"Sorry, no results found": evaluating LGBTQIA + inclusivity of U.S. cancer centers' websites.

PURPOSE: Cancer care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other sexuality and gender diverse (LGBTQIA +) individuals is marked by disparities stemming from a history of discrimination, stigma, and systemic inequities. For LGBTQIA + individuals seeking cancer care, cancer center websites may be a first point of contact with healthcare. Two complementary studies sought to evaluate the LGBTQIA + inclusivity of cancer centers' websites. METHODS: The authors conducted two studies in 2022-2023, reviewing the websites of National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and Children's Oncology Group (COG)-designated health systems and cancer centers. Reviewers manually searched websites and coded several Yes/No criteria for LGBTQIA + inclusivity. RESULTS: Among the 65 NCI cancer centers' websites in 2023, 66% included a nondiscrimination statement, 71% mentioned LGBTQIA + health disparities, 65% included LGBTQIA + tailored resources, and 66% had articles about LGBTQIA + health. There was a trend of increased inclusivity across categories from 2022 to 2023. Among the 204 COG-designated health system websites in 2023, there were 60 pediatric care websites and 144 lifespan care websites. A total of 79.9% of COG health system websites referenced LGBTQIA + patients (80.0% of pediatric and 79.9% of lifespan sites), 16.7% of COG cancer center websites referenced LGBTQIA + patients in the context of cancer care (6.7% of pediatric and 20.8% of lifespan sites), and 82.4% yielded results when search terms were input (83.3% of pediatric and 81.9% of lifespan sites). CONCLUSIONS: Adult and pediatric cancer centers' websites have varying levels of LGBTQIA + inclusivity based on nondiscrimination statements, articles, and the availability of LGBTQIA + resources. While there have been some improvements in inclusivity on the NCI-designated cancer centers' websites between 2022 and 2023, there is a need for further improvement.

Assessment of Albumin Usage Patterns and Appropriateness in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre: A retrospective study in Jordan.

Objectives: Albumin is commonly used for various indications; however, there is conflicting data regarding its appropriate use in different clinical cases. This study aimed to determine the pattern and appropriateness of albumin use among cancer patients at the King Hussein Cancer Center in Jordan. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on adult cancer patients who were prescribed albumin between January 2019 and July 2020 in both outpatient and inpatient settings. Data collected included demographics, prescribing services, indications and dosing regimens. A literature review was performed using PubMed to assess the appropriateness of albumin indications and dosing regimens against current guidelines, drug information resources and the package insert. Results: Albumin was prescribed to 1,361 patients during the study period. Each patient received an average of 74.4 ± 89 g of albumin for an average of 2.6 ± 1.8 days. Albumin use was deemed appropriate in 69% of the patients. The critical care service accounted for the highest albumin consumption, with 37% of prescriptions for septic shock. Inappropriate use of albumin was most prevalent in the medical solid tumour services (40.8% of prescriptions), primarily for edema (28%). Conclusion: To the best of the author's knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate albumin use in a large cohort of oncology patients. Approximately one-third of the albumin prescriptions were considered inappropriate. Continuous education on appropriate usage and regular evaluations of guideline adherence are essential to ensure proper utilisation of albumin in cancer care.

Factors influencing fidelity to guideline implementation strategies for improving pain care at cancer centres: a qualitative sub-study of the Stop Cancer PAIN Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Stop Cancer PAIN Trial was a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial which compared effectiveness of screening and guidelines with or without implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending six Australian outpatient comprehensive cancer centres (n = 688). A system for pain screening was introduced before observation of a 'control' phase. Implementation strategies introduced in the 'intervention' phase included: (1) audit of adherence to guideline recommendations, with feedback to clinical teams; (2) health professional education via an email-administered 'spaced education' module; and (3) a patient education booklet and self-management resource. Selection of strategies was informed by the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model (Michie et al., 2011) and evidence for each strategy's stand-alone effectiveness. A consultant physician at each centre supported the intervention as a 'clinical champion'. However, fidelity to the intervention was limited, and the Trial did not demonstrate effectiveness. This paper reports a sub-study of the Trial which aimed to identify factors inhibiting or enabling fidelity to inform future guideline implementation initiatives. METHODS: The qualitative sub-study enabled in-depth exploration of factors from the perspectives of personnel at each centre. Clinical champions, clinicians and clinic receptionists were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Analysis used a framework method and a largely deductive approach based on the COM-B Model. RESULTS: Twenty-four people participated, including 15 physicians, 8 nurses and 1 clinic receptionist. Coding against the COM-B Model identified 'capability' to be the most influential component, with 'opportunity' and 'motivation' playing largely subsidiary roles. Findings suggest that fidelity could have been improved by: considering the readiness for change of each clinical setting; better articulating the intervention's value proposition; defining clinician roles and responsibilities, addressing perceptions that pain care falls beyond oncology clinicians' scopes of practice; integrating the intervention within existing systems and processes; promoting patient-clinician partnerships; investing in clinical champions among senior nursing and junior medical personnel, supported by medical leaders; and planning for slow incremental change rather than rapid uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Future guideline implementation interventions may require a 'meta-implementation' approach based on complex systems theory to successfully integrate multiple strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number: ACTRN 12615000064505; data: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspxid=367236&isReview=true .

Quality criteria and certification for paediatric oncology centres: an international cross-sectional survey.

Quality criteria and certification possibilities for paediatric oncology centres vary between countries and are not widely used. An overview of the type and how quality criteria and certifications are used in countries with highly developed healthcare systems is missing. This international cross-sectional survey investigated the use of quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres and whether certification is possible. We sent an online survey to paediatric oncologists from 32 countries worldwide and analysed the survey results and provided regional or national documents on quality criteria and certification possibilities descriptively. Paediatric oncologists from 28 (88%) countries replied. In most countries, the paediatric oncology centres were partly or completely grown historically (75%), followed by the development based on predefined criteria (29%), and due to political reason (25%), with more than one reason in some countries. Quality criteria are available in 20 countries (71%). We newly identified or specified five quality criteria, in addition to those from a previously performed systematic review. Certification of paediatric oncology centres is possible in 13 countries (46%), with a specific certification for paediatric oncology in seven, and a mandatory certification in three of them. The use of quality criteria and certification possibilities are heterogeneous, with quality criteria being more frequently used than certifications. Our study provides an overview of country-specific documents and links with quality criteria, and centre certification possibilities. It can serve as a reference document for stakeholders and may inform an international harmonization of quality criteria and centre certification between countries with similar healthcare systems.

Evaluation of NCI-Designated Cancer Center and Comprehensive Cancer Center Survivorship-Focused Websites: Information Provided and Accessibility.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a history of cancer increasingly seek health information from online resources, including NCI-designated Cancer Center websites. Centers receive NCI designation because they provide excellent care and engage in cutting-edge research. However, the information presented on these webpages and their accessibility is unknown. An evaluation of the survivorship-focused webpages from NCI-designated Cancer Centers is needed to assess survivorship information and accessibility of these webpages. METHODS: We conducted an evaluation of the survivorship-focused webpages from 64 NCI-designated Cancer Centers. We evaluated where survivorship-focused webpages were housed, if there was a survivorship clinic or program, target audience of the webpage, how cancer survivor was defined, contact methods, and available resources. Accessibility outcomes included readability, font type, font size, color scheme, and alternative text (alt text) descriptors. An artificial intelligence (AI) audit was conducted to assess if the webpage was compliant with national accessibility guidelines. RESULTS: Most cancer centers had a survivorship-focused webpage, with 72% located on the cancer center's website and 28% on a health system website. Survivorship information available varied considerably and was often lacking in detail. Although three-quarters of webpages targeted patients only, variable definitions of cancer survivor were observed. Accessibility issues identified included inconsistent use of alt text descriptors, font size smaller than 15 points, and color schemes without adequate contrast. The average reading-level of information presented was above 12th grade. Only 9% of webpages were compliant with online accessibility guidelines; 72% semicompliant and 21% were noncompliant. CONCLUSIONS: Information presented on NCI-designated Cancer Center survivorship-focused webpages was inconsistent, often lacking, and inaccessible. NCI-designated Cancer Centers are role models for cancer research in the United States and have an obligation to provide survivorship information. Changes to content and website design are needed to provide better information for individuals seeking resources and health information relative to their cancer and care.

Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer.

Importance: Since 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability. Objective: To determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023. Exposure: CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Questions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category. Results: There were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

Evaluation of a deep image-to-image network (DI2IN) auto-segmentation algorithm across a network of cancer centers.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE S: Due to manual OAR contouring challenges, various automatic contouring solutions have been introduced. Historically, common clinical auto-segmentation algorithms used were atlas-based, which required maintaining a library of self-made contours. Searching the collection was computationally intensive and could take several minutes to complete. Deep learning approaches have shown significant benefits compared to atlas-based methods in improving segmentation accuracy and efficiency in auto-segmentation algorithms. This work represents the first multi-institutional study to describe and evaluate an AI algorithm for the auto-segmentation of organs at risk (OARs) based on a deep image-to-image network (DI2IN). MATERIALS/METHODS: The AI-Rad Companion Organs RT (AIRC) algorithm (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) uses a two-step approach for segmentation. In the first step, the target organ region in the optimal input image is extracted using a trained deep reinforcement learning network (DRL), which is then used as input to create the contours in the second step based on DI2IN. The study was initially designed as a prospective single-center evaluation. The automated contours generated by AIRC were evaluated by three experienced board-certified radiation oncologists using a four-point scale where 4 is clinically usable and 1 requires re-contouring. After seeing favorable results in a single-center pilot study, we decided to expand the study to six additional institutions, encompassing eight additional evaluators for a total of 11 physician evaluators across seven institutions. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six patients and 1366 contours were prospectively evaluated. The five most commonly contoured organs were the lung (136 contours, average rating = 4.0), spinal cord (106 contours, average rating = 3.1), eye globe (80 contours, average rating = 3.9), lens (77 contours, average rating = 3.9), and optic nerve (75 contours, average rating = 4.0). The average rating per evaluator per contour was 3.6. On average, 124 contours were evaluated by each evaluator. 65% of the contours were rated as 4, and 31% were rated as 3. Only 4% of contours were rated as 1 or 2. Thirty-three organs were evaluated in the study, with 19 structures having a 3.5 or above average rating (ribs, abdominopelvic cavity, skeleton, larynx, lung, aorta, brachial plexus, lens, eye globe, glottis, heart, parotid glands, bladder, kidneys, supraglottic larynx, submandibular glands, esophagus, optic nerve, oral cavity) and the remaining organs having a rating of 3.0 or greater (female breast, proximal femur, seminal vesicles, rectum, sternum, brainstem, prostate, brain, lips, mandible, liver, optic chiasm, spinal cord, spleen). No organ had an average rating below 3. CONCLUSION: AIRC performed well with greater than 95% of contours accepted by treating physicians with no or minor edits. It supported a fully automated workflow with the potential for time savings and increased standardization with the use of AI-powered algorithms for high-quality OAR contouring.

Implementation of quality indicators for vulvar cancer in gynaecological cancer centres certified by the German Cancer Society (DKG).

PURPOSE: In 2018, the first guideline-based quality indicators (QI) for vulvar cancer were implemented in the data-sheets of certified gynaecological cancer centres. The certification process includes guideline-based QIs as a fundamental component. These indicators are specifically designed to evaluate the level of care provided within the centres. This article aims to give an overview of the developing process of guideline based-QIs for women with vulvar cancer and presents the QIs results from the certified gynaecological cancer centres. METHODS: The QIs were derived in a standardized multiple step process during the update of the 2015 S2k guideline "Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up Care of Vulvar Cancer and its Precursors" (registry-number: no. 015/059) and are based on strong recommendations. RESULTS: In total, there are eight guideline-based QIs for vulvar cancer. Four QIs are part of the certification process. In the treatment year 2021, 2.466 cases of vulvar cancer were treated in 177 centres. The target values in the centres for pathology reports on tumour resection and lymphadenectomy as well as sentinel lymph nodes have increased since the beginning of the certification process and have been above 90% over the past three treatment years (2019-2021). DISCUSSION: QIs based on strong guideline recommendations, play a crucial role in measuring and allowing to quantify essential aspects of patient care. By utilizing QIs, centres are able to identify areas for process optimization and draw informed conclusions. Over the years the quality of treatment of vulvar cancer patients measured by the QIs was improved. The certification system is continuously reviewed to enhance patient care even further by using the outcomes from QIs revaluation.

Enhancing Implementation of the I-PASS Handoff Tool Using a Provider Handoff Task Force at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Communication failures are among the most common causes of harmful medical errors. At one Comprehensive Cancer Center, patient handoffs varied among services. The authors describe the implementation and results of an organization-wide project to improve handoffs and implement an evidence-based handoff tool across all inpatient services. METHODS: The research team created a task force composed of members from 22 hospital services-advanced practice providers (APPs), trainees, some faculty members, electronic health record (EHR) staff, education and training specialists, and nocturnal providers. Over two years, the task force expanded to include consulting services and Anesthesiology. Factors contributing to ineffective handoffs were identified and organized into categories. The EHR I-PASS tool was used to standardize handoff documentation. Training was provided to staff on its use, and compliance was monitored using a customized dashboard. I-PASS champions in each service were responsible for the rollout of I-PASS in their respective services. The data were reported quarterly to the Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) governing committee. Provider handoff perception was assessed through the biennial Institution-wide safety culture survey. RESULTS: All fellows, residents, APPs, and physician assistants were trained in the use of I-PASS, either online or in person. Adherence to the I-PASS written tool improved from 41.6% in 2019 to 70.5% in 2022 (p < 0.05), with improvements seen in most services. The frequency of updating I-PASS elements and the action list in the handoff tool also increased over time. The handoff favorability score on the safety culture survey improved from 38% in 2018 to 59% in 2022. CONCLUSION: The implementation approach developed by the Provider Handoff Task Force led to increased use of the I-PASS EHR tool and improved safety culture survey handoff favorability.

[Quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany: An analysis based on data of the Bavarian Cancer Registry]. / Qualitätsgesicherte Behandlung in zertifizierten Versorgungsnetzwerken von Patientinnen mit Mammakarzinom in der Region Oberfranken: Eine Analyse auf Basis von Bayerischen Krebsregisterdaten.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the most common cancer-related cause of death among women in Germany. The treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks is recommended to ensure high-quality care. The aim of the study was to determine the percentage of breast cancer patients receiving cancer treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany. METHODS: This study considered the location of treatment and the certification status of providers with regard to initial diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation during breast cancer care. Based on this, we compared patient characteristics receiving cancer care in certified and non-certified cancer centres and their networks. The evaluation was based on a dataset of the Bavarian Cancer Registry (4/2017-3/2022). RESULTS: The analysis included 5,545 primary tumors from a total of 5,355 patients (age: 64.5±14.2 years; 99.2% female). The percentage of patients receiving care in certified breast cancer centre networks was 78.8% for initial diagnosis, 82.6% for surgery, 79.5% for chemotherapy, and 99.6% for radiation, respectively. The weighted mean across all treatment sequences was 84.3%. Patients receiving care in certified care networks were significantly younger for three therapy sequences (p+<+0.001). In addition, an above-average proportion of patients with advanced tumor stages were treated in non-certified care networks, especially for diagnosis and surgery (p+<+0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the different treatment sequences, we found differences in the proportion of patients who received quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia. When comparing similar analysis, the results show an average care percentage of patients receiving care in certified care networks. Furthermore, it should be ensured that patients receive comprehensive information about receiving care in certified cancer centre networks.

Outcome variation and the role of caseload in certified colorectal cancer centers - a retrospective cohort analysis of 90 000 cases.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that surgical treatment of colorectal carcinomas in certified centers leads to improved outcomes. However, there were considerable fluctuations in outcome parameters. It has not yet been examined whether this variability is due to continuous differences between hospitals or variability within a hospital over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective observational cohort study, administrative quality assurance data of 153 German-certified colorectal cancer centers between 2010 and 2019 were analyzed. Six outcome quality indicators (QIs) were studied: 30-day postoperative mortality (POM) rate, surgical site infection (SSI) rate, anastomotic insufficiency (AI) rate, and revision surgery (RS) rate. AI and RS were also analyzed for colon (C) and rectal cancer operations (R). Variability was analyzed by funnel plots with 95% and 99% control limits and modified Cleveland dot plots. RESULTS: In the 153 centers, 90 082 patients with colon cancer and 47 623 patients with rectal cancer were treated. Average QI scores were 2.7% POM, 6.2% SSI, 4.8% AI-C, 8.5% AI-R, 9.1% RS-C, and 9.8% RS-R. The funnel plots revealed that for every QI, about 10.1% of hospitals lay above the upper 99% and about 8.7% below the lower 99% control limit. In POM, SSI, and AI-R, a significant negative correlation with the average annual caseload was observed. CONCLUSION: The analysis showed high variability in outcome quality between and within the certified colorectal cancer centers. Only a small number of hospitals had a high performance on all six QIs, suggesting that significant quality variation exists even within the group of certified centers.

Assessing characteristics of populations seen at Commission on Cancer facilities using Pennsylvania linked data.

Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation certifies facilities provide quality care. We assessed differences among patients who do and do not visit CoC facilities using Pennsylvania Cancer Registry data linked to facility records for patients diagnosed with cancer between 2018 and 2019 (n = 87 472). Predicted probabilities from multivariable logistic regression indicated patients in the most advantaged Area Deprivation Index quartiles were more likely to visit CoC facilities (78.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.5% to 78.6%) compared with other quartiles. Urban patients (74.1%, 95% CI = 73.8% to 74.4%) were more likely than rural to be seen at a CoC facility (62.7%, 95% CI = 61.2% to 64.2%) as were Hispanic patients (88.0%, 95% CI = 86.7% to 89.3%) and non-Hispanic Black patients (79.1%, 95% CI = 78.1% to 80.0%) compared with White patients (72.0%, 95% CI = 71.7% to 72.4%). Differences in demographics suggest CoC data may underrepresent some groups, including low-income and rural patients.

[The oncology residency program in French overseas]. / L'internat d'oncologie en outre-mer français.

Once his specialty has been chosen, and according to his ranking, the new resident in oncology decides on the subdivision in which he wishes to be among the 28 existing subdivisions. Two concern overseas departments and territories: the Antilles-Guyana subdivision and the Indian Ocean subdivision. The oncology residency has its own particularities because of the demographic characteristics and epidemiology of cancers in these areas, but also because of a particular organization of care and university teaching. The training of residents in these subdivisions is little known. Over the past ten years, most of the residents have been trained in oncology-radiotherapy in these subdivisions and some of them in medical oncology. The residency program is however experiencing a revival in terms of university education in parallel with the development of technical and human equipment in the centres of these regions. This article details the training of residents in oncology in French overseas territories by contextualizing it with epidemiological data and the characteristics of the oncology care offer in these territories.

Surgical volume threshold to improve 3-year survival in designated cancer care hospitals in 2004-2012 in Japan.

In Japan, cancer care hospitals designated by the national government have a surgical volume requirement of 400 annually, which is not necessarily defined based on patient outcomes. This study aimed to estimate surgical volume thresholds that ensure optimal 3-year survival for three periods. In total, 186 965 patients who had undergone surgery for solid cancers in 66 designated cancer care hospitals in Osaka between 2004 and 2012 were examined using data from a population-based cancer registry. These hospitals were categorized by the annual surgical volume of each 50 surgeries (eg, 0-49, 50-99, and so on). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression, we estimated the adjusted 3-year survival probability per surgical volume category for 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012. Using the joinpoint regression model that computes inflection points in a linear relationship, we estimated the points at which the trend of the association between surgical volume and survival probability changes, defining them as surgical volume thresholds. The adjusted 3-year survival ranges were 71.7%-90.0%, 68.2%-90.0%, and 79.2%-90.3% in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The surgical volume thresholds were identified at 100-149 in 2004-2006 and 2007-2009 and 200-249 in 2010-2012. The extents of change in the adjusted 3-year survival probability per increase of 50 surgical volumes were +4.00%, +6.88%, and +1.79% points until the threshold and +0.41%, +0.30%, and +0.11% points after the threshold in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The existing surgical volume requirements met our estimated thresholds. Surgical volume thresholds based on the association with patient survival may be used as a reference to validate the surgical volume requirement.

Risk factors and clinical outcomes of systemic cancer treatment delays in Filipino patients with solid tumor malignancy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A single tertiary center study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care during the Covid-19 pandemic has been challenging especially in a developing country such as the Philippines. Oncologists were advised to prioritize chemotherapy based on the absolute benefit that the patient may receive, which outbalances the risks of Covid-19 infection. The results of this study will allow re-examination of how to approach cancer care during the pandemic and ultimately, help optimize treatment recommendations during this crisis. AIM: This study described the factors contributing to treatment delays during the pandemic and their impact on disease progression. MATERIALS AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study was done in St. Luke's Medical Center, a private tertiary healthcare institution based in Metro Manila, Philippines, composed of two facilities in Quezon City and Global City. Patients with solid malignancy with ongoing systemic cancer treatment prior to the peak of the pandemic were identified. Clinical characteristics and treatment data were compared between those with delayed and continued treatments. Multivariate analysis was done to determine factors for treatment delays and association of delays with disease progression and Covid-19 infection. Of the 111 patients, 33% experienced treatment delays and 67% continued treatment during the pandemic. There was a higher percentage of patients on palliative intent who underwent treatment delay, and 64% of delays were due to logistic difficulties. Treatment delays were significantly associated with disease progression (p < .0001). There was no evidence of association between delay or continuation of treatment and risk of Covid-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in Covid-19 infection between those who delayed and continued treatment during the pandemic; however, treatment delays were associated with a higher incidence of disease progression. Our findings suggest that the risks of cancer progression due to treatment delays exceed the risks of Covid-19 infection in cancer patients implying that beneficial treatment should not be delayed as much as possible. Logistic hindrances were also identified as the most common cause of treatment delay among Filipino patients, suggesting that efforts should be focused into assistance programs that will mitigate these barriers to ensure continuity of cancer care services during the pandemic.

[National certification for gynecological cancer surgery]. / Certification nationale pour la chirurgie des cancers gynécologiques.

OBJECTIVE: In France, we are lacking an identified pathway for training in gynaecological cancer surgery. The four competent French learned societies: the SFOG, the CNGOF, the SFCO and the SCGP supported by the CNU of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, and UNICANCER agreed to materialize this course and attest it by a certification awarded by a national jury. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The national committee of certification in gynaecological oncology made up of ten members, representing the 6 concerned organizations, set itself five objectives: the definition of the eligibility criteria for training centres; the determination of a check-list to be filled by the candidate; the determination of a targeted curriculum for the training in gynecological oncological surgery; the determination of the assets necessary for the certification of a candidate already in practice; and the practical organization of the certification. RESULTS: Criteria for approval of centres for training included 150 gynaecological cancer cases per year, among which 100 excisional surgeries, including twenty advanced-stage ovarian cancers. For certification of candidate who followed the curriculum established by the committee or by validation of prior experience for an actual practitioner, a candidate must validate a logbook and fill out a checklist including four parts: theoretical and practical training; research and publications; teaching and subscription to a continuing education program. The accomplished elements of the logbook and the checklist will be evaluated by a score. The first certification session is planned for the end of 2021.

Strategies to ensure efficient laboratory functioning while navigating through the COVID-19 crisis in developing countries: An early experience from a tertiary care centre in India.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) is a zoonotic viral infection that originated in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. It was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization shortly thereafter. This pandemic is going to have a lasting impact on the functioning of pathology laboratories due to the frequent handling of potentially infectious samples by the laboratory personnel. To deal with this unprecedented situation, various national and international guidelines have been put forward outlining the precautions to be taken during sample processing from a potentially infectious patient. PURPOSE: Most of these guidelines are centered around laboratories that are a part of designated COVID 19 hospitals. However, proper protocols need to be in place in all laboratories, irrespective of whether they are a part of COVID 19 hospital or not as this would greatly reduce the risk of exposure of laboratory/hospital personnel. As part of a laboratory associated with a rural cancer hospital which is not a dedicated COVID 19 hospital, we aim to present our institute's experience in handling pathology specimens during the COVID 19 era. CONCLUSION: We hope this will address the concerns of small to medium sized laboratories and help them build an effective strategy required for protecting the laboratory personnel from risk of exposure and also ensure smooth and optimum functioning of the laboratory services.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.