Background During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with cancer in rural settings and distant geographical areas will be affected the most by curfews. Virtual management (telemedicine) has been shown to reduce health costs and improve access to care. Objective The aim of this survey is to understand oncologists’ awareness of and views on virtual management, challenges, and preferences, as well as their priorities regarding the prescribing of anticancer treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We created a self-administrated electronic survey about the virtual management of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated its clinical sensibility and pilot tested the instrument. We surveyed practicing oncologists in Gulf and Arab countries using snowball sampling via emails and social media networks. Reminders were sent 1 and 2 weeks later using SurveyMonkey. Results We received 222 responses from validated oncologists from April 2-22, 2020. An awareness of virtual clinics, virtual multidisciplinary teams, and virtual prescriptions was reported by 182 (82%), 175 (79%), and 166 (75%) respondents, respectively. Reported challenges associated with virtual management were the lack of physical exam (n=134, 60%), patients’ awareness and access (n=131, 59%), the lack of physical attendance of patients (n=93, 42%), information technology (IT) support (n=82, 37%), and the safety of virtual management (n=78, 35%). Overall, 111 (50%) and 107 (48%) oncologists did not prefer the virtual prescription of chemotherapy and novel immunotherapy, respectively. However, 188 (85%), 165 (74%), and 127 (57%) oncologists preferred the virtual prescription of hormonal therapy, bone modifying agents, and targeted therapy, respectively. In total, 184 (83%), 183 (83%), and 176 (80%) oncologists preferred to continue neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and perioperative treatments, respectively. Overall, 118 (53%) respondents preferred to continue first-line palliative treatment, in contrast to 68 (30%) and 47 (21%) respondents indicating a preference to interrupt second- and third-line palliative treatment, respectively. For administration of virtual prescriptions, all respondents preferred the oral route and 118 (53%) preferred the subcutaneous route. In contrast, 193 (87%) did not prefer the intravenous route for virtual prescriptions. Overall, 102 (46%) oncologists responded that they would “definitely” prefer to manage patients with cancer virtually. Conclusions Oncologists have a high level of awareness of virtual management. Although their survey responses indicated that second- and third-line palliative treatments should be interrupted, they stated that neoadjuvant, adjuvant, perioperative, and first-line palliative treatments should continue. Our results confirm that oncologists’ views on the priority of anticancer treatments are consistent with the evolving literature during the COVID-19 pandemic. Challenges to virtual management should be addressed to improve the care of patients with cancer.

Background: During curfew, patients are self-isolated at home and worried. Patient-doctor interactions may be disrupted and therefore need to be replaced by alternative effective communication methods. Purpose: To describe the preferences of cancer patients with respect to communication methods and the use of patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). To record the impact on cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and the knowledge and attitude of the patients towards it. Patients and Methods: We created a self-administered electronic survey that was piloted and evaluated for its clinical relevance. Using convenient sampling methods, we surveyed the cancer patients in our Oncology Center. Results: We received 385 responses between April 15 and April 30, 2020. The preferred method for communication was a phone call with a 92% response rate followed by the electronic patient portal, mobile application, telemedicine and text message in 75%, 76%, 73%, and 72%, respectively. The majority (97%) preferred the use of PAEHRs for appointments, 95% for drug delivery and to view laboratory tests, and 92% in requesting medical reports. In our survey, 22% of patients with cancer reported that their medical cancer care had not been affected by COVID-19. They reported that trusted sources of information during COVID-19 included the Ministry of Health with 98% and doctors with 94%. Sixtyone percent know that they are more susceptible to COVID-19 infection and 91% of respondents supported the notion of digital transformation in the caring of cancer patients. Conclusion: Our study revealed a general acceptance of patients to telecommunication as substitute to in-person interaction with their physicians. Interaction between cancer patients and health care providers should not be disrupted but should be augmented with more effective platforms to improve health care outcomes.

Administration of effective anticancer treatments should continue during pandemics. However, the outcomes of curative and palliative anticancer treatments during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic remain unclear. The present retrospective observational study aimed to determine the 30-day mortality and morbidity of curative and palliative anticancer treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between March 1 and June 30, 2020, all adults (n=2,504) with solid and hematological malignancies irrespective of cancer stage and type of anticancer treatments at five large comprehensive cancer centers in Saudi Arabia were included. The 30-day mortality was 5.1% (n=127) for all patients receiving anticancer treatment, 1.8% (n=24) for curative intent, 8.6% (n=103) for palliative intent and 13.4% (n=12) for COVID-19 cases. The 30-day morbidity was 28.2% (n=705) for all patients, 17.9% (n=234) for curative intent, 39.3% (n=470) for palliative intent and 75% (n=77) for COVID-19 cases. The 30-day mortality was significantly increased with male sex [odds ratio (OR), 2.011; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.141-3.546; P=0.016], body mass index (BMI) <25 (OR, 1.997; 95% CI, 1.292-3.087; P=0.002), hormone therapy (OR, 6.315; 95% CI, 0.074-2.068; P=0.001) and number of cycles (OR, 2.110; 95% CI, 0.830-0.948; P=0.001), but decreased with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) of 0-1 (OR, 0.157; 95% CI, 0.098-0.256; P=0.001), stage I-II cancer (OR, 0.254; 95% CI, 0.069-0.934; P=0.039) and curative intent (OR, 0.217; 95% CI, 0.106-0.443; P=0.001). Furthermore, the 30-day morbidity significantly increased with age >65 years (OR, 1.420; 95% CI, 1.075-1.877; P=0.014), BMI <25 (OR, 1.484; 95% CI, 1.194-1.845; P=0.001), chemotherapy (OR, 1.397; 95% CI, 1.089-5.438; P=0.032), hormone therapy (OR, 1.527; 95% CI, 0.211-1.322; P=0.038) and immunotherapy (OR, 1.859; 95% CI, 0.648-4.287; P=0.038), but decreased with ECOG-PS of 0-1 (OR, 0.502; 95% CI, 0.399-0.632; P=0.001), breast cancer (OR, 0.569; 95% CI, 0.387-0.836; P=0.004) and curative intent (OR, 0.410; 95% CI, 0.296-0.586; P=0.001). The mortality risk was lowest with curative treatments. Therefore, such treatments should not be delayed. The morbidity risk doubled with palliative treatments and was highest among COVID-19 cases. Mortality appeared to be driven by male sex, BMI <25, hormonal therapy and number of cycles, while morbidity increased with age >65 years, BMI <25, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and immunotherapy. Therefore, oncologists should select the most effective anticancer treatments based on the aforementioned factors.

No abstract

Saudi Arabia is the largest of the Arabian Gulf countries with a total population of 33.41 million as of 2017. This report summarizes the experience from four leading tertiary care hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) centers in Saudi Arabia representing more than 90% of all HSCTs performed in the country. Between 1984 and 2016, a total of 6,184 HSCTs were performed. Of these, 3,586 HSCTs were performed in adults and 2,598 HSCTs were performed in pediatric patients. Malignancy was the main indication for transplantation (47%). While most transplants were performed from an identical sibling donor, HSCTs from cord blood, unrelated and, more recently, haploidentical donors have also been performed. Relative shortage of HSCT bed capacity is perceived to be a limiting factor in Saudi Arabia. Lately, more HSCT centers are emerging with rapid growth, which may significantly improve the access to HSCT in the country in the near future.