Impact of the Sars-Cov-2 outbreak on the initial clinical presentation of new solid cancer diagnoses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic might have delayed cancer diagnosis and management. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the initial tumor stage of new cancer diagnoses before and after the pandemic. METHODS: We systematically reviewed articles that compared the tumor stage of new solid cancer diagnoses before and after the initial pandemic waves. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to compare the rate of metastatic tumors and the distribution of stages at diagnosis. Subgroup analyses were performed by primary tumor site and by country. RESULTS: From 2,013 studies published between January 2020 and April 2022, we included 58 studies with 109,996 patients. The rate of metastatic tumors was higher after the COVID-19 outbreak than before (pooled OR: 1.29 (95% CI, 1.06-1.57), I2: 89% (95% CI, 86-91)). For specific cancers, common ORs reached statistical significance for breast (OR: 1.51 (95% CI 1.07-2.12)) and gynecologic (OR: 1.51 (95% CI 1.04-2.18)) cancers, but not for other cancer types. According to countries, common OR (95% CI) reached statistical significance only for Italy: 1.55 (1.01-2.39) and Spain:1.14 (1.02-1.29). Rates were comparable for stage I-II versus III-IV in studies for which that information was available, and for stages I-II versus stage III in studies that did not include metastatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inter-study heterogeneity, our meta-analysis showed a higher rate of metastatic tumors at diagnosis after the pandemic. The burden of social distancing policies might explain those results, as patients may have delayed seeking care.

No changes in clinical presentation, treatment strategies and survival of pancreatic cancer cases during the SARS-COV-2 outbreak: A retrospective multicenter cohort study on real-world data.

The SARS-COV-2 pandemic disrupted healthcare systems. We assessed its impact on the presentation, care trajectories and outcomes of new pancreatic cancers (PCs) in the Paris area. We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on the data warehouse of Greater Paris University Hospitals (AP-HP). We identified all patients newly referred with a PC between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021, and excluded endocrine tumors. Using claims data and health records, we analyzed the timeline of care trajectories, the initial tumor stage, the treatment categories: pancreatectomy, exclusive systemic therapy or exclusive best supportive care (BSC). We calculated patients' 1-year overall survival (OS) and compared indicators in 2019 and 2020 to 2021. We included 2335 patients. Referral fell by 29% during the first lockdown. The median time from biopsy and from first MDM to treatment were 25 days (16-50) and 21 days (11-40), respectively. Between 2019 and 2020 to 2021, the rate of metastatic tumors (36% vs 33%, P = .39), the pTNM distribution of the 464 cases with upfront tumor resection (P = .80), and the proportion of treatment categories did not vary: tumor resection (32% vs 33%), exclusive systemic therapy (49% vs 49%), exclusive BSC (19% vs 19%). The 1-year OS rates in 2019 vs 2020 to 2021 were 92% vs 89% (aHR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.82-2.48), 52% vs 56% (aHR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.08), 13% vs 10% (aHR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.25), in the treatment categories, respectively. Despite an initial decrease in the number of new PCs, we did not observe any stage shift. OS did not vary significantly.

Development of a natural language processing model for deriving breast cancer quality indicators : A cross-sectional, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: Medico-administrative data are promising to automate the calculation of Healthcare Quality and Safety Indicators. Nevertheless, not all relevant indicators can be calculated with this data alone. Our feasibility study objective is to analyze 1) the availability of data sources; 2) the availability of each indicator elementary variables, and 3) to apply natural language processing to automatically retrieve such information. METHOD: We performed a multicenter cross-sectional observational feasibility study on the clinical data warehouse of Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). We studied the management of breast cancer patients treated at AP-HP between January 2019 and June 2021, and the quality indicators published by the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialist, using claims data from the Programme de Médicalisation du Système d'Information (PMSI) and pathology reports. For each indicator, we calculated the number (%) of patients for whom all necessary data sources were available, and the number (%) of patients for whom all elementary variables were available in the sources, and for whom the related HQSI was computable. To extract useful data from the free text reports, we developed and validated dedicated rule-based algorithms, whose performance metrics were assessed with recall, precision, and f1-score. RESULTS: Out of 5785 female patients diagnosed with a breast cancer (60.9 years, IQR [50.0-71.9]), 5,147 (89.0%) had procedures related to breast cancer recorded in the PMSI, and 3732 (72.5%) had at least one surgery. Out of the 34 key indicators, 9 could be calculated with the PMSI alone, and 6 others became so using the data from pathology reports. Ten elementary variables were needed to calculate the 6 indicators combining the PMSI and pathology reports. The necessary sources were available for 58.8% to 94.6% of patients, depending on the indicators. The extraction algorithms developed had an average accuracy of 76.5% (min-max [32.7%-93.3%]), an average precision of 77.7% [10.0%-97.4%] and an average sensitivity of 71.6% [2.8% to 100.0%]. Once these algorithms applied, the variables needed to calculate the indicators were extracted for 2% to 88% of patients, depending on the indicators. DISCUSSION: The availability of medical reports in the electronic health records, of the elementary variables within the reports, and the performance of the extraction algorithms limit the population for which the indicators can be calculated. CONCLUSIONS: The automated calculation of quality indicators from electronic health records is a prospect that comes up against many practical obstacles.

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.

Reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus among intensive care patients: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Herpesvirus reactivation has been documented among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, particularly for cytomegalovirus (CMV). Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) has been poorly studied despite >95% of the population being seropositive. Our preliminary study suggested an association between EBV reactivation and increased morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to investigate this association among patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective study, polymerase chain reaction was performed to quantify EBV in patients upon ICU admission and then twice a week during their stay. Follow-up was 90 days. RESULTS: The study included 129 patients; 70 (54.3%) had EBV reactivation. On day 90, there was no difference in mortality rates between patients with and without reactivation (25.7% vs 15.3%, p = 0.22). Patients with EBV reactivation at admission had increased mortality compared with those without reactivation and those with later reactivation. EBV reactivation was associated with increased morbidity. Patients with EBV reactivation had fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 than those without reactivation (18 [1-22] vs. 21 days [5-26], p = 0.037) and a higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.3% vs. 17%, p = 0.04), infections (92.9% vs. 78%, p = 0.03), and septic shock (58.6% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.004). More patients with EBV reactivation required renal replacement therapy (30% vs. 11.9%, p = 0.02). EBV reactivation was also associated with a more inflammatory immune profile. CONCLUSION: While EBV reactivation was not associated with increased 90-day mortality, it was associated with significantly increased morbidity.

"In conferences, everyone goes 'health data is the future' ": an interview study on challenges in re-using EHR data for research in Clinical Data Warehouses.

More and more hospital Clinical Data Warehouses (CDWs) are developed to gain access to EHR data. The rapid growth of investments in CDWs suggest a real potential for innovation in healthcare. However, it is still not confirmed that CDWs will deliver on their promises as researchers working with CDWs face many challenges. To gain a better understanding of these challenges and how to overcome them, we conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with EHR data experts. In this article, we share some initial results from the ongoing interview study. Two main themes emerged from the analysis of the transcripts of the interviews: the importance of infrastructures in terms of data and how it is generated, and the difficulty to make care, clinical research, and data science work together. Finally, based on the experts' experience, several recommendations were identified when using a CDW.

Why Are Data Missing in Clinical Data Warehouses? A Simulation Study of How Data Are Processed (and Can Be Lost).

In recent years, the development of clinical data warehouses (CDW) has put Electronic Health Records (EHR) data in the spotlight. More and more innovative technologies for healthcare are based on these EHR data. However, quality assessments on EHR data are fundamental to gain confidence in the performances of new technologies. The infrastructure developed to access EHR data - CDW - can affect EHR data quality but its impact is difficult to measure. We conducted a simulation on the Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) infrastructure to assess how a study on breast cancer care pathways could be affected by the complexity of the data flows between the AP-HP Hospital Information System, the CDW, and the analysis platform. A model of the data flows was developed. We retraced the flows of specific data elements for a simulated cohort of 1,000 patients. We estimated that 756 [743;770] and 423 [367;483] patients had all the data elements necessary to reconstruct the care pathway in the analysis platform in the "best case" scenarios (losses affect the same patients) and in a random distribution scenario (losses affect patients at random), respectively.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical presentation, treatments, and outcomes of new breast cancer patients: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS CoV-2 pandemic disrupted healthcare systems. We compared the cancer stage for new breast cancers (BCs) before and during the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on the data warehouse of Greater Paris University Hospitals (AP-HP). We identified all female patients newly referred with a BC in 2019 and 2020. We assessed the timeline of their care trajectories, initial tumor stage, and treatment received: BC resection, exclusive systemic therapy, exclusive radiation therapy, or exclusive best supportive care (BSC). We calculated patients' 1-year overall survival (OS) and compared indicators in 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: In 2019 and 2020, 2055 and 1988, new BC patients underwent cancer treatment, and during the two lockdowns, the BC diagnoses varied by -18% and by +23% compared to 2019. De novo metastatic tumors (15% and 15%, p = 0.95), pTNM and ypTNM distributions of 1332 cases with upfront resection and of 296 cases with neoadjuvant therapy did not differ (p = 0.37, p = 0.3). The median times from first multidisciplinary meeting and from diagnosis to treatment of 19 days (interquartile 11-39 days) and 35 days (interquartile 22-65 days) did not differ. Access to plastic surgery (15% and 17%, p = 0.08) and to treatment categories did not vary: tumor resection (73% and 72%), exclusive systemic therapy (13% and 14%), exclusive radiation therapy (9% and 9%), exclusive BSC (5% and 5%) (p = 0.8). Among resected patients, the neoadjuvant therapy rate was lower in 2019 (16%) versus 2020 (20%) (p = 0.02). One-year OS rates were 99.3% versus 98.9% (HR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77-1.2), 72.6% versus 76.6% (HR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.95-1.72), 96.6% versus 97.8% (HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.61-1.94), and 15.5% versus 15.1% (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.37), in the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a decrease in the number of new BCs, there was no tumor stage shift, and OS did not vary.

Influence of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak on management and prognosis of new lung cancer cases, a retrospective multicentre real-life cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has impacted the care of cancer patients. This study sought to assess the pandemic's impact on the clinical presentations and outcomes of newly referred patients with lung cancer from the Greater Paris area. METHODS: We retrospectively retrieved the electronic health records and administrative data of 11.4 million patients pertaining to Greater Paris University Hospital (AP-HP). We compared indicators for the 2018-2019 period to those of 2020 in regard to newly referred lung cancer cases. We assessed the initial tumour stage, the delay between the first multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) and anticancer treatment initiation, and 6-month overall survival (OS) rates depending on the anticancer treatment, including surgery, palliative systemic treatment, and best supportive care (BSC). RESULT: Among 6240 patients with lung cancer, 2179 (35%) underwent tumour resection, 2069 (33%) systemic anticancer therapy, 775 (12%) BSC, whereas 1217 (20%) did not receive any treatment. During the first lockdown, the rate of new diagnoses decreased by 32% compared with that recorded in 2018-2019. Initial tumour stage, repartition of patients among treatment categories, and MTB-related delays remained unchanged. The 6-month OS rates of patients diagnosed in 2018-2019 who underwent tumour resection were 98% versus 97% (HR = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.0) for those diagnosed in 2020; the respective rates for patients who underwent systemic anticancer therapy were 78% versus 79% (HR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.8-1.2); these rates were 20% versus 13% (HR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) for those who received BSC. COVID-19 was associated with poorer OS rates (HR = 2.1; 95% CI: 1.6-3.0) for patients who received systemic anticancer therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has not exerted any deleterious impact on 6-month OS of new lung cancer patients that underwent active anticancer therapy in Greater Paris University hospitals.

Clinical Relevance of Pharmacist Intervention: Development of a Named Entity Recognition Model on Unstructured Comments.

We developed a clinical named entity recognition model to predict clinical relevance of pharmacist interventions (PIs) by identifying and labelling expressions from unstructured comments of PIs. Three labels, drug, kidney and dosage, had a great inter-annotator agreement (>60%) and could be used as reference labelization. These labels also showed a high precision (>70%) and a variable recall (50-90 %).

New cancer cases at the time of SARS-Cov2 pandemic and related public health policies: A persistent and concerning decrease long after the end of the national lockdown.

INTRODUCTION: The dissemination of SARS-Cov2 may have delayed the diagnosis of new cancers. This study aimed at assessing the number of new cancers during and after the lockdown. METHODS: We prospectively collected the clinical data of the 11.4 million patients referred to the Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris Teaching Hospital. We identified new cancer cases between 1st January 2018 and 31st September 2020 and compared indicators for 2018 and 2019 to 2020 with a focus on the French lockdown (17th March to 11th May 2020) across cancer types and patient age classes. RESULTS: Between January and September, 28,348, 27,272 and 23,734 new cancer cases were identified in 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. The monthly median number of new cases reached 3168 (interquartile range, IQR, 3027; 3282), 3054 (IQR 2945; 3127) and 2723 (IQR 2085; 2,863) in 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. From March 1st to May 31st, new cancer decreased by 30% in 2020 compared to the 2018-19 average; then by 9% from 1st June to 31st September. This evolution was consistent across all tumour types: -30% and -9% for colon, -27% and -6% for lung, -29% and -14% for breast, -33% and -12% for prostate cancers, respectively. For patients aged <70 years, the decrease of colorectal and breast new cancers in April between 2018 and 2019 average and 2020 reached 41% and 39%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SARS-Cov2 pandemic led to a substantial decrease in new cancer cases. Delays in cancer diagnoses may affect clinical outcomes in the coming years.

Clinical History Segment Extraction from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Assessments to Model Disease Trajectories.

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a long-term illness with a wide range of symptoms and condition trajectories. To improve the understanding of these, automated analysis of large amounts of patient data holds promise. Routinely documented assessments are useful for large-scale analysis, however relevant information is mainly in free text. As a first step to extract symptom and condition trajectories, natural language processing (NLP) methods are useful to identify important textual content and relevant information. In this paper, we propose an agnostic NLP method of extracting segments of patients' clinical histories in CFS assessments. Moreover, we present initial results on the advantage of using these segments to quantify and analyse the presence of certain clinically relevant concepts.