scholarly journals A digital tumor board solution impacts case discussion time and postponement of cases in tumor boards

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-533
Author(s):  
Richard D. Hammer ◽  
Donna Fowler ◽  
Lincoln R. Sheets ◽  
Athanasios Siadimas ◽  
Chaohui Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Access ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Case Discussion ◽  
Average Case ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
Cancer Types ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
The Impact

AbstractMultidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs) is an integral part of cancer care. Emerging evidence shows that effective TB implementation is crucial. It remains largely unknown how digital solutions can assist effective TB conduction. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a digital solution on case discussion during TB meetings in four cancer types: Breast, Gastrointestinal (GI), Ear, Nose & Throat (ENT), and Hematopathology. A prospective study was performed to evaluate case discussion time during TB meetings pre- and post-solution implementation, at an US academic healthcare cancer center. Data were recorded by a Nurse Navigator for each case during TB meetings. Case discussion times were recorded for 2312 patients, at a total of 286 TB meetings. Significant decreases were observed in the average case discussion time for the breast and GI TBs. We observed a trend for reduction in discussion time variance for all TBs, suggesting the potential of the digital solution to standardize case discussion via provision of uniform case presentation and data access. Postponement rate decreased from 23 to 10% for ENT TB. This study demonstrated that the digital solution enhanced effective TB implementation, with heterogeneity across cancer types.

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic diseases.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 319-319
Author(s):  
David G. Brauer ◽  
Matthew S. Strand ◽  
Dominic E. Sanford ◽  
Maria Majella Doyle ◽  
Faris Murad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Common Diagnosis ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
The Impact

319 Background: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MTBs) are a requirement for comprehensive cancer centers and are routinely used to coordinate multidisciplinary care in oncology. Despite their widespread use, the impact of MTBs is not well characterized. We studied the outcomes of all patients presented at our pancreas MTB, with the goal of evaluating our current practices and resource utilization. Methods: Data were prospectively collected for all patients presented at a weekly pancreas-specific MTB over the 12-month period at a single-institution NCI-designated cancer center. The conference is attended by surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists, interventional gastroenterologists, pathologists, and radiologists (diagnostic and interventional). Retrospective chart review was performed at the end of the 12-month period under an IRB-approved protocol. Results: A total of 470 patient presentations were made over a 12-month period. Average age at time of presentation was 61.5 years (range 17 – 89) with 51% males. 61.7% of cases were presented by surgical oncologists and 26% by medical oncologists. 174 cases were the result of new diagnoses or referrals. 78 patients were presented more than once (average of 2.3 times). Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common diagnosis (37%), followed by uncharacterized pancreatic mass (16%), and pancreatic cyst (7%). The treatment plan proposed by the presenting clinician was known or could be evaluated prior to conference in 402 cases. Presentation of a case at MTB changed the plan of management 25% (n = 100) of the time, including MTB recommendation against a planned resection in 46 cases. When the initial plan changed as a result of MTB discussion, the most common new plan was to obtain further diagnostic testing such as biopsy and/or endoscopy (n = 24). Conclusions: MTBs are required and resource-intensive but offer the opportunity to discuss a wide array of pathologies and influence management decisions in a sizable proportion of cases. Additional investigations evaluating adherence rates to MTB decisions and to published guidelines (i.e. National Comprehensive Cancer Network) will further enhance the assessment and utility of MTBs.

The impact of a digital solution on case discussion time at tumor boards.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18028-e18028
Author(s):  
Donna Fowler ◽  
Lincoln R Sheets ◽  
Matthew S Prime ◽  
Athanasios Siadimas ◽  
Yariv Z Levy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
P Value ◽  
Case Discussion ◽  
Patient Case ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Case Discussions ◽  
The Impact

e18028 Background: A multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) provides an interdisciplinary approach for decision-making in cancer care. Information factors such as, multiple data sources, incomplete or missing information and teleconferencing failures, have been identified as issues contributing to variability in MTB conduction and impact. Little is known about how digital tumor board solutions can optimize MTB meeting conduction. Methods: A prospective IRB approved cohort study was undertaken to evaluate the time for patient case discussions,before and after the implementation of the NAVIFY Tumor Board (NTB) solution, at University of Missouri Health Care. Data was collected using a digital time-tracking application. The NTB manual version was implemented via a phased roll-out (Breast May 18, 2018; Gastrointestinal (GI) Jul 11, 2018; ENT Oct 30, 2018 – no manual version phase). Subsequently, the integrated version was introduced (Oct 4, 2018) whereby automated electronic medical record (EMR) data extraction was enabled. Results: Patient case discussion time was recorded at 138 MTBs (1109 patient cases) during 2018 (Breast 40 MTB; 236cases / GI 49 MTB; 389 cases / ENT 49 MTBs; 484 cases). Case discussion time significantly reduced at the Breast MTB (6.6mins to 5.3 mins; p-value = 0.01). Case discussion time at ENT MTB and GI MTB showed no significant change (Table 1). Time variance in case discussions significantly decreased post-NTB implementation at the Breast MTB (p-value = 0.008). For the GI & ENT MTBs, there was no significant difference post-NTB implementation (GI p-value =0.199; ENT p-value = 0.511), however, variance was already sma Conclusions: Introduction of the NTB reduced the time spent discussing cases for the Breast MTB, but showed no change forGI MTB and ENT MTB. Interestingly, case discussion times converged to between 5.5 - 6.5 minutesirrespective of the MTB type. Furthermore, variance decreased or was already small, for all MTB types. Both observations suggest that NTB standardized the case discussion process, perhaps because it created a common format for case presentation. A common workflow tool for MTB meeting conduction could ensure availability of all required data, increase efficiency of therapy decision-making, and lead to higher throughput of cases resulting in shorter time-to-treatment.

scholarly journals Digital Tumor Board Solutions Have Significant Impact on Case Preparation

2020 ◽  
pp. 757-768
Author(s):  
Richard D. Hammer ◽  
Donna Fowler ◽  
Lincoln R. Sheets ◽  
Athanasios Siadimas ◽  
Chaohui Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Care Center ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Preparation Time ◽  
Implementation Phase ◽  
Health Care Center ◽  
Multiple User ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
User Groups ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Nose And Throat

PURPOSE Multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs) are the gold standard for decision-making in cancer care. Variability in preparation, conduction, and impact is widely reported. The benefit of digital technologies to support TBs is unknown. This study evaluated the impact of the NAVIFY Tumor Board solution (NTB) on TB preparation time across multiple user groups in 4 cancer categories: breast, GI, head and neck (ie, ear, nose, and throat, or ENT), and hematopathology. METHODS This prospective study evaluated TB preparation time in multiple phases pre- and post-NTB implementation at an academic health care center. TB preparation times were recorded for multiple weeks using a digital time tracker. RESULTS Preparation times for 59 breast, 61 GI, 36 ENT, and 71 hematopathology cancer TBs comparing a pre-NTB phase to 3 phases of NTB implementation were evaluated between February 2018 and July 2019. NTB resulted in significant reductions in overall preparation time (30%) across 3 TBs pre-NTB compared with the final post-NTB implementation phase. In the breast TB, NTB reduced overall preparation time by 28%, with a 76% decrease in standard deviation (SD). In the GI TB, a 23% reduction in average preparation time was observed for all users, with a 48% decrease in SD. In the ENT TB, a 33% reduction in average preparation time was observed for all users, with a 73% decrease in SD. The hematopathology TB, which was the cocreation partner and initial adopter of the solution, showed variable results. CONCLUSION This study showed a significant impact of a digital solution on time preparation for TBs across multiple users and different TBs, reflecting the generalizability of the NTB. Adoption of such a solution could improve the efficiency of TBs and have a direct economic impact on hospitals.

Assessing the impact of a targeted educational initiative on colorectal cancer lymph node retrieval: A Fox Chase Cancer Center Partners' quality initiative

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6524-6524
Author(s):  
B. Curley ◽  
M. A. O'Grady ◽  
S. Litwin ◽  
K. Stitzenberg ◽  
H. Armitage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Community Hospitals ◽  
Educational Initiative ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Nodal Yield ◽  
The Impact

6524 Background: The retrieval of ≥12 lymph nodes in a colorectal cancer surgical specimen is an established quality metric. The impact of targeted education to improve nodal yield at community hospitals has not been studied. We initiated an intensive educational program through the Fox Chase Cancer Center Partner (FCCCP) hospitals to improve nodal retrieval in colon cancer specimens. Methods: At 12 FCCCP community hospitals from 2004–05, educational initiatives were conducted by FCCC staff and included group presentations at hospital tumor boards, cancer and quality committees, and regional CME. Individual presentations to pathologists and surgeons were held. Tumor registry data were retrospectively collected from FCCCP from 2003 (pre-intervention) to 2006 (post-intervention) for patients undergoing curative colon cancer surgery. Data abstracted were age, sex, race, stage, surgical procedure, and total number of nodes examined. The primary end point was % surgical specimens with ≥12 lymph nodes. Obtaining at least 250 records per year would allow ≥90% power to detect a change from a baseline level of ∼40% to ≥50% after intervention. Results: Data from 4,208 patients from 12 FCCCP hospitals were collected. Overall characteristics: male/female (48%/52%), race (W 83%, AA 7%, other 10%), age (<50:6%, 50–70: 34%, >70:60%), node ± (39%/61%). The % of colon cancer operations with ≥12 nodes significantly increased over the four years of the study (Table, p<.00001). This difference persisted when pooling years before and after the intervention (2003–04 vs. 2005–06, p <0.0001). There was no difference in nodal yield between two pre-intervention years (2003 vs. 2004, p=0.1). No differences in other characteristics such as age, sex, race, or % lymph node positive were noted between years. Conclusions: A multi-intervention targeted educational initiative in a large community cancer network is feasible and associated with increased colon cancer nodal retrieval. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Quality assessment of tumor boards across an academic and community cancer network.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 122-122
Author(s):  
Daniel Aaron Roberts ◽  
Robert Stuver ◽  
Igor Schillevoort ◽  
Jessica A. Zerillo
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Assessment Survey ◽  
Cancer Network

122 Background: Cancer tumor boards (TB), or multidisciplinary team meetings are standard of care in oncology care worldwide. Specific components are described by the American College of Surgeon's Commission on Cancer Program. Most data show consistent improvement in outcomes including a change in diagnostic findings, treatment, and possibly improved survival with TBs. Methods: We adapted a performance assessment tool based on a validated survey implemented in the United Kingdom. An initial survey aimed at assessing tumor board structure and design was sent to 21 TB leaders, and subsequently a tumor board quality assessment survey was sent to 175 participants throughout an academic and community network. The quality assessment survey required participants to identify an answer on a 5-point Likert scale in the categories of "very poor, poor, average, good, and very good". Results: TB leaders representing 16 of 21 (response rate 76%) TBs responded to the structure/design survey. Twelve TBs were from the academic center and included diseases such as Gynecologic Oncology, Cutaneous Oncology, Genitourinary Oncology, and Sarcoma, while four were from community sites. TB leaders indicated that 55% of TBs did not receive CME credit and 60% did not document their recommendations. One hundred eleven TB participants of 175 (response rate 63%) responded to the quality assessment survey. Participants identified the following strengths: 1) all relevant subspecialties present for meetings, 2) respectful teamwork and culture, and 3) operating on an organized agenda. Areas for improvement included: 1) inconsistent tumor board recommendation documentation and 2) post-meeting coordination of care. Results were reviewed with network and cancer center leadership as well as with the Cancer Committee. Conclusions: We assessed our own tumor boards across our cancer network by utilizing an adapted version of a validated TB performance measurement tool for the first time in the United States. Through this assessment we identified key areas for improvement including the need for obtaining CME credit for TB attendance, and developed a policy, process, and template for documenting TB recommendations in an easily accessible centralized location.

Video conferencing long distance caregivers during oncology appointments: Implications for clinical practice.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24198-e24198
Author(s):  
Eric Blackstone ◽  
Sumin Park ◽  
Smitha S. Krishnamurthi ◽  
David Lawrence Bajor ◽  
Polly Mazanec ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Work And Family ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Appointment Time ◽  
Cancer Types ◽  
Videoconferencing Technology ◽  
The Impact

e24198 Background: Distance Caregivers (DCGs) – caregivers living > 1 hour away from the patient – face unique challenges regarding frustration at receiving second hand information about the patient’s condition and uncertainty regarding how to assist the patient. Videoconferencing allows DCGs to connect for the patient’s oncology appointments while avoiding costly travel expenses and time away from work and family. Methods: 441 patient-DCG dyads enrolled in a randomized controlled trial at a large, urban comprehensive cancer center. Patients of all cancer types were eligible if they had monthly oncologist appointments. DCGs were randomized to one of three arms. Arm 1 – received four monthly videoconference coaching sessions with a nurse or social worker, connected for the patient’s oncology appointments, and had access to a website designed for DCGs; Arm 2 – connected for the patient’s oncology appointments over four months and had access to the DCG website; Arm 3 – received access to the DCG website. To evaluate the impact on clinical practice, outpatient oncology appointments were timed. Helpfulness of the intervention was rated from 0-10 with higher scores representing greater amounts of helpfulness. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Pearson’s correlation were conducted to describe features, determine group differences, and identify relationships among variables. Results: Mean helpfulness ratings were 9.06 (patients), 9.30 (local caregivers), 9.08 (DCGs), and 7.98 (oncologists). Average appointment times (in minutes) for Arm 1, Arm 2, and Arm 3 were 19.63 (SD = 7.69), 21.34 (SD = 9.95), and 17.80 (SD = 10.20), respectively. Arm 2 had significantly longer appointments than Arm 3 (mean difference: 3.54, p = .025). No relationships were found between length of appointment time and helpfulness ratings. Conclusions: The videoconferencing intervention was well-received by oncologists, patients, and DCGs. Appointments were longest in Arm 2, followed by Arm 1, then Arm 3 (control). It makes sense that connecting an additional person lengthened the meetings, but it was noteworthy that Arm 2 was longest. DCGs in Arm 2 (who did not have the coaching) likely had more unanswered questions that were discussed with the oncologist compared to Arm 1 DCGs. Cancer centers should consider this when implementing videoconferencing technology. Clinical trial information: NCT02666183 .

scholarly journals NCOG-75. ESTIMATED PHYSICIAN COST OF A NEURO-ONCOLOGY MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM (MDT) TUMOR BOARD MEETING AT A SINGLE ACADEMIC CENTER

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii146-ii146
Author(s):  
Brett Schroeder ◽  
Jerome Graber ◽  
Emmanuel Cuevas
Keyword(s):  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Radiation Oncologists ◽  
Annual Salary ◽  
Academic Center ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Patient Prognosis ◽  
The Impact

Abstract BACKGROUND Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) to improve coordination across disciplines have become commonplace in oncology. Quantifying the impact of MDTs is challenging, and they carry significant costs. Weekly neuro-oncology tumor boards are attended by neuro-oncologists, neurosurgeons, radiation-oncologists, neuro-radiologists, neuro-pathologists, and support staff including mid-level practitioners, research coordinators, social workers, nurses and trainees. Our aim was to estimate costs associated with neuro-oncology MDTs. METHODS The estimated physician cost of MDT meetings were calculated from reported salaries of each physician specialty. Annual salaries from the Doximity 2019 Physician Compensation Report (PCR) included data for 4 neurosurgeons, 4 radiation-oncologists, 2 radiologists, 2 oncologists, and 2 neurologists. Medscape 2019 PCR data was compiled for 4 general surgeons, 2 radiologists, 2 oncologists, 2 pathologists, and 2 neurologists. The Physician Wages Across Specialties by Leigh in 2011 (JAMA) was utilized for 4 neurosurgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, 2 oncologists, and 2 neurologists. Annual salary data was divided by annual hours per specialty as reported by the Annual Work Hours Across Specialties, 2011. These values were then applied to an MDT for one patient, one hour, weekly, and annually. RESULTS The Doximity 2019 PCR yielded a per meeting cost of $2,520.84, and an annual cost of $131,083.68. The Medscape 2019 PCR produced a cost of $1,570.60 weekly, and $81,671.20 annually. JAMA data estimated a per meeting cost of $1,448.06, and $75.299.12. The mean per meeting and annual costs were $1846.50, and $96,018.00, respectively. With 6-10 cases per MDT, the mean costs per patient were $184.65 to $307.75. CONCLUSIONS Costs of MDT are not negligible. The impact of MDTs on patient outcomes are harder to quantify, but evidence exists that organized MDTs improve patient prognosis, and unorganized MDTs may negatively affect prognosis. Processes to streamline MDTs could help answer outcomes research questions, improve efficiency, and generate clinically relevant performance metrics.

A virtual tumor board-driven synaptic knowledge network.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 89-89
Author(s):  
Laurence J. Heifetz ◽  
Ahrin B. Koppel ◽  
Elaine Melissa Kaime ◽  
Daphne Palmer ◽  
Thomas John Semrad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Knowledge Network ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Hospital District ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Tumor Boards

89 Background: In 2006, Tahoe Forest Hospital District—a 25-bed hospital in Truckee, CA, a mountain resort community one hour from regional and two hours from academic cancer services—designed and implemented an oncology program utilizing effective telecommunications with a committed academic partner, the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center in Sacramento. Methods: The UC Davis Cancer Care Network was established with four remote cancer programs, enabling participation in daily virtual tumor boards, clinical trial enrollment, and quality assurance assistance. (Richard J. Bold, et. al., Virtual tumor boards: community-university collaboration to improve quality of care. Community Oncol 10(11):310-315, November 2013.; Laurence J. Heifetz, MD, et. al., A Model for Rural Oncology. J Oncol Pract, 7:168-171, May 2011.). An increasing number of patients were observed to in-migrate to Truckee from even more remote rural areas in the mountains. In 2013, the now Gene Upshaw Memorial Tahoe Forest Cancer Center developed four remote telemedicine clinics to allow even more physically distant patients the capacity to be followed locally. Results: Since we opened the remote telemedicine clinics, our Sullivan-Luallin patient satisfaction scores have averaged 4.82/5.00 for “overall satisfaction with the practice” and 4.90/5.00 for “recommending your provider to others”; our in-migration rate of patients from outside our primary catchment area increased from 43% to 52%: and clinical trial accrual rate averaged 10%. Conclusions: Reducing cancer health disparities is an ASCO mission. (cover, ASCO Connection, July 2014; Laurence J. Heifetz, MD. Country Docs with City Technology Can Address Rural Cancer Care Disparities. Oncol, 29(9):641-644, September 2015.). We believe this synaptic knowledge network effectively addresses that mission for rural communities. This model can be scaled in many configurations to address the inherent degradation of quality care as a function of physical distance to an academic center that rural doctors and patients deal with on a daily basis. The key is to insist on a cultural shift – Do something smart at lunch every day. Attend a virtual tumor board.

Early versus late patient discussions in multidisciplinary tumor boards: Quality time for quality care.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13539-e13539
Author(s):  
Sharif Ahmed ◽  
Greg Kubicek
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Quality Patient Care ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Disease Specific

e13539 Background: Multi-disciplinary tumor boards (MTB) are a way to generate quality patient care by allowing different specialties to provide insight into patient care. While the vast majority of hospital systems have MTB there are several aspects of how to run the most efficient MTB. The aim of this study was to determine if there was a difference in patients presented early versus late in MTB. Methods: At our institution we have disease specific weekly MTB. Patients are added to MTB based on order they are received (physicians or APN will send patient name to the disease specific nurse navigator). We recorded the time devoted to each patient and the number of providers that gave a comment or suggestion per patient. The time and number of comments were compared for patients presented at the start of MTB versus towards the end of MTB. Unpaired T test was used to compare time and comments. Results: We analyzed a total of 25 MTBs which corresponded to 241 patients. The median number of patients discussed per MTB was 9 (range 5 to 16). The median time spent per patient was 5.21 minutes and the median number of providers providing comments was 3 (range 1 to 9) with an average of 3.2. When analyzed by the first 8 patients versus the remainder, the median time spent was 6.1 minutes on the first 1-8 patients and 3.4 for > 8 (P < 0.0001). The mean number of comments was 3.4 for the first 1-8 patients and 2.4 for > 8 (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: We found that patients discussed towards the end of weekly MTB had less amount of time per devoted per patient and less discussion (as measured by number of providers supplying comments and suggestions). While the impact on long-term patient care is unclear we feel that this data is important in helping to ensure productive MTB discussions and avoid any arbitrary factor for reduced multidisciplinary insight. MTB should be cognitive of this time and attention biases.

scholarly journals Influence of the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Care in a German Comprehensive Cancer Center

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Kirchberg ◽  
Anke Rentsch ◽  
Anna Klimova ◽  
Vasyl Vovk ◽  
Sebastian Hempel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Volume ◽  
Tumor Stage ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Tertiary Referral Center ◽  
Tract Cancer ◽  
Oncological Patients ◽  
Tumor Entity ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the German government implemented legal restrictions to avoid the overloading of intensive care units by patients with COVID-19. The influence of these effects on diagnosis and treatment of cancer in Germany is largely unknown.Methods: To evaluate the effect of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on tumor board presentations in a high-volume tertiary referral center (the German Comprehensive Cancer Center NCT/UCC Dresden), we compared the number of presentations of gastrointestinal tumors stratified by tumor entity, tumor stage, and treatment intention during the pandemic to the respective data from previous years.Results: The number of presentations decreased by 3.2% (95% CI −8.8, 2.7) during the COVID year 2020 compared with the pre-COVID year 2019. During the first shutdown, March–May 2020, the total number of presentations was 9.4% (−18.7, 1) less than during March–May 2019. This decrease was significant for curable cases of esophageal cancer [N = 37, 25.5% (−41.8, −4.4)] and colon cancer [N = 36, 17.5% (−32.6, 1.1)] as well as for all cases of biliary tract cancer [N = 26, 50% (−69.9, −15)] during the first shutdown from March 2020 to May 2020.Conclusion: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation of oncological patients in a CCC in Germany was considerable and should be taken into account when making decisions regarding future pandemics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document