Search

Background: The impact of the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave on cancer patient management was measured within the nationwide network of the Unicancer comprehensive cancer centers in France., Patients and Methods: The number of patients diagnosed and treated within 17 of the 18 Unicancer centers was collected in 2020 and compared with that during the same periods between 2016 and 2019. Unicancer centers treat close to 20% of cancer patients in France yearly. The reduction in the number of patients attending the Unicancer centers was analyzed per regions and cancer types. The impact of delayed care on cancer-related deaths was calculated based on different hypotheses., Results: A 6.8% decrease in patients managed within Unicancer in the first 7 months of 2020 versus 2019 was observed. This reduction reached 21% during April and May, and was not compensated in June and July, nor later until November 2020. This reduction was observed only for newly diagnosed patients, while the clinical activity for previously diagnosed patients increased by 4% similar to previous years. The reduction was more pronounced in women, in breast and prostate cancers, and for patients without metastasis. Using an estimated hazard ratio of 1.06 per month of delay in diagnosis and treatment of new patients, we calculated that the delays observed in the 5-month period from March to July 2020 may result in an excess mortality due to cancer of 1000-6000 patients in coming years., Conclusions: In this study, the delays in cancer patient management were observed only for newly diagnosed patients, more frequently in women, for breast cancer, prostate cancer, and nonmetastatic cancers. These delays may result is an excess risk of cancer-related deaths in the coming years., Competing Interests: Disclosure JYB reports research support and honoraria from Troche, BMS, MSD, PharmaMar, Bayer, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. JPD reports institutional fees for advisory or speaker roles for Genentech, Roche, BMS, MSD, and Novartis, and institutional grants for research projects with Genentech, Roche, BMS, MSD, Debiopharm, and Astra Zeneca. JCS reports shares from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gritstone, and is also a full-time employee of AstraZeneca from September 2017 to December 2019. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In 2013, about 6000 patients were treated with brachytherapy, the number diminishing by 2.6% per year since 2008. Prostate, breast and gynecological cancers are the most common types of cancers. Since 2008, the number of brachytherapy facilities has decreased by 18%. In medicoeconomic terms, brachytherapy faces many problems: the coding system is outdated; brachytherapy treatments cost as much as internal radiation; fees do not cover costs; since iridium wire has disappeared from the market, the technique will be transferred to more expensive high-speed or pulse dose rates. The French financing grid based on the national study of costs lags behind changes in such treatments and in the best of cases, hospitals resorting to alternatives such as in-hospital brachytherapy are funded at 46% of their additional costs. Brachytherapy is a reference technique. With intense pressure on hospital pricing, financing brachytherapy facilities will become even more problematic as a consequence of the disappearance of iridium 192 wires. The case of brachytherapy illustrates the limits of the French financing system and raises serious doubts as to its responsiveness., (Copyright © 2014 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Recently developed drugs are ten to one hundred fold more costly than the chemotherapies of the past while the number of eligible patients and the average duration of treatments are ever increasing. The combined effect of these trends makes budgeting a daunting task, in particular for hospitals with budgetary allocation. Balancing budgets became difficult with the arrival of taxanes, but innovative therapies based on biotechnological advances will further increase the financial slide. Hospital running costs can not be infinitely reduced. Therefore, new rules that govern the financing of innovative therapies become mandatory and budgetary allocations based on DRG evaluations will no longer be feasible.

We have compared different modes of rehabilitation after breast cancer surgery on a population of 257 patients treated at the Institute Gustave-Roussy in 1990 and 1991. The mode of rehabilitation was randomized according to a 2 X 2 design, between physiotherapy alone, shoulder movement alone, both or neither. Treatment began the day after breast surgery and continued for 7 days. Afterwards, all patients had physiotherapy and shoulder movements until the end of hospitalisation. Treatment efficacy was evaluated at day 7 by the volume of lymph drained, and by degree of shoulder movement. The volume of lymph collected by day 7 was reduced in the physiotherapy groups, but was not modified in the groups with shoulder movement. The degree of motion was larger in the group who had had both physiotherapy and shoulder movement. The frequencies of complications at day 7 and later were similar in the four treatment groups, but locoregional pain was less frequent in the two groups with shoulder movement than in the two other groups. An early treatment including both physiotherapy and shoulder movement seems advisable.