Gynecologic oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic at three affiliated New York City hospitals
Open accessAbstract
Background New York City was among the epicenters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oncologists must balance plausible risks of COVID-19 infection with the recognized consequences of delaying cancer treatment, keeping in mind the capacity of the health care system. We sought to investigate treatment patterns in gynecologic cancer care during the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic at three affiliated New York City hospitals located in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens.Methods A prospective registry of patients with active or presumed gynecologic cancers receiving inpatient and/or outpatient care at three affiliated New York City hospitals was maintained between March 1 and April 30, 2020. Clinical and demographic data were abstracted from the electronic medical record with a focus on oncologic treatment. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was explored to evaluate the independent effect of hospital location, race, age, medical comorbidities, cancer status and COVID-19 status on treatment modifications.Results Among 302 patients with gynecologic cancer, 117 (38.7%) experienced a COVID-19-related treatment modification (delay, change or cancellation) during the first two months of the pandemic in New York. Sixty-four patients (67.4% of those scheduled for surgery) had a COVID-19-related modification in their surgical plan, 45 (21.5% of those scheduled for systemic treatment) a modification in systemic treatment and 12 (18.8% of those scheduled for radiation) a modification in radiation. Nineteen patients (6.3%) had positive COVID-19 testing. On univariate analysis, hospital location in Queens or Brooklyn, age ≤65 years, treatment for a new cancer diagnosis versus recurrence and COVID-19 positivity were associated with treatment modifications. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, hospital location in Queens and COVID-19 positive testing were independently associated with treatment modifications.Conclusions More than one third of patients with gynecologic cancer at three affiliated New York City hospitals experienced a treatment delay, change or cancellation during the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the three New York City boroughs represented in this study, likelihood of gynecologic oncology treatment modifications correlated with the case burden of COVID-19.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Similar reports of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and psychological distress during the lockdown were gathered from patients with breast cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, and lymphoma.
“Similar reports of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and psychological distress during the lockdown were gathered from patients with breast cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, and lymphoma [36,37,38,39].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [37]
The Results report COVID-19 symptoms and changes to oncology treatment among gynecologic cancer patients, including patients with ovarian cancer, but not anxiety, depressive symptoms, or psychological distress. The Discussion says future studies should capture patient concerns; our copy does not report the claimed psychological findings (searched: anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and quality of life). (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 51
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [1]American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures 2020 2020 Atlanta PMC7848816 33532112
- Authors
- Frey, M. K., Fowlkes, R. K., Badiner, N. M., Fishman, D., Kanis, M., Thomas, C., Christos, P. J., Martin, P., Gamble, C., Balogun, O. D., Cardenes, H., Gorelick, C., Pua, T., Nguyen, L., Holcomb, K., & Chapman-Davis, E.
- Affiliations
- Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
- NewYork–Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Frey, Melissa K.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Gynecologic Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-11
- Volume
- 159
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 470-475
- ISSN
- 0090-8258 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7516937
- OpenAlex
- W3089291953
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 3.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Gynecologic Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Weill Cornell Medical College (1-UL1-TR002384-01)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › COVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
- Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
- Keywords
- gynecologic cancer, COVID-19 pandemic, treatment delay, treatment cancellation, surgical planning, systemic therapy, radiotherapy, hospital location, New York City, health system capacity
- MeSH terms
- Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Appointments and Schedules, Female, Genital Neoplasms, Female, Hospitals, Humans, Middle Aged, New York City, Pneumonia, Viral, Registries, Coronavirus Infections, Electronic Health Records, Pandemics, Time-to-Treatment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review