COVID-19 as a Natural Experiment in Virtual Oncology Care and Head and Neck Cancer Outcomes

OBJECTIVES: Oncology rapidly adopted telemedicine during COVID‑19, with limited outcome data. Prior work from our group reported the feasibility of telehealth consultations for head-and-neck cancer, one of the most challenging subsites to forego face-to-face encounters. Telemedicine remains an important mode of health care delivery, but data are lacking on cancer outcomes with entry into the treatment pathway through virtual versus conventional in-person consultations. We aimed to address the evidence gap by evaluating cancer outcomes in a homogeneous group of patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) who underwent virtual new-patient consultations. METHODS: Prospective nonrandomized cohort study at a multistate comprehensive cancer center. The telemedicine (TELE) cohort comprised 41 consecutive radiation oncology OPC consultations from 3/2020 to 9/2020; the standard in‑person (STIP) cohort included 104 patients from 10/2019 to 9/2020 with balanced baseline clinicopathologic features. Follow‑up ended May 31, 2025 (median: 57.0 mo). Primary endpoints included 3-year outcomes: locoregional control (LRC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). The following quality-of-care metrics were evaluated: time to initiation of treatment, clinical trial enrollment, and feeding tube placement. RESULTS: There were no differences in 3-year outcomes between TELE and STIP cohorts: LRC (92.3% vs. 97.0%, P=0.50), DMFS (92.5% vs. 90.6%, P=0.65), PFS (87.5% vs. 88.6%, P=0.88), and CSS (97.4% vs. 95.9%, P=0.95). There were no differences in care quality indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine new patient oncology consultations did not compromise OPC outcomes or care quality. These findings from a pandemic-driven natural experiment support virtual oncology consultations as a viable form of patient-centered care and may encourage telemedicine outcomes studies across other specialties.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/coc.0000000000001392
Primary Topic
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

COVID-19 as a Natural Experiment in Virtual Oncology Care and Head and Neck Cancer Outcomes

David G. Pfister, Daphna Y. Gelblum, Kaveh Zakeri, Nadeem Riaz et al.
American Journal of Clinical Oncology
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
article

COVID-19 as a Natural Experiment in Virtual Oncology Care and Head and Neck Cancer Outcomes

David G. Pfister, Daphna Y. Gelblum, Kaveh Zakeri, Nadeem Riaz, Yao Yu, Ethan Shin, Edward Christopher Dee, Eric Jeffrey Sherman, Richard J. Wong, Justin Choi, Olivia Cartano, Jung Julie Kang, Yingzhi Wu, Asher J. Shin
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Oncology rapidly adopted telemedicine during COVID‑19, with limited outcome data. Prior work from our group reported the feasibility of telehealth consultations for head-and-neck cancer, one of the most challenging subsites to forego face-to-face encounters. Telemedicine remains an important mode of health care delivery, but data are lacking on cancer outcomes with entry into the treatment pathway through virtual versus conventional in-person consultations. We aimed to address the evidence gap by evaluating cancer outcomes in a homogeneous group of patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) who underwent virtual new-patient consultations. METHODS: Prospective nonrandomized cohort study at a multistate comprehensive cancer center. The telemedicine (TELE) cohort comprised 41 consecutive radiation oncology OPC consultations from 3/2020 to 9/2020; the standard in‑person (STIP) cohort included 104 patients from 10/2019 to 9/2020 with balanced baseline clinicopathologic features. Follow‑up ended May 31, 2025 (median: 57.0 mo). Primary endpoints included 3-year outcomes: locoregional control (LRC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). The following quality-of-care metrics were evaluated: time to initiation of treatment, clinical trial enrollment, and feeding tube placement. RESULTS: There were no differences in 3-year outcomes between TELE and STIP cohorts: LRC (92.3% vs. 97.0%, P=0.50), DMFS (92.5% vs. 90.6%, P=0.65), PFS (87.5% vs. 88.6%, P=0.88), and CSS (97.4% vs. 95.9%, P=0.95). There were no differences in care quality indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine new patient oncology consultations did not compromise OPC outcomes or care quality. These findings from a pandemic-driven natural experiment support virtual oncology consultations as a viable form of patient-centered care and may encourage telemedicine outcomes studies across other specialties.

American Journal of Clinical Oncology
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US), Yale University (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon