| Literature DB >> 33585726 |
Harley F Oliveira1, Gerson H Yoshinari2, Igor M Veras3, Wilson J de Almeida4, Nilceana M A Freitas5, Marcus S Castilho6, Antônio C de A Pellizzon7, Felipe Erlich8, Renato J Affonso9, Ícaro T de Carvalho10, André C C Leite11, Felipe Q Kuhnen12, Rosa M X F Najas13, Arthur Accioly Rosa14.
Abstract
Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic brought several challenges to cancer practice, especially in ensuring continuity of treatment during this period while minimizing the risks of transmission to a vulnerable population. For radiation oncology departments in Brazil, this contingency has become even more complex owing to the significant effect observed in different sectors of society and the large number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. This study estimated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Brazilian radiation oncology departments and the coping measures used in the country. Methods and Materials: The Brazilian Radiotherapy Society developed a questionnaire, with 14 questions, that were sent to all heads of radiation oncology departments in the country between May and June 2020. These data were evaluated regarding cases confirmed and deaths by COVID-19 in epidemiologic week 28, on July 11, 2020.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33585726 PMCID: PMC7866893 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100667
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol ISSN: 2452-1094
Figure 1Characteristics of the answering services. (A) Origin of patients (Unified Health System [SUS] or supplementary private health insurance). (B) Capacity of radiation oncology departments and the number of patients treated per day at the service.
Percentage drop in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic in radiation oncology departments in Brazil
| Drop percentage | No. | % |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 20% | 34 | 27.0 |
| Between 20%-50% | 59 | 46.8 |
| More than 50% | 18 | 14.3 |
| No drop | 15 | 11.9 |
| Total | 126 | 100.0 |
Patient systems responsible for the drop in care during the COVID-19 pandemic in radiation oncology departments in Brazil
| Origin | No. | % |
|---|---|---|
| Supplementary private health insurance | 27 | 28.4 |
| Predominantly supplementary private health insurance | 15 | 15.8 |
| Predominantly SUS | 18 | 18.9 |
| SUS | 27 | 28.4 |
| SUS, supplementary private health insurance (equal proportions) | 8 | 8.4 |
| Total | 95 | 100.0 |
Abbreviation: SUS = Unified Health System.
Figure 2Causes of the drop in patient care during the pandemic.
Conduct toward patients with COVID-19 and contagion containment measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in radiation oncology departments in Brazil
| Conduct related to the patient with COVID-19 | No. | % |
|---|---|---|
| Interruption of radiation therapy and isolation | 39 | 34.5 |
| There was no positive patient | 37 | 32.7 |
| Radiation therapy performed at the end of the day | 30 | 26.5 |
| Another conduct other than those described above | 7 | 6.2 |
| Total | 113 | 100.0 |
Abbreviations: PPE = personal protective equipment; SARS-COV-2 = severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2.
Chi-square analysis with Yates correction for categorized variables
| Categorization | Frequency (%) | χ2 | Contingency | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients diagnosed COVID-19 | No patients diagnosed COVID-19 | ||||
| Less than 100 new cases/mo | 50 (50.5) | 49 (49.5) | |||
| 100 new cases or more/mo | 16 (59.3) | 11 (40.7) | |||
| Total | 66 (52.4) | 60 (47.6) | 0.348 | .555 | 0.052 |
| Patients diagnosed COVID-19 | No patients diagnosed COVID-19 | ||||
| Not predominantly SUS | 34 (65.4) | 18 (34.6) | |||
| Predominantly SUS | 32 (43.2) | 42 (56.8) | |||
| Total | 66 (52.4) | 60 (47.6) | 5.147 | .023 | 0.198 |
| Employee diagnosed with COVID-19 | No employee diagnosed with COVID-19 | ||||
| Less than 100 new cases/mo | 51 (51.5) | 48 (48.5) | |||
| 100 new cases or more/mo | 16 (59.3) | 11 (40.7) | |||
| Total | 67 (53.2) | 59 (46.8) | 0.247 | .619 | 0.044 |
| Employee diagnosed with COVID-19 | No employee diagnosed with COVID-19 | ||||
| Not predominantly SUS | 34 (65.4) | 18 (34.6) | |||
| Predominantly SUS | 33 (44.6) | 41 (55.4) | |||
| Total | 67 (53.2) | 59 (46.8) | 4.499 | .033 | 0.186 |
| Drop in care above 20% | No drop in care above 20% | ||||
| Less than 100 new cases/mo | 63 (63.6) | 36 (36.4) | |||
| 100 new cases or more/mo | 14 (51.9) | 13 (48.1) | |||
| Total | 77 (61.1) | 49 (38.9) | 0.793 | .373 | 0.079 |
| Drop in care above 20% | No drop in care above 20% | ||||
| Not predominantly SUS | 32 (61.5) | 20 (38.5) | |||
| Predominantly SUS | 45 (60.8) | 29 (39.2) | |||
| Total | 77 (61.1) | 49 (38.9) | 0.010 | .917 | 0.009 |
| Indication of hypofractionation | No indication of hypofractionation | ||||
| Less than 100 new cases/mo | 78 (78.8) | 21 (21.2) | |||
| 100 new cases or more/mo | 20 (74.1) | 7 (25.9) | |||
| Total | 98 (77.8) | 28 (22.2) | 0.068 | .794 | 0.023 |
| Indication of hypofractionation | No indication of hypofractionation | ||||
| Not predominantly SUS | 43 (82.7) | 9 (17.3) | |||
| Predominantly SUS | 55 (74.3) | 19 (25,7) | |||
| Total | 98 (77.8) | 28 (22.2) | 0.800 | .370 | 0.079 |
| Team rotation | No team rotation | ||||
| Less than 100 new cases/mo | 36 (36.4) | 63 (63.6) | |||
| 100 new cases or more/mo | 8 (29.6) | 19 (70.4) | |||
| Total | 44 (34.9) | 82 (65.1) | 0.179 | .672 | 0.037 |
| Team rotation | No team rotation | ||||
| Not predominantly SUS | 20 (38.5) | 32 (61.5) | |||
| Predominantly SUS | 24 (32.4) | 50 (67.6) | |||
| Total | 44 (34.9) | 82 (65.1) | 0.259 | .610 | 0.045 |
Abbreviation: SUS = Unified Health System.
The binomial variables of the χ2 analysis are presented in a 2 × 2 table, with number of patients and percentage (compared with overall number of patients) in each of the 4 squares, the row and column total count and percentage (compared with overall number of patients), and the P value for each analysis.