Abstract Introduction Measures taken to mitigate infection spread during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic are considered to have caused significant unintended consequences on other diseases. Large decreases in the numbers of symptomatic and asymptomatic people presenting for diagnosis of heart disease, diabetes and cancer have been observed. A recent analysis of solid tumors showed up to 70% reduction in the number of patients presenting for diagnosis. The potential exists for significantly increased morbidity and mortality for these missed or delayed presenting patients. Further, it is important to determine whether infection spread mitigation measures affected the diagnostic testing and treatment decisions for these patients. This study aimed to determine whether pandemic control measures affected presentation, testing and treatment of patients across eight different hematologic cancers. Methods CMS claims data were analyzed for the presence of diagnostic (DX) ICD 10 codes indicative of hematologic cancer. Patients with a DX code first appearing in 2019 or in 2020 were selected to provide newly diagnosed pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 cohorts for comparison, with unique patient counts being calculated for each month. A "COVID-19 dip" i.e. a decrease in the number of patients was calculated as the change in number of patients diagnosed in a given month relative to the number for JAN2020. Dip duration was calculated only when the decrease was >10% of the JAN2020 figure. Patients who received treatment via a "J" code Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code were extracted from the cohorts and the time taken from initial diagnosis to first treatment calculated. Results Eight hematologic cancers: AML, CLL, CML, HEME (a group of different hematologic cancers), Hodgkins (HOG), Myelodysplasia (MDS), Non-Follicular Lymphomas (NFL), and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL) showed a decrease in the number of patients being diagnosed during the early part of 2020 (Fig.1) Fig.1. Change in new patient diagnoses for selected hematologic cancers as a proportion of their JAN2020 value There was some variation in the depth and duration of the COVID-19 dip (Table 1) with MDS having both the longest and deepest dip. Median depth and duration of the dip was 33% and 3.5 months, respectively, with all dips starting either in FEB or MAR2020. Table 1. Duration and depth of COVID-19 dips for selected hematological cancers The proportions of patients receiving therapy via J HCPCS code (JRX) are shown in Table 2 Table 2. Proportions of patients receiving J code therapy Conclusions The decline in new patient diagnoses for heme cancers during the period when COVID-19 control measures were implemented is similar to that seen with solid tumors, although the depth of the COVID-19 dip was generally larger in the latter. There is no evidence of "catch up" diagnosis occurring i.e. patients missing from Q2 2020 are not reappearing en masse in subsequent quarters. The decline for MDS patients has, except for SEP to OCT2020, remained. Collectively, (depending on the calculation method), the COVID-19 dip for these eight heme cancers represents 16,584-33,671 patients who will likely have significantly increased rates of morbidity and mortality due to delayed diagnosis. Analysis of J code treatments show little difference between the proportions of patients receiving these treatments in 2020 compared to 2019 suggesting that at least some aspects of treatment e.g. infused chemotherapy, IO drugs for these patients was relatively unchanged by pandemic control measures. It also suggests that the main cause for decreased patient numbers treated is due to decreased testing for diagnosis, rather than not being treated once diagnosed. This aligns with findings from studies in the US and UK. The results of this study indicate that there may be a "backlog" of tens of thousands of people with cancer whose diagnosis has been significantly delayed and who urgently need to be identified in order to get on proper treatment to lessen the impact of that delay. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Search for Evidence-Based Approaches for the Prevention and Palliation of Hand–Foot Skin Reaction (HFSR) Caused by the Multikinase Inhibitors (MKIs)
Abstract Background. The anticancer multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) are associated with cutaneous adverse events, including hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR), a condition affecting 20%–40% of patients. Symptoms are usually mild, but can evolve into a painful condition that limits function and impacts quality of life (QoL), resulting in shortened cancer treatment duration or intensity. The goal of this study was to systematically review the literature on the prevention and palliation of MKI-associated HFSR, to identify areas for further clinical study, and to provide a foundation for evidence-based guidelines for HFSR management. Methods. Systematic searches of the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database, Cochrane Reviews, BIOSIS, CancerLit, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology website were conducted using search terms for cutaneous toxicities associated with chemotherapeutic agents. Articles were categorized (C) based on type of agent and cutaneous reaction as: C1 (MKI and HFSR); C2 (MKI and other cutaneous toxicity); C3 (other antineoplastic agents and HFSR); and C4, other. Results. Of the 2,069 abstracts screened, 350 (17%) met the criteria for C1–C4, with 56 (16%) coded as C1 with details of HFSR histology, pathogenesis, clinical outcome, QoL impact, and/or prevention and treatment approaches in MKI-treated patients. No randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on prevention/palliation of HFSR were identified. Anecdotal evidence or expert opinion advocated protective measures, preventive and therapeutic skin care, systemic analgesics for pain, vitamin B6, and MKI dose modification. Conclusion. No articles containing evidence from RCTs on preventive/palliative approaches to MKI-associated HFSR have been published. Systematic study of optimal treatment strategies for HFSR is needed to advance development of evidence-based treatment guidelines.