Impact of COVID-19 on individuals with paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma history and/or hereditary risk.
Authors: Greenberg Samantha , Yozamp Nicholas , Anson Amanda , Brand Sarah , Buchmann Luke , Kohlmann Wendy , Low Sara , Wong Bob , Else Tobias , Vaidya Anand , Fishbein Lauren 
Published: June 2022

10613

Background: Patients with paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma (PPGL) or hereditary predisposition to PPGL often need screening with biochemical labs, imaging and physical exam. Given the rarity of PPGL and hereditary PPGL, care is often provided through specialty centers. Subsequently, patients may have experienced restrictions on travel and delayed scheduling of non-elective procedures due to COVID-19. This study aimed to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on seeking PPGL management. Methods: Patients with a personal history of PPGL or hereditary PPGL risk from the University of Michigan, Brigham Women’s Hospital, and Huntsman Cancer Institute were sent a survey in 2021. The survey included questions regarding tumor history (Y/N), gene status, demographics, and experience with COVID. The survey assessed whether they missed any exams related to PPGL diagnosis or screening. Comparative analyses utilized regression and chi-square tests. Patient factors measured in analyses evaluated COVID surveillance (labs, imaging, doctor visit) as the primary outcome and age, institution, gene status, sex, and PPGL history as predicting variables. Results: In total, 241 respondents across three institutions completed the survey. The cohort was primarily female (n = 158, 65.6%). A majority of the cohort identified as White (n = 222, 92%) and non-Hispanic (n = 226, 93.8%). PPGL history was reported in 158 patients (65.6%), 43 of which were pheochromocytoma and 113 were paraganglioma, primarily in the head and neck (n = 78). At time of survey completion, 209 (87%) respondents answered COVID-related questions. Thirty-nine respondents (19.2%) reported missing doctor visits, while 31 (15.3%) report missing HPPGL imaging and 33 (16.3%) report missing lab tests. There were no differences by institution (p > 0.05) on patient reported missed visits. Logistic regression analysis showed no difference in missing visits based on having a hereditary PPGL predisposition gene or sex of respondent (all p-values > 0.05). There was no difference based on PPGL history, though it is unknown if patients missed PGL follow-up or screening. Individuals who missed imaging (Y/N) were more likely to report missing their lab tests (OR = 1.8, p < 0.01) and doctor visit (OR = 1.25, p < 0.01). Age was a significant predictor for missing doctor visits (p = 0.02) with an odds ratio of 1.002 per 1 year increase in age. Conclusions: Though institutions had different COVID-19 restrictions and guidelines by state, there was no difference on missing surveillance or screening. Over 15% of respondents reported missing at least one aspect of PPGL care, indicating a need to re-engage those with PPGL and hereditary PPGL to return to typical screening and surveillance. Patients who miss one aspect of surveillance are likely to have missed other aspects of surveillance and will require evaluation of all aspects of screening to return up to date on needed visits and procedures.