Healthcare providers' attitudes towards delay in cancer treatment during COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented obstacles leading to delays in treatment for older adults with cancer. Due to limited resources at the height of the pandemic, healthcare providers were constantly faced with ethical dilemmas regarding postponing or rescheduling care for their patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two survey-based studies were conducted at different time-points during the pandemic looking at factors affecting oncology care providers' attitudes towards delay in treatment for older adults with cancer. Eligible participants were recruited by email sent through professional organizations' listservs, email blasts, and social media. Change in provider attitude over time was analyzed by comparing responses from the 2020 and 2021 surveys. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and chi-squares. RESULTS: In 2020, 17.5% of respondents were strongly considering/considering postponing cancer treatment for younger patients (age 30 and below), while 46.2% were considering delaying treatment for patients aged >85. These responses were in stark contrast to the results of the 2021 survey, where only 1.4% of respondents strongly considered postponing treatment for younger patients, and 13.5% for patients aged >85. DISCUSSION: All recommendations to postpone treatment for older adults with cancer must be made after mutual discussion with the patient. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, oncology care providers had to consider multiple factors while treating patients, frequently making most decisions without appropriate institutional support.

Differences in urban and suburban/rural settings regarding care provision and barriers of cancer care for older adults during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Care for older adults with cancer became more challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in urban hotspots. This study examined the potential differences in healthcare providers' provision of as well as barriers to cancer care for older adults with cancer between urban and suburban/rural settings. METHODS: Members of the Advocacy Committee of the Cancer and Aging Research Group, with the Association of Community Cancer Centers, surveyed multidisciplinary healthcare providers responsible for the direct care of patients with cancer. Respondents were recruited through organizational listservs, email blasts, and social media messages. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used. RESULTS: Complete data was available from 271 respondents (urban (n = 144), suburban/rural (n = 127)). Most respondents were social workers (42, 44%) or medical doctors/advanced practice providers (34, 13%) in urban and suburban/rural settings, respectively. Twenty-four percent and 32.4% of urban-based providers reported "strongly considering" treatment delays among adults aged 76-85 and > 85, respectively, compared to 13% and 15.4% of suburban/rural providers (Ps = 0.048, 0.013). More urban-based providers reported they were inclined to prioritize treatment for younger adults over older adults than suburban/rural providers (10.4% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.04) during the pandemic. The top concerns reported were similar between the groups and related to patient safety, treatment delays, personal safety, and healthcare provider mental health. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate location-based differences in providers' attitudes regarding care provision for older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MTHFR A1298C and C677T Polymorphisms Are Associated with Increased Risk of Venous Thromboembolism: A Retrospective Chart Review Study.

BACKGROUND: Methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) is a key enzyme in homocysteine metabolism. This study aims to determine the impact of MTHFR polymorphisms on plasma homocysteine levels and risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: This retrospective chart review study included a total of 188 subjects who were tested for MTHFR polymorphisms at Metrowest Coagulation Laboratory between April 2011 and April 2016. Two independent coders were trained to extract relevant clinical data for statistical analysis. RESULTS: VTE occurred in 50% of patients with compound mutation, compared with only 28.6% of subjects from the wild-type group. Patients with heterozygous or homozygous A1298C or C677T variants had an intermediate risk of VTE. The median homocysteine level in the wild-type group was slightly lower than that of heterozygous or homozygous MTHFR variants. The difference, however, was not significant (p = 0.6193). Moreover, there was no difference in plasma homocysteine level between patients with VTE versus VTE-free (p = 0.4923). CONCLUSIONS: Heterozygous or homozygous MTHFR variants, especially a compound mutation, are associated with increased risk of VTE. Hyperhomocysteinemia does not correlate with MTHFR polymorphisms or VTE risk. Hence, MTHFR genotyping provides more consistent assessment of VTE risk. This information can be incorporated into risk stratification for early intervention and prophylaxis of VTE.