Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on psychological wellbeing of Oncology clinicians in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

OBJECTIVE: The reorganization of cancer services and the increased work burden on health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be associated with significant negative psychological impact. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological well-being of oncology clinicians in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomly invited 1500 oncology clinicians including medical oncologists, clinical oncologists, radiation oncologists and surgical oncologists from 17 countries in the MENA region to complete a web-based survey to determine the level of psychological stress during the COVID-19 pandemic from October 2020 to January 2021. The questionnaire was based on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Generalized Anxiety Disorders Scale (GAD-7) and WHO Well-being Index (WHO-5). The data was analyzed using SPSS version 21 and the difference between groups was measured by t-test and ANOVA. RESULTS: Overall, 520 (35%) clinicians including 368 (71%) males and 152 (29%) females participated in the survey with 247 (47%) participants between the ages of 36 to 45 years. Average score of 29.6 for males and 30.2 on PSS-10, indicative of high-perceived stress in both the genders. Compared to males, females had significantly higher anxiety levels on GAD-7 scale (p=.04), but this difference in stress level and well-being was not observed on PSS-10 (p=.134) and WHO -5 well-being index (p=.709). Clinicians of age 25-35 years had significantly higher anxiety levels on GAD-7 scale (p=.004) and higher stress on PSS (p=.000) as compared to other age groups. Age over 55 years was associated with lower levels of anxiety and stress on GAD-7 and PSS. Oncology clinicians working in public sector experienced significantly lower stress as compared to private sector on PSS scale (p=.041). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and stress levels among oncology clinicians have significantly increased in COVID-19 pandemic in the MENA region. Females and young clinicians had higher anxiety and stress, while oncology clinicians over the age of 55 years and working in the public sector reported less stress and anxiety. The general wellbeing of clinicians was well preserved even in a highly stressful and anxious situation.

Retrospective analysis of the effect of CAPOX and mFOLFOX6 dose intensity on survival in colorectal patients in the adjuvant setting.

BACKGROUND: Despite lack of a true comparative study, the folfox (5-fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin) and capox (capecitabine-oxaliplatin) regimens are believed to be similar in their efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of stage iii colorectal cancer. However, that belief has been disputed, because real-life data suggest that the capox regimen is more toxic, leading to more frequent reductions in the delivered dose intensity-thus raising questions about the effect of dose intensity on clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective data review for two Canadian institutions, the Segal Cancer Centre and the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, considered patients diagnosed with stage iii colorectal cancer during 2006-2013. Primary endpoints were dose intensity and toxicity, with a secondary endpoint of disease-free survival. RESULTS: The study enrolled 180 eligible patients (80 at the Segal Cancer Centre, 100 at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre). Of those 180 patients, 75 received capox, and 105 received mfolfox6. In the capox group, a significant dose reduction was identified for capecitabine compared with 5-fluorouracil in mfolfox6 group (p = 0.0014). Similarly, a significant dose reduction was observed for oxaliplatin in mfolfox6 compared with oxaliplatin in capox (p = 0.0001). Compared with the patients receiving capox, those receiving mfolfox6 were twice as likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 1 cycle-length (p = 0.03855). Toxicity was more frequent in patients receiving mfolfox6 (nausea: 30% vs. 18%; diarrhea: 47% vs. 24%; peripheral sensory neuropathy: 32% vs. 3%). At a median follow-up of 40 months, preliminary data showed no difference in disease-free survival (p = 0.598). Pooled data from both institutions were also separately analyzed, and no significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of capox despite a lack of head-to-head randomized trial data.