Search

Background Triage procedures have been implemented to limit hospital access and minimize infection risk among patients with cancer during the coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) outbreak. In the absence of prospective evidence, we aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of a triage system in the oncological setting. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study analyzes hospital admissions to the oncology and hematology department of Udine, Italy, during the COVID‐19 pandemic (March 30 to April 30, 2020). A total of 3,923 triage procedures were performed, and data of 1,363 individual patients were reviewed. Results A self‐report triage questionnaire identified 6% of triage‐positive procedures, with a sensitivity of 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.0%–85.4%), a specificity of 94.3% (95% CI, 93.5%–95.0%), and a positive predictive value of 5.9% (95% CI, 4.3%–8.0%) for the identification of patients who were not admitted to the hospital after medical review. Patients with thoracic cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13–2.53, p = .01), younger age (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15–2.01, p < .01), and body temperature at admission ≥37°C (OR, 9.52; 95% CI, 5.44–16.6, p < .0001) had increased risk of positive triage. Direct hospital access was warranted to 93.5% of cases, a further 6% was accepted after medical evaluation, whereas 0.5% was refused at admission. Conclusion A self‐report questionnaire has a low positive predictive value to triage patients with cancer and suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) symptoms. Differential diagnosis with tumor‐ or treatment‐related symptoms is always required to avoid unnecessary treatment delays. Body temperature measurement improves the triage process's overall sensitivity, and widespread SARS‐CoV‐2 testing should be implemented to identify asymptomatic carriers. Implications for Practice This is the first study to provide data on the predictive performance of a triage system in the oncological setting during the coronavirus disease outbreak. A questionnaire‐based triage has a low positive predictive value to triage patients with cancer and suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) symptoms, and a differential diagnosis with tumor‐ or treatment‐related symptoms is mandatory to avoid unnecessary treatment delays. Consequently, adequate recourses should be reallocated for a triage implementation in the oncological setting. Of note, body temperature measurement improves the overall sensitivity of the triage process, and widespread testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection should be implemented to identify asymptomatic carriers., Patients with cancer are considered to be at increased risk for severe complications and death during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This article evaluates the feasibility and predictive performance of a triage system implemented in a cancer center to address this concern.

Background: The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the associated COVID-19 pneumonia have dramatically disrupted the delivery of cancer care worldwide. Indeed, this crisis has raised the urge of thoughtfully balancing the risk of delaying potentially curative treatments against the harm of developing a life-threatening respiratory infection. In this study, we report the experience of an Italian Reference Cancer Center, where strict triage procedures had to be promptly adopted. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive cohort of 787 cancer patients (pts) who accessed the Day Hospital (DH) of the Oncology Department of Udine from April 6th to June 19th 2020. Screening NP swabs and RT-PCR analysis were performed at every access in pts who, after passing the triage, were admitted to receive intravenous therapies. Clinicopathological data were collected from electronic health records and include sex, age, tumor type, disease stage, type of treatment, number of swabs received and RT-PCR results. Results: Overall, 2602 NP swabs were performed in a population of 787 cancer pts receiving intravenous therapies, including 55.7% female and 44.3% male pts, respectively, with 54.9% aged ≥65. Of note, 28.2% of pts had gastrointestinal tumors, 23% breast cancer, 19.8% lung cancer and 14.2% tumors of the genitourinary tract. Approximately 32% of pts had early-stage disease whereas 68% of them was receiving therapies for advanced disease. Treatments most frequently included chemotherapy (60%), immunotherapy (14.7%) and target therapies (9.8%) whereas 11.1% of swabs were performed in pts entering the premises for supportive therapy. The median number of SARS-CoV-2 tests per patient was 3 and 26% of pts received ≥5 swabs. In the whole population, only 10 SARS-CoV-2 tests (1.3%) resulted positive and were promptly isolated. Conclusions: In the pandemic context, the adoption and gradual refinement of rigorous procedures aimed at minimizing COVID-19 diffusion among pts and healthcare professionals are mandatory to ensure continuity of care. In our experience systematic triage, sequential screening with NP swabs and the prompt identification of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers limited COVID-19 spread among cancer pts accessing the Oncology DH. Legal entity responsible for the study: ASUFC. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background: Over the last few years, the introduction of newer systemic therapies (e.g. CDKi) significantly changed the treatment paradigm of patients (pts) with MBC. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the impact of CDKi introduction in clinical practice in terms of medical oncology workload. Methods: We examined a consecutive series of 492 pts who received therapy for MBC in Academic Hospital of Udine during two historical cohorts A (2016-2017) and B (2018-2019), respectively before and after the first CDKi approval in Italy. Data about 2020 were not collected due to confounding effect of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Pts with no luminal MBC or enrolled in clinical trial were excluded. We performed descriptive analyses to examine any differences in terms of number and type of outpatient visits to the oncology department (i.e. planned visits, unplanned presentations and i.v. treatment sessions) between the two cohorts. Results: We analyzed a total number of 2,645 oncology activities deriving from 42 pts (cohort A) and 57 pts (cohort B) who started first line treatment for luminal MBC. Median age was 66 and 70 years respectively. In the first group, pts receiving chemotherapy were 23.8% and those treated with CDKi were 7,14%. In the second group, chemotherapy was administered in 22.8% of pts and CDKi in 49.12%. In cohort A, number of planned visits, unplanned presentations and i.v. treatment sessions were respectively 643, 82 and 418. In cohort B, number of planned visits, unplanned presentations and treatment sessions were 892, 114 and 496. During the period of observation (two years), for each pts mean number of planned visits were 15,30 (cohort A) vs 15,64 (cohort B), mean number of unplanned presentations were 1,95 (cohort A) vs 2 (cohort B), treatment i.v. sessions were 9,9 (cohort A) vs 8,7 (cohort B). Conclusions: With the limits of a retrospective analysis, no differences were found between two cohorts of pts. Notably, there was a slight decrease of i.v. treatment sessions after CDKi introduction. Other analysis are ongoing to evaluate the workload in terms of instrumental and blood chemistry tests. This data further support the handy use of this drugs into clinical practice. Legal entity responsible for the study: Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (ASUFC) Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: M. Mansutti: Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board, invited speaker: Novartis;Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board, invited speaker: Eli Lilly;Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board, invited speaker: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: MSD Italia;Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board, invited speaker: EISAI;Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Pierre Fabre;Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Roche;Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Celgene. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background: The recent COVID-19 outbreak in Italy required timely adoption of efficient triage procedures (TPs) with the aim to minimize the risk of infection spreading in the hospitals We developed a written questionnaire (items explored: fever, respiratory symptoms, previous contacts or personal positivity for COVID-19) together with body temperature (BT) measurement, to intercept patients (pts) with suspect of COVID-19 infection Methods: We conducted a monocentric observational study of a consecutive series of outpatients with diagnosis of solid tumor, accessing the Day Unit of Oncology Department at Udine Academic Cancer Center (Northern Italy) from 30 March 2020 to 30 April 2020 In this abstract we present the preliminary results of the TPs performed until 10 April 2020 Results: 1054 TPs were performed out of 586 pts, with a median of 2 TPs per pt Median age was 64 9 years, males were 35 4% Overall, 82 5% of TPs were made because of access for therapy, 10 7% for programmed procedures, radiological exams or non-oncological consultations, 1 2% for unplanned presentation (e g urgencies) The stage of neoplasm was early in 30 7% and advanced in 69 3% of pts TPs were made in pts receiving chemotherapy (58 2%), immunotherapy (10 8%), targeted therapy (18 9%), other therapies (5 2%) and in pts without active oncological therapy (6 9%) The questionnaires resulted positive in 5 5% of cases;2 9% were positive for fever, 2 9% for respiratory symptoms, 0 1% for previous contact with a case of COVID-19 Concomitant presence of 2 or more items was observed in 0 5% of questionnaires Of note, 6 TPs required medical evaluation despite a negative questionnaire and were considered to be clinically suspect BT≥37°C was observed in 7 TPs Overall, the oncologic program was postponed in 0 9% of the TPs, while in 0 5% a test for SARS-CoV-2 was performed for clinical suspect: no one resulted positive At multivariate analysis, factors associated with positive triage were diagnosis of thoracic cancer (OR 2 06;95%CI 1 02-4 12;p=0 04) and prior test for SARS-CoV-2 (OR 2 81;95%CI 1 46-5 41;p=0 001) Conclusions: A well-structured triage for COVID-19 could reduce the risk for further spreading of infection in Oncology facilities with limited impact on scheduled activities Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors Funding: Has not received any funding Disclosure: F Puglisi: Honoraria (self): MSD;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche;Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: Eli Lilly;Honoraria (self): Takeda;Pfizer;Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen;Novartis;Pierre Fabre;Research grant/Funding (self): Astrazeneca;Eisai;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Celgene;Servier C Andreetta: Advisory/Consultancy: AstraZeneca;GlaxoSmithKline;MSD A M Minisini: Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis;MSD;Pierre Fabre G Fasola: Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb srl;Eli Lilly SpA ;Servier Italia SpA ;Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Astrazeneca;Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Merck Sharp and Dohme S p A ;Boehringer-Ingelheim S p A All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest

Background Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) are commonly acknowledged as a good clinical practice. One of the roles of MDMs is to identify the best diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for patients (pts) with new diagnosis of early breast cancer (EBC). In this setting, the purpose of the study was to define whether there was agreement between the planned program (i.e. MDMs-based decision) and that actually applied (i.e. actual therapeutic choice, ATC). In addition, the study explored factors associated with discordance. Methods We conducted a monocentric retrospective study of a consecutive series of 291 pts with new diagnosis of EBC, discussed at MDMs at the University Hospital of Udine (Italy), from January 2017 to June 2018. Results Median age was 62 years (range 27-88 years). Among invasive EBC patients, the most frequent phenotype was luminal-A (38%), followed by luminal-B (33%), HER2-positive (12%) and triple negative (5%). Thirty-four pts (12%) had diagnosis of in situ carcinoma (DCIS). Median time from MDMs discussion to first oncological examination was two weeks. Rate of discordance between MDMs-based decision and final choice, during face to face consultation with the oncologist, was 15.8% (46/291). Among cases with discordance, 19 pts (41.3%) had age > 70 years; 8 pts (17%) had a diagnosis of DCIS, 13 pts (28%) luminal-B carcinoma, 12 pts (26%) luminal-A, 9 pts (20%) HER2-positive and 4 pts (9%) triple negative EBC. The most frequent reason for changing the MDMs-based program was clinical decision by the oncologist at the first evaluation (87%). Follow-up was preferred to the chemotherapy proposed within the MDMs by 15% of pts, and to the endocrine therapy in 39% cases (among these, 44.5% had diagnosis of DCIS). In our study 16/46 pts (35%) had a therapeutic change from chemotherapy to endocrine therapy: among these pts, 7/16 had a luminal-B and 6/16 had a HER2-positive disease. Further analysis aiming at evaluating variables which could predict discordance between MDMs proposal and face to face oncological consultation are ongoing. Conclusions The results of our study could be useful for enhance the role of MTD and identify unmet needs in decision making process in EBC. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.