The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has rapidly spread globally since being identified as a public health emergency of major international concern and has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). In December 2019, an outbreak of atypical pneumonia, known as COVID‐19, was identified in Wuhan, China. The newly identified zoonotic coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), is characterized by rapid human‐to‐human transmission. Many cancer patients frequently visit the hospital for treatment and disease surveillance. They may be immunocompromised due to the underlying malignancy or anticancer therapy and are at higher risk of developing infections. Several factors increase the risk of infection, and cancer patients commonly have multiple risk factors. Cancer patients appear to have an estimated twofold increased risk of contracting SARS‐CoV‐2 than the general population. With the WHO declaring the novel coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, there is an urgent need to address the impact of such a pandemic on cancer patients. This include changes to resource allocation, clinical care, and the consent process during a pandemic. Currently and due to limited data, there are no international guidelines to address the management of cancer patients in any infectious pandemic. In this review, the potential challenges associated with managing cancer patients during the COVID‐19 infection pandemic will be addressed, with suggestions of some practical approaches. Implications for Practice The main management strategies for treating cancer patients during the COVID‐19 epidemic include clear communication and education about hand hygiene, infection control measures, high‐risk exposure, and the signs and symptoms of COVID‐19. Consideration of risk and benefit for active intervention in the cancer population must be individualized. Postponing elective surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy for cancer patients with low risk of progression should be considered on a case‐by‐case basis. Minimizing outpatient visits can help to mitigate exposure and possible further transmission. Telemedicine may be used to support patients to minimize number of visits and risk of exposure. More research is needed to better understand SARS‐CoV‐2 virology and epidemiology.

Caffeine increases time to fatigue [limit of endurance (T(lim))] during submaximal isometric contractions without altering whole muscle activation or neuromuscular junction transmission. We used 10 male volunteers in a randomized, double-blind, repeated-measures experiment to examine single motor unit firing rates during intermittent submaximal contractions and to determine whether administering caffeine increased T(lim) by maintaining higher firing rates. On 2 separate days, subjects performed intermittent 50% maximal voluntary contractions of the quadriceps to T(lim), 1 h after ingesting a caffeine (6 mg/kg) or placebo capsule. Average motor unit firing rates recorded with tungsten microelectrodes were constant for the duration of contractions. Caffeine increased average T(lim) by 20.5 +/- 8.1% (P < 0.05) compared with placebo conditions. This increase was due to seven subjects, termed responders, who increased T(lim) significantly. Two other subjects showed no response, and a third had a shorter T(lim). Neither the increased T(lim) nor the responders' performance could be explained by alterations in firing rates or other neuromuscular variables. However, the amplitude of the evoked twitch and its maximal instantaneous rate of relaxation did not decline to the same degree in the caffeine trial of the responders; this resulted in values 20 and 30% higher at the time point matching the end of the placebo trial (P < 0.05). The amplitude of the evoked twitch and the maximal instantaneous rate of relaxation were linearly correlated (caffeine r = 0.72, placebo r = 0.80, both P < 0.001), suggesting that the increase in T(lim) may be partially explained by caffeine's effects on calcium reuptake and twitch force.

BackgroundIn Ontario, FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine + nab‐paclitaxel (GnP) have been publicly funded for first‐line unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) since April 2015. We examined the real‐world effectiveness and safety of FFX vs GnP for advanced pancreatic cancer, and in uLAPC and mPC.MethodsPatients receiving first‐line FFX or GnP from April 2015 to March 2017 were identified in the New Drug Funding Program database. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were obtained through the Ontario Cancer Registry and other population‐based databases. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan‐Meier and weighted Cox proportional hazard models, weighted by the inverse propensity score adjusting for baseline characteristics. Weighted odds ratio (OR) for hospitalization and emergency department visits (EDV) were estimated from weighted logistic regression models.ResultsFor 1130 patients (632 FFX, 498 GnP), crude median OS was 9.6 and 6.1 months for FFX and GnP, respectively. Weighted OS was improved for FFX vs GnP (HR = 0.77, 0.70‐0.85). Less frequent EDV and hospitalization were observed in FFX (EDV: 67.8%; Hospitalization: 49.2%) than GnP (EDV: 77.7%; Hospitalization: 59.3%). More frequent febrile neutropenia‐related hospitalization was observed in FFX (5.8%) than GnP (3.3%). Risk of EDV and hospitalization were significantly lower for FFX vs GnP (EDV: OR = 0.68, P = .0001; Hospitalization: OR = 0.76, P = .002), whereas the risk of febrile neutropenia‐related hospitalization was significantly higher (OR = 2.12, P = .001). Outcomes for uLAPC and mPC were similar.ConclusionIn the real world, FFX had longer OS, less frequent all‐cause EDV and all‐cause hospitalization, but more febrile neutropenia‐related hospitalization compared to GnP.