build resilience for future threats? (2) Methods: To answer this question, CCC facilitated a series of four thought-leadership roundtables, each representing the views of four different stakeholder groups: patients, physicians, health care system leaders, and researchers. (3) Results: Six themes of strength were identified to serve as a springboard for building resilience including, (1) advancing virtual care and digital health technologies to prevent future interruptions in cancer care delivery. (2) developing real-time data metrics, data sharing, and evidence-based decision-making. (3) enhancing public-private-non-profit partnerships to advance research and strengthen connections across the system. (4) advancing patient-centricity in cancer research to drive and encourage precision medicine approaches to care. (5) investing in training and hiring a robust supply of health care human resources. (6) implementing a national strategy and infrastructure to ensure inter-provincial collaborative data sharing (4). Conclusions: A resilient health care system that can respond to shocks and threats is not an emergency system; it is a robust everyday system that can respond to emergencies.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Population-based Study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care services worldwide. In the Netherlands, the first confirmed COVID-19 infection was on February 27, 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands. METHODS: Colorectal cancer patients who were diagnosed in 25 hospitals in weeks 2 to 26 of the year 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and divided in 4 periods. The average number of patients treated per type of initial treatment was analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age. Median time between diagnosis and treatment and between (neo)adjuvant therapy and surgery were analyzed by the Mann Whitney test. Percentages of (acute) resection, stoma and (neo)adjuvant therapy were compared using the Chi-squared test. RESULTS: In total, 1,653 patients were included. The patient population changed during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding higher stage and more clinical presentation with ileus at time of diagnosis. Slight changes were found regarding type of initial treatment. Median time between diagnosis and treatment decreased on average by 4.5 days during the pandemic. The proportion of colon cancer patients receiving a stoma significantly increased with 6.5% during the pandemic. No differences were found in resection rate and treatment with (neo)adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Despite the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global health care, the impact on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands was limited.

Impact of two waves of Sars-Cov2 outbreak on the number, clinical presentation, care trajectories and survival of patients newly referred for a colorectal cancer: A French multicentric cohort study from a large group of university hospitals.

The SARS-Cov2 may have impaired care trajectories, patient overall survival (OS), tumor stage at initial presentation for new colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. This study aimed at assessing those indicators before and after the beginning of the pandemic in France. In this retrospective cohort study, we collected prospectively the clinical data of the 11.4 million of patients referred to the Greater Paris University Hospitals (AP-HP). We identified new CRC cases between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2020, and compared indicators for 2018-2019 to 2020. pTNM tumor stage was extracted from postoperative pathology reports for localized colon cancer, and metastatic status was extracted from CT-scan baseline text reports. Between 2018 and 2020, 3602 and 1083 new colon and rectal cancers were referred to the AP-HP, respectively. The 1-year OS rates reached 94%, 93% and 76% for new CRC patients undergoing a resection of the primary tumor, in 2018-2019, in 2020 without any Sars-Cov2 infection and in 2020 with a Sars-Cov2 infection, respectively (HR 3.78, 95% CI 2.1-7.1). For patients undergoing other kind of anticancer treatment, the percentages are 64%, 66% and 27% (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3). Tumor stage at initial presentation, emergency level of primary tumor resection, delays between the first multidisciplinary meeting and the first anticancer treatment did not differ over time. The SARS-Cov2 pandemic has been associated with less newly diagnosed CRC patients and worse 1-year OS rates attributable to the infection itself rather than to its impact on hospital care delivery or tumor stage at initial presentation.

Management of colorectal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations from a statewide multidisciplinary cancer collaborative.

COVID-19 has resulted in significant disruptions in cancer care. The Illinois Cancer Collaborative (ILCC), a statewide multidisciplinary cancer collaborative, has developed expert recommendations for triage and management of colorectal cancer when disruptions occur in usual care. Such recommendations would be applicable to future outbreaks of COVID-19 or other large-scale disruptions in cancer care.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of colorectal cancer in Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a global impact on cancer care but the extent to which this has affected the management of colorectal cancer (CRC) in different countries is unknown. CRC management in Denmark was thought to have been relatively less impacted than in other nations during the first wave of the pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine the pandemic's impact on CRC in Denmark. METHODS: The Danish national cancer registry identified patients with newly diagnosed with CRC from 1 March 2020 to 1 August 2020 (pandemic interval) and corresponding dates in 2019 (prepandemic interval). Data regarding clinicopathological demographics and perioperative outcomes were retrieved and compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: Total CRC diagnoses (201 versus 359 per month, P = 0.008) and screening diagnoses (38 versus 80 per month, P = 0.016) were both lower in the pandemic interval. The proportions of patients presenting acutely and the stage at presentation were, however, unaffected. For those patients having surgery, both colonic and rectal cancer operations fell to about half the prepandemic levels: colon (187 (i.q.r. 183-188) to 96 (i.q.r. 94-112) per month, P = 0.032) and rectal cancers (63 (i.q.r. 59-75) to 32 (i.q.r. 28-42) per month, P = 0.008). No difference was seen in surgical practice or postoperative 30-day mortality rate (colon 2.2 versus 2.2 per cent, P = 0.983; rectal 1.0 versus 2.9 per cent, P = 0.118) between the cohorts. Treatment during the pandemic interval was not independently associated with death at 30 or 90 days. CONCLUSION: The initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the number of new diagnoses made and number of operations but had limited impact on technique or outcomes of CRC care in Denmark.

Association of COVID-19 Lockdown With the Tumor Burden in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with substantial reduction in screening, case identification, and hospital referrals among patients with cancer. However, no study has quantitatively examined the implications of this correlation for cancer patient management. Objective: To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown with the tumor burden of patients who were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) before vs after lockdown. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed participants in the screening procedure of the PANIRINOX (Phase II Randomized Study Comparing FOLFIRINOX + Panitumumab vs FOLFOX + Panitumumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Stratified by RAS Status from Circulating DNA Analysis) phase 2 randomized clinical trial. These newly diagnosed patients received care at 1 of 18 different clinical centers in France and were recruited before or after the lockdown was enacted in France in the spring of 2020. Patients underwent a blood-sampling screening procedure to identify their RAS and BRAF tumor status. Exposures: mCRC. Main Outcomes and Measures: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis was used to identify RAS and BRAF status. Tumor burden was evaluated by the total plasma ctDNA concentration. The median ctDNA concentration was compared in patients who underwent screening before (November 11, 2019, to March 9, 2020) vs after (May 14 to September 3, 2020) lockdown and in patients who were included from the start of the PANIRINOX study. Results: A total of 80 patients were included, of whom 40 underwent screening before and 40 others underwent screening after the first COVID-19 lockdown in France. These patients included 48 men (60.0%) and 32 women (40.0%) and had a median (range) age of 62 (37-77) years. The median ctDNA concentration was statistically higher in patients who were newly diagnosed after lockdown compared with those who were diagnosed before lockdown (119.2 ng/mL vs 17.3 ng/mL; P < .001). Patients with mCRC and high ctDNA concentration had lower median survival compared with those with lower concentration (14.7 [95% CI, 8.8-18.0] months vs 20.0 [95% CI, 14.1-32.0] months). This finding points to the potential adverse consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that tumor burden differed between patients who received an mCRC diagnosis before vs after the first COVID-19 lockdown in France. The findings of this study suggest that CRC is a major area for intervention to minimize pandemic-associated delays in screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

Lessons Learned in Managing Patients with Colorectal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OPINION STATEMENT: The COVID-19 pandemic forced us to rapidly and dramatically shift our medical priorities and decision making. With little literature or experience to rely on, the initial priority was to minimize patient exposure to the hospital and to others. It remains unclear whether cancer patients are at higher risk of infection or serious complications, or if it is our traditional therapies that place them to be at higher risk. By far, the greatest negative impact was on screening. Routine colonoscopies were considered elective, and as a result, delays in diagnosis will be felt for years to come. The most positive changes were the incorporation of tele-visits, increased use of oral therapies, alterations in treatment schedules of both chemotherapy and radiation, and an increased emphasis on neoadjuvant therapy. These too will be felt for years to come. The colorectal cancer medical community has responded collaboratively and effectively to maintain treatment and to optimize outcomes for our patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Colorectal Cancer Care and Patients' Perceptions Before and During COVID-19: Implications for Subsequent SARS-CoV-2 Infection Waves.

BACKGROUND: Changes in colorectal cancer (CRC) care planning because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and well-being of patients with CRC are unknown. We report changes in CRC care and patient-reported outcomes including HRQoL, distress, and loneliness during the first wave of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: In April 2020, 4984 patients included in the nationwide Prospective Dutch Colorectal Cancer cohort were invited to complete a COVID-19-specific questionnaire, together with the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), De Jong Gierveld, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Clinical data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Scores were compared with the year prior to COVID-19 and with an age- and sex-matched control population during COVID-19. RESULTS: In total, 3247 (65.1%) patients responded between April and June 2020. Of the patients, 17% had canceled, postponed, or changed hospital visits to a telephone or video consult, and 5.3% had adjusted, postponed, or canceled treatment. Compared with controls, patients reported worse HRQoL but comparable distress and less social loneliness (patients = 21.2%; controls = 32.9%). Compared with pre-COVID-19, clinically meaningful deterioration of HRQoL was more prevalent in patients with changes in cancer care planning than in patients without changes. Prior to undergoing or currently undergoing treatment and infection worries were associated with lower HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: CRC patients reported equal anxiety and depression but worse HRQoL than the control population. Changes in care planning were associated with deterioration of HRQoL and increased anxiety. In case of 1 or more risk factors, health-care specialists should discuss (mental) health status and possible support during future SARS-CoV-2 infection waves or comparable pandemics.

Real time remote symptom monitoring during chemotherapy for cancer: European multicentre randomised controlled trial (eSMART).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of remote monitoring of adjuvant chemotherapy related side effects via the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) on symptom burden, quality of life, supportive care needs, anxiety, self-efficacy, and work limitations. DESIGN: Multicentre, repeated measures, parallel group, evaluator masked, stratified randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twelve cancer centres in Austria, Greece, Norway, Republic of Ireland, and UK. PARTICIPANTS: 829 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin's disease, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving first line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in five years. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to ASyMS (intervention; n=415) or standard care (control; n=414) over six cycles of chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was symptom burden (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale; MSAS). Secondary outcomes were health related quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G), Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Revised (STAI-R), Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-Cancer), and work limitations questionnaire (WLQ). RESULTS: For the intervention group, symptom burden remained at pre-chemotherapy treatment levels, whereas controls reported an increase from cycle 1 onwards (least squares absolute mean difference -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.19 to -0.12; P<0.001; Cohen's D effect size=0.5). Analysis of MSAS sub-domains indicated significant reductions in favour of ASyMS for global distress index (-0.21, -0.27 to -0.16; P<0.001), psychological symptoms (-0.16, -0.23 to -0.10; P<0.001), and physical symptoms (-0.21, -0.26 to -0.17; P<0.001). FACT-G scores were higher in the intervention group across all cycles (mean difference 4.06, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 5.46; P<0.001), whereas mean scores for STAI-R trait (-1.15, -1.90 to -0.41; P=0.003) and STAI-R state anxiety (-1.13, -2.06 to -0.20; P=0.02) were lower. CASE-Cancer scores were higher in the intervention group (mean difference 0.81, 0.19 to 1.43; P=0.01), and most SCNS-SF34 domains were lower, including sexuality needs (-1.56, -3.11 to -0.01; P<0.05), patient care and support needs (-1.74, -3.31 to -0.16; P=0.03), and physical and daily living needs (-2.8, -5.0 to -0.6; P=0.01). Other SCNS-SF34 domains and WLQ were not significantly different. Safety of ASyMS was satisfactory. Neutropenic events were higher in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Significant reduction in symptom burden supports the use of ASyMS for remote symptom monitoring in cancer care. A "medium" Cohen's effect size of 0.5 showed a sizable, positive clinical effect of ASyMS on patients' symptom experiences. Remote monitoring systems will be vital for future services, particularly with blended models of care delivery arising from the covid-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02356081.