The detection of delirium in admitted oncology patients: a scoping review

Purpose Delirium leads to poor outcomes for patients and careers and has negative impacts on staff and service provision. Cancer rates in elderly populations are increasing and frequently, cancer diagnoses are a co-morbidity in the context of frailty. Data relating to the epidemiology of delirium in hospitalised cancer patients are limited. With the overarching purpose of improving delirium detection and reducing the morbidity and mortality of delirium in cancer patients, we reviewed the epidemiological data and approach to delirium detection in hospitalised, adult oncology patients. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched from January 1996 to August 2017. Key concepts were delirium, cancer, inpatient oncology and delirium screening/detection. Results Of 896 unique studies identified; 91 met full-text review criteria. Of 12 eligible studies, four applied recommended case ascertainment methods to all patients, three used delirium screening tools alone or with case ascertainment tools sub-optimally applied, four used tools not recommended for delirium screening or case ascertainment, one used the Confusion Assessment Method with insufficient information to determine if it met case ascertainment status. Two studies presented delirium incidence rates: 7.8%, and 17% respectively. Prevalence rates ranged from 18–33% for general medical or oncology wards; 42–58% for Acute Palliative Care Units (APCU); and for older cancer patients: 22% and 57%. Three studies reported reversibility; 26% and 49% respectively (APCUs) and 30% (older patients with cancer). Six studies had a low risk of bias according to QUADAS-2 criteria; all studies in the APCU setting were rated at higher risk of bias. Tool selection, study flow and recruitment bias reduced study quality. Conclusion The knowledge base for improved interventions and clinical care for adults with cancer and delirium is limited by the low number of studies. A clear distinction between screening tools and diagnostic tools is required to provide an improved understanding of the rates of delirium and its reversibility in this population.

The antibody response of haematological malignancies to COVID-19 infection and vaccination

SummaryCancer patients with COVID-19 have reduced survival. While most cancer patients, like the general population, have an almost 100% rate of seroconversion after COVID-19 infection or vaccination, patients with haematological malignancies have lower seroconversion rates and are far less likely to gain adequate protection. This raises the concern that patients with haematological malignancies, especially those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, may still develop the fatal disease when infected with COVID-19 after vaccination. There is an urgent need to develop Guidelines to help direct vaccination schedules and protective measures in oncology patients, differentiating those with haematological malignancies and those in an immunocompromised state.

Safe Provision of Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment for Urological Cancer Patients During COVID-19: A Tertiary Centre Experience in the First Wave of COVID-19

Background Safe provision of systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) during the COVID-19 pandemic remains an ongoing concern amongst clinicians. Methods Retrospective analysis on uro-oncology patients who continued or started SACT between 1st March and 31st May 2020 during the pandemic (with 2019 as a comparator). Results 441 patients received SACT in 2020 (292 prostate, 101 renal, 38 urothelial, 10 testicular) compared to 518 patients in 2019 (340 prostate, 121 renal, 42 urothelial, 15 testicular). In 2020, there were 75.00% fewer patients with stage 3 cancers receiving SACT (p<0.0001) and 94.44% fewer patients receiving radical treatment (p=0.0019). The number of patients started on a new line of SACT was similar between both years (118 in 2019 vs 102 in 2020; p=N.S) but with 53.45% fewer patients started on chemotherapy in 2020 (p=0.00067). Overall, 5 patients tested positive for COVID-19 (one asymptomatic, two moderate pneumonitis, one severe pneumonitis). Compared to 2019, 30-day mortality was similar (1.69% in 2019 vs 0.98% in 2020; p=N.S) whereas the 6-month mortality was lower (9.32% in 2019 vs 1.96% in 2020; p=0.023) in 2020. Conclusion This single-centre study demonstrated that uro-oncology patients can safely receive SACT during COVID-19 pandemic with a low incidence of infection and mortality.