Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient visit volume in cancer patients: Results of COMETA multicenter retrospective observational study.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on first and follow-up visits for cancer outpatients. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective observational study involving three Comprehensive Cancer Care Centers (CCCCs): IFO, including IRE and ISG in Rome, AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari) and one oncology department in a Community Hospital (Saint'Andrea Hospital, Rome). From 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021, we evaluated the volume of outpatient consultations (first visits and follow-up), comparing them with the pre-pandemic year (2019). Results were analyzed by quarter according to the Rt (real-time indicator used to assess the evolution of the pandemic). IFO and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II were "COVID-free" while AUSL-IRCCS RE was a "COVID-mixed" Institute. Depending on the Rt, Sain't Andrea Hospital experienced a "swinging" organizational pathway (COVID-free/ COVID-mixed). Results: Regarding the "first appointments", in 2020 the healthcare facilities operating in the North and Center of Italy showed a downward trend. In 2021, only AUSL-IRCCS RE showed an upward trend. Regarding the "follow-up", only AUSL IRCCS RE showed a slight up-trend in 2020. In 2021, IFO showed an increasing trend, while S. Andrea Hospital showed a negative plateau. Surprisingly, IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari showed an uptrend for both first appointment and follow-ups during pandemic and late pandemic except for the fourth quarter of 2021. Conclusions: During the first pandemic wave, no significant difference was observed amongst COVID-free and COVID-mixed Institutes and between CCCCs and a Community Hospital. In 2021 ("late pandemic year"), it has been more convenient to organize COVID-mixed pathway in the CCCCs rather than to keep the Institutions COVID-free. A swinging modality in the Community Hospital did not offer positive results in term of visit volumes. Our study about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on visit volume in cancer outpatients may help health systems to optimize the post-pandemic use of resources and improve healthcare policies.

Iodixanol versus iopromide in cancer patients: Evidence from a randomized clinical trial.

To assess the safety profile of iso-osmolar contrast medium (CM) versus low osmolar CM in cancer patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >60 ml/min. In this multicenter, blind trial of patients seeking a chest-abdomen-pelvis contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) with iodated CM, participants were centrally randomized to iodixanol or iopromide. Contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) at 24 and/or 72 hr were our primary outcomes. We further considered irreversible CIN, average eGFR percentage variation (%Δ), and adverse events (AEs). Overall, 607 patients were enrolled. Among them, 497 eligible patients were randomized to iodixanol (N: 247) or iopromide (N: 250). No differences emerged by descriptive characteristics. Seven and 3 CIN at 24 hr (p = 0.34) and 8 and 2 CIN at 72 hr (p = 0.11) occurred in the iopromide and iodixanol group, respectively. Within the subgroup of individual patients who developed CIN (N: 17), the event rate was higher in the iopromide arm (p = 0.045). No cases of permanent CIN or significant differences in terms of AEs or GFR %Δ were observed. Our results suggest a more favorable safety profile of iodixanol versus iopromide. Adequately sized trials with similar design are warranted to confirm our findings and clarify the underlying biological mechanisms.

The Regina Elena National Cancer Institute process of accreditation according to the standards of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes.

The accreditation process is, on the one hand, a tool used to homogenize procedures, rendering comparable and standardized processes of care, and on the other, a methodology employed to develop a culture of quality improvement. Although not yet proven by evidence-based studies that health outcomes improve as a result of an accreditation to excellence, it is undeniable that better control of healthcare processes results in better quality and safety of diagnostic and therapeutic pathways. The Regina Elena National Cancer Institute underwent the accreditation process in accordance with the standards criteria set by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), and it has recently completed the process, acquiring its designation as a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC). This was an invaluable opportunity for the Regina Elena Institute to create a more cohesive environment, to widely establish a culture of quality, to implement an institutional information system, and to accelerate the process of patient involvement in strategic decisions. The steps of the process allowed us to evaluate the performance and the organization of the institute and put amendments in place designed to be adopted through 26 improvement actions. These actions regarded several aspects of the institute, including quality culture, information communication technology system, care, clinical trials unit, disease management team, nursing, and patient empowerment and involvement. Each area has a timeline. We chose to present the following 3 improvement actions: clinical trial center, computerized ambulatory medical record, and centrality of patient and humanization of clinical pathway.