4.4 Article

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer treatment scheduling

Journal

THORACIC CANCER
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages 2983-2986

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13615

Keywords

COVID-19; lung cancer; pandemic; SARS-CoV-2; treatment delay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with a heavy burden on the mental and physical health of patients, regional healthcare resources, and global economic activity. Many patients with lung cancer are thought to be affected by this situation. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer treatment scheduling. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of lung cancer patients who were undergoing anticancer treatment at the National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center (600 beds) in Kyoto, Japan, between 1 March 2020 and 31 May 2020. After the medical records were reviewed, the patients were assigned to one of two groups, depending on whether their lung cancer treatment schedule was delayed. We assessed the characteristics, types of histopathology and treatment, and the reason for the delay. A total 15 (9.1%) patients experienced a delay in lung cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a treatment delay received significantly more immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy than patients without a treatment delay (P= 0.0057). On the contrary, no patients receiving molecular targeted agents experienced a treatment delay during the COVID-19 pandemic period (P= 0.0027). The treatments of most of the patients were delayed at their request. We determined that 9.1% lung cancer patients suffered anxiety and requested a treatment delay during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oncologists should bear in mind that patients with cancer have more anxiety than expected under unprecedented circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available