Planning for post-pandemic cancer care delivery: Recovery or opportunity for redesign?

The delivery of cancer care has never changed as rapidly and dramatically as we have seen with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. During the early phase of the pandemic, recommendations for the management of oncology patients issued by various professional societies and government agencies did not recognize the significant regional differences in the impact of the pandemic. California initially experienced lower than expected numbers of cases, and the health care system did not experience the same degree of the burden that had been the case in other parts of the country. In light of promising trends in COVID-19 infections and mortality in California, by late April 2020, discussions were initiated for a phased recovery of full-scale cancer services. However, by July 2020, a surge of cases was reported across the nation, including in California. In this review, the authors share the response and recovery planning experience of the University of California (UC) Cancer Consortium in an effort to provide guidance to oncology practices. The UC Cancer Consortium was established in 2017 to bring together 5 UC Comprehensive Cancer Centers: UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Irvine Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, and the UC San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. The interventions implemented in each of these cancer centers are highlighted, with a focus on opportunities for a redesign in care delivery models. The authors propose that their experiences gained during this pandemic will enhance pre-pandemic cancer care delivery.

Analyzing outcomes of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment for borderline-resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the perioperative period at an academic institution.

BACKGROUND: Only 15-20% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients are upfront surgical candidates at presentation, and for this cohort of patients, the 5-year survival is a mere 20% despite adjuvant therapy. Previous data indicate that in clinical practice most of these cases are "borderline-resectable," and there is currently no mature data on perioperative treatment. METHODS: We performed a retrospective electronic chart review of patients with "borderline-resectable"PDAC treated at an academic comprehensive cancer center, dividing them into groups based on surgery alone, surgery plus neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or neoadjuvant plus adjuvant perioperative treatment groups. The objectives were to determine the median overall survival (mOS), progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Statistical analysis was performed to assess the association of demographic, tumor traits, and interventions with OS, PFS and DFS. RESULTS: Only surgery followed by adjuvant therapy showed an increase in mOS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51; P<0.001), after adjustment for radiation (yes vs. no), resection margins (R0 vs. R1 or R2), and tumor location (head vs. body or tail). Patients who received adjuvant therapy after surgery had 2.1 times greater odds to be alive at 24 months after diagnosis than those who had surgery alone (P=0.015). PFS and DFS were not statistically significantly different among treatment groups after adjustment. Those whose disease was located in the head of the pancreas had a significantly improved OS (HR =0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.64; P=0.003), PFS (HR =0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.94; P=0.035), and DFS (HR =0.30; 95% CI, 0.13-0.67; P=0.004). Negative margins led to a significant improvement in PFS (HR =0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57; P<0.001) and DFS (HR =0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57; P<0.001). Those who received radiation had a non-significantly improved OS, PFS, and DFS (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study corroborated that patients treated with adjuvant therapy after surgical resection had an mOS benefit as reported on prior phase III clinical trials. Patients with "borderline-resectable" pancreatic cancer are encouraged to participate in a clinical trial or clinically be treated with adjuvant therapy until more mature results from the ongoing perioperative prospective study are available.

Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin in gastrointestinal cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal cancer (GICA) is associated with a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to other solid tumors, moreover, recurrent VTE and major bleeding (MB) complications during anticoagulation treatment have an associated increase rate. GICA-VTE remains a challenging clinical scenario with MB concerns for utilization of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), especially with active cancer therapies. AIM: To evaluate patient risk factors, effectiveness (VTE) and safety (MB) of DOACs and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with active GICA-VTE. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients receiving DOACs and LMWH with GICA and symptomatic or incidental VTE treated at comprehensive cancer center from November 2013 to February 2017 was performed. Inclusion criteria included active GI cancer diagnosed at any stage or treatment +/- 6 mo of VTE diagnosis, whom were prescribed 6 mo or more of DOACs or LMWH. The Chi-squared test was used for overall and the Fisher exact test for pairwise comparisons of the proportions of patients experiencing recurrent VTE and MB events. Odds ratios were used to compare the relative odds of the occurrence of the outcome given exposure to the risk factor. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were prescribed anticoagulation, in which 106 fulfilled inclusion criteria apixaban (27.3%), rivaroxaban (34.9%) and enoxaparin (37.7%), and 38 were excluded. Patients median age was 66.5 years at GICA diagnosis and 67 years at CAVTE event, with 62% males, 80% Caucasian, 70% stage IV, pancreatic cancer (40.5%), 30% Khorana Score (≥ 3 points), and 43.5% on active chemotherapy. Sixty-four percent of patients completed anticoagulation therapy (range 1 to 43 mo). Recurrent VTE at 6 mo was noted in 7.5% (n = 3), 6.8% (n = 2) and 2.7% (n = 1) of patients on enoxaparin, apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively (all P = NS). MB at 6 mo were 5% (n = 2) for enoxaparin, 6.8% (n = 2) for apixaban and 21.6% (n = 8) for rivaroxaban (overall P = 0.048; vs LMWH P = 0.0423; all other P = NS). Significant predictors of a primary or secondary outcome for all anticoagulation therapies included: Active systemic treatment (OR = 5.1, 95%CI: 1.3-19.3), high Khorana Score [≥ 3 points] (OR = 5.5, 95%CI: 1.7-17.1), active smoker (OR = 6.7, 95%CI: 2.1-21.0), pancreatic cancer (OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 1.9-23.2), and stage IV disease (OR = 9.9, 95%CI: 1.2-79.1). CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban compared to apixaban and enoxaparin had a significantly higher risk of MB on GICA-VTE patients with equivocal efficacy.