Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

E-Poster Display

1720P - How do oncological patients perceive the COVID-19 pandemic? Experience from CHU Liège in Belgium

Date

17 Sep 2020

Session

E-Poster Display

Topics

COVID-19 and Cancer

Tumour Site

Presenters

Concetta Elisa Onesti

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_4): S934-S973. 10.1016/annonc/annonc289

Authors

C.E. Onesti1, H. Schroeder2, A. Rorive2, B. Sautois2, M. Lecocq2, M. Goffin3, E. Gonne2, A. Collinge2, L. Nicolaers3, O. Wera3, A. Catot3, C. Loly4, A. Paulus5, A. Sibille6, L.E. Lousberg2, F. Troisfontaine3, J. Collignon2, C. Gennigens2, P. Freres2, G. Jerusalem7

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology Department, CHU Liège and Laboratory of Human Genetics, GIGA Research Institute, University of Liège, 4000 - Liège/BE
  • 2 Medical Oncology Department, CHU Liège, 4000 - Liège/BE
  • 3 Medical Oncology Department, CHU Liège, Liège/BE
  • 4 Digestive Oncology Department, CHU Liège, Liège/BE
  • 5 Thoracic Oncology Department, CHU Liège, 4000 - Liège/BE
  • 6 Thoracic Oncology Department, CHU Liège, Liège/BE
  • 7 Medical Oncology Department, CHU Liège and University of Liège, 4000 - Liège/BE

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1720P

Background

No data concerning systemic oncological treatments' safety during COVID-19 outbreak were available in Belgium. The aim of this study is to analyse patients’ perception of both the risk of infection and the need for change in clinical practice in oncology.

Methods

A 12-items questionnaire using the Likert scale for 11 of these questions concerning the patients’ perception of COVID-19 was distributed to patients admitted for systemic therapy of solid tumours in our day-care unit between April 14th and 30th, 2020 (4-6 weeks after lockdown in Belgium).

Results

237 patients were included in our research project after signing an informed consent. Median age was 63 years-old (range 26-90). Most patients suffered from lung (n=59), breast (n=54), gastrointestinal (n=47), gynaecological (n=34) or urological (n=16) cancers or melanoma (n=15). 87 patients received (neo)adjuvant treatments, 150 patients were treated for metastatic disease. Patients received chemotherapy (n=106), immunotherapy (n=60), targeted therapy (n=36) or combinations (n=35). The patients who estimated their risk of dying because of COVID-19 infections as <0.1%, 1%, 10%, 20%, 50% or 100% were respectively 9.7%, 15.2%, 13.5%, 6.3%, 32.4%, 11.4% (no opinion: 10.8%). Most patients agreed (21.5%) or strongly agreed (64.6%) that it is important for them to receive the best cancer treatment available even if this may increase the infection risk. Very few patients agreed (1.3%) or strongly agreed (2.5%) that they were considering stopping the ongoing therapy because of the COVID-19 outbreak. Most patients agreed (33.8%) or strongly agreed (49.4%) that the institution was doing everything possible for risk reduction of contamination while receiving the therapy in the day-care unit.

Conclusions

Although patients evaluated the risk of dying due to COVID-19 infection as extremely high, they are still asking for the best oncological care available. The majority recognize the effort of the institution in minimizing infectious risk. Additional analyses will be reported at time of presentation. Questionnaires will be repeated 3 months after the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Fondation Leon Fredericq.

Disclosure

A. Rorive: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: MSD; Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: BMS. B. Sautois: Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Janssen; Advisory/Consultancy: Clovis; Advisory/Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory/Consultancy: Astellas. A. Sibille: Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: BMS; MSD; Boehringer Ingelheim; Roche; Advisory/Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Takada. J. Collignon: Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche; Amgen; Pfizer; Advisory/Consultancy: Servier; Bayer; Merck; Lilly; Sanofi; Sirtex; Celgene; Ipsen; Novartis. C. Gennigens: Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution): Astra-Zeneca; Advisory/Consultancy: BMS; GSK; Lilly; MSD; Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ipsen; Pfizer; Pharmamar; Roche. P. Freres: Advisory/Consultancy: Ipsen; Merck; BMS. G. Jerusalem: Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis; Roche; Pfizer; Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Lilly; Amgen; BMS; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo; Advisory/Consultancy: Abbvie; Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Medimmune; MerckKGaA. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.