PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic affected health care systems globally and resulted in the interruption of usual care in many health care facilities, exposing vulnerable patients with cancer to significant risks. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of this pandemic on cancer care worldwide. METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional study using a validated web-based questionnaire of 51 items. The questionnaire obtained information on the capacity and services offered at these centers, magnitude of disruption of care, reasons for disruption, challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimation of patient harm during the pandemic. RESULTS A total of 356 centers from 54 countries across six continents participated between April 21 and May 8, 2020. These centers serve 716,979 new patients with cancer a year. Most of them (88.2%) reported facing challenges in delivering care during the pandemic. Although 55.34% reduced services as part of a preemptive strategy, other common reasons included an overwhelmed system (19.94%), lack of personal protective equipment (19.10%), staff shortage (17.98%), and restricted access to medications (9.83%). Missing at least one cycle of therapy by > 10% of patients was reported in 46.31% of the centers. Participants reported patient exposure to harm from interruption of cancer-specific care (36.52%) and noncancer-related care (39.04%), with some centers estimating that up to 80% of their patients were exposed to harm. CONCLUSION The detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care is widespread, with varying magnitude among centers worldwide. Additional research to assess this impact at the patient level is required.

The global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to escalate at a rapid pace inundating medical facilities and creating substantial challenges globally. The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with cancer seems to be higher, especially as they are more likely to present with an immunocompromised condition, either from cancer itself or from the treatments they receive. A major consideration in the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic is to balance the risk of patient exposure and infection with the need to provide effective cancer treatment. Many aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection currently remain poorly characterized and even less is known about the course of infection in the context of a patient with cancer. As SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious, the risk of infection directly affects the cancer patient being treated, other cancer patients in close proximity, and health care providers. Infection at any level for patients or providers can cause considerable disruption to even the most effective treatment plans. Lung cancer patients, especially those with reduced lung function and cardiopulmonary comorbidities are more likely to have increased risk and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 as one of its common manifestations is as an acute respiratory illness. The purpose of this manuscript is to present a practical multidisciplinary and international overview to assist in treatment for lung cancer patients during this pandemic, with the caveat that evidence is lacking in many areas. It is expected that firmer recommendations can be developed as more evidence becomes available.

BACKGROUND. The incidence of male breast cancer (MBC) continues to rise. The Veterans Affairs (VA) Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) provides a unique source for the study of MBC. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to compare the characteristics and outcome of patients with MBC and patients with female breast cancer (FBC) in the VA population. METHODS. VACCR data were used to analyze the database of VA patients who had breast cancer diagnosed between 1995 and 2005. It includes 120 VA medical centers. Primary site codes were identified for breast cancer (500–508). Data were entered and analyzed using biostatistical software. RESULTS. In total, 3025 patients' records were reviewed, and 612 patients who had MBC were compared with 2413 patients who had FBC. The mean age at diagnosis was 67 years for patients with MBC and 57 years for patients with FBC (P < .005). More patients with MBC were black, and patients with MBC presented with higher disease stage and more lymph node‐positive disease. The dominant histology in MBC was ductal carcinoma. No difference in grade or laterality was observed. Estrogen and progesterone receptor‐positive tumors were more common in MBC compared with FBC. Overall, patients with MBC received less chemotherapy, whereas no statistical difference was observed in the use of hormone treatment. The median overall survival for patients who had MBC was 7 years compared with 9.8 years for patients who had FBC (log‐rank test; P < .005). There was no statistically significant difference in median survival for patients with stage III disease and stage IV disease. However, the median survival differed significantly for patients with stage I disease and stage II disease. In lymph node‐negative patients, the median survival was 6.1 years for patients with MBC and 14.6 years for patients with FBC (P < .005), whereas the median survival did not differ significantly in lymph node‐positive patients. Using Cox regression analysis age, sex, clinical stage, and lymph node status were independent prognostic factors for survival, whereas race, histology, and grade were not. CONCLUSIONS. To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest series of MBC and FBC to date in the veterans population. The results suggested the presence of differences in the biology, pathology, presentation, ethnicity, and survival between patients with MBC and patients with FBC in the VA population. It is noteworthy that the survival of patients with MBC was inferior for those with early‐stage disease and lymph node‐negative tumors, suggesting that there are differences between the sexes in the pathogenesis and biology of breast cancer. In patients with hormone receptor‐positive MBC, survival was inferior despite similar hormone treatment practices between MBC and FBC. This observational study calls for a better understanding of this disease that would allow new opportunities for specific therapeutic intervention. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.

BackgroundA significant proportion of cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) along with conventional therapies (CT), whereas a smaller proportion delay or defer CT in favor of CAM. Previous studies exploring CAM use among cancer patients in the Middle East region have shown discrepant results. This study investigates the prevalence and pattern of CAM use by Saudi cancer patients. It also discusses the possible benefits and harm related to CAM use by cancer patients, and it explores the beliefs patients hold and their transparency with health care providers regarding their CAM use.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in oncology wards and outpatient clinics by using face-to-face interviews with the participants.ResultsA total of 156 patients with a median age of 50 years (18–84) participated in the study. The prevalence of CAM use was 69.9%; the most prominent types of CAM were those of a religious nature, such as supplication (95.4%), Quran recitation (88.1%), consuming Zamzam water (84.4%), and water upon which the Quran has been read (63.3%). Drinking camel milk was reported by 24.1% of CAM users, whereas camel urine was consumed by 15.7%. A variety of reasons were given for CAM use: 75% reported that they were using CAM to treat cancer, enhance mood (18.3%),control pain (11.9%), enhance the immune system (11%),increase physical fitness (6.4%), and improve appetite (4.6%). Thirty percent of CAM users had discussed the issue with their doctors; only 7.7% had done so with their nurses.ConclusionsThe use of CAM, including camel products, is highly prevalent among cancer patients in the Middle East, but these patients do not necessarily divulge their CAM use to their treating physicians and nurses. Although CAM use can be beneficial, some can be very harmful, especially for cancer patients. Association is known between camel products and brucellosis and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Both can lead to tremendous morbidity in immune-compromised patients. Doctor–patient communication regarding CAM use is of paramount importance in cancer care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-018-2150-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The use of complementary therapies among Saudi patients with cancer is highly prevalent, with a predominance of interventions of religious background, indicating the strong influence of religion on peoples' lives, especially when people are faced with life-threatening illnesses.

Outbreaks of infectious etiology, particularly those caused by a novel virus that has no known treatment or vaccine, may result in the interruption of medical care provided to patients with cancer and put them at risk for undertreatment in addition to the risk of being exposed to infection, a life-threatening event among patients with cancer. This article describes the approach used to manage patients with cancer during a large-scale Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus hospital outbreak in Saudi Arabia to ensure continuity of care and minimize harm from treatment interruption or acquiring infection. The approach taken toward managing this high-risk situation (COVID-19) could be easily adopted by health care organizations and would be helpful to ensure readiness for the occurrence of future outbreaks of different infectious etiologies like those recent episodes of new coronavirus.JCO Global Oncol 6:518-524.

No abstract

No abstract