Influence of the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Care in a German Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Introduction: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the German government implemented legal restrictions to avoid the overloading of intensive care units by patients with COVID-19. The influence of these effects on diagnosis and treatment of cancer in Germany is largely unknown. Methods: To evaluate the effect of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on tumor board presentations in a high-volume tertiary referral center (the German Comprehensive Cancer Center NCT/UCC Dresden), we compared the number of presentations of gastrointestinal tumors stratified by tumor entity, tumor stage, and treatment intention during the pandemic to the respective data from previous years. Results: The number of presentations decreased by 3.2% (95% CI -8.8, 2.7) during the COVID year 2020 compared with the pre-COVID year 2019. During the first shutdown, March-May 2020, the total number of presentations was 9.4% (-18.7, 1) less than during March-May 2019. This decrease was significant for curable cases of esophageal cancer [N = 37, 25.5% (-41.8, -4.4)] and colon cancer [N = 36, 17.5% (-32.6, 1.1)] as well as for all cases of biliary tract cancer [N = 26, 50% (-69.9, -15)] during the first shutdown from March 2020 to May 2020. Conclusion: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation of oncological patients in a CCC in Germany was considerable and should be taken into account when making decisions regarding future pandemics.

Cancer patients' control preferences in decision making and associations with patient-reported outcomes: a prospective study in an outpatient cancer center.

PURPOSE: "Shared decision making" has been proposed as a prerequisite of patient-centered care. However, little is known on factors, which may influence cancer patients' decision control preferences (DCP) in routine care. This study investigated possible determinants of the patients' DCP with respect to patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting at a comprehensive cancer center between May 2014 and October 2014 were offered a self-administered electronic questionnaire including standardized PRO measures and patients' DCP. Results were linked with patient characteristics from the hospital information system and analyzed using cross-sectional methods. RESULTS: Out of 126 patients participating, 102 (81%; 65% male; mean age 62 years) completed the DCP-item. Overall, 49% (n = 50) preferred shared treatment decision responsibility, 29% (n = 30) preferred to leave the control to his/her physician, whereas 22% (n = 22) preferred to be in control of his/her treatment decision. Higher age (p = 0.035) and elevated distress levels (p = 0.038) were significantly associated with an increased willingness to leave the decision control to the physician. Further sociodemographic and PRO measures were not associated with patients' DCP. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that DCP assessment in routine cancer care is possible and provides important information to the treating oncologist. Information on DCP combined with PRO may contribute to more individualized decision making in cancer care.

A Questionnaire Study to Assess the Value of the Vulnerable Elders Survey, G8, and Predictors of Toxicity as Screening Tools for Frailty and Toxicity in Geriatric Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify an appropriate screening instrument for the identification of frail elderly patients in a tertiary cancer center. In order to improve cancer care for older patients, the use of a geriatric assessment (GA) has been proposed to identify frail patients or those who are at a higher risk for chemotherapy-related toxicities. In busy clinical routine, an appropriate screening instrument could be used to spare time- and resource-consuming application of GA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We administered the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13), G8 questionnaire, and Predictors of Toxicity (POT) as well as a GA at the first visit of 84 consecutive patients at a single Comprehensive Cancer Center. Analysis for patients' characteristics as well as sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value (npv) was conducted. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 73 years (range 63-93 years), 61.9% were male, most (63%) suffered from gastrointestinal tumors, 39.3% had a multiple cancer diagnosis, and 53.6% had metastasis. 30 (35.7%) individuals were classified as 'frail' by the GA. Sensitivity of G8 was 38.3%, and the npv was 63.8%. Sensitivity for VES-13 was 57.1%, and npv was 76.3%. Sensitivity of POT was 72.7%, and the npv was 80.6%. CONCLUSION: For the first time, the VES-13, G8, and POT are compared in a sample of older German patients. The POT seems to be a sufficient screening tool to identify frail patients in a tertiary referral cancer center and helps to save time and resources compared with a complete GA.

Electronic real-time assessment of patient-reported outcomes in routine care-first findings and experiences from the implementation in a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: Cancer patients suffer from a variety of physical and mental complaints. Since physician assessment of symptoms seems insufficient to reveal the complete range of patients' ailments, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) have become of key importance in modern cancer treatment. The implementation and first results of a systematic electronic real-time assessment of PRO in routine care is described. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting for the first time to a German comprehensive cancer center were asked to fill in an adaptive self-administered electronic questionnaire consisting of standardized PRO measures. After completion, patient-reported data was linked to the patients' medical files for discussion in the first consultation with the treating physician. Interviews with staff were conducted to identify barriers in implementation. RESULTS: Out of 160 cancer patients, 126 (79 %; mean age 63 years, 67 % males) agreed to participate. The number of recruited patients increased over time. Of participating patients, 67 % provided complete information on all PRO-related scales. On average, 31 min (range 3-140) were required to fill in the questionnaire. Of participating patients, 53.0 % comprised need for psychooncological support and 62 % revealed moderate to severe psychosocial distress. The mean score for global quality of life according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was 55.2 (SD ±25.6). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive oncological treatment needs to consider disease symptoms, quality of life, preferences, and comorbidities of individual patients in a structured, standardized, and transparent way. Our findings indicate that an adaptive, self-administered electronic assessment tool for cancer patients to report a broad set of PRO can be feasibly implemented and is well accepted by patients in a realistic setting.