International expert consensus statement regarding radiotherapy treatment options for rectal cancer during the COVID 19 pandemic

Total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: a three-group propensity score matched study

PURPOSE

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has emerged as a therapeutic approach for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, the optimal chemotherapy cycles within TNT remain uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the prognostic efficacy of varying cycles of chemotherapy during TNT for LARC.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with LARC (T3-4N0M0/T1-4N1-2M0), who underwent TNT or chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) between 2015 and 2020, were retrospective included. Patients were categorized into three groups based on their neoadjuvant strategy: CRT (long-course chemoradiotherapy), STNT (long-course CRT with one to three cycles of chemotherapy), and LTNT (long-course CRT with four or more cycles of chemotherapy). Propensity score matching (PSM) based on gender, age, body mass index, tumor distance from the anal verge, clinical T stage, clinical N stage, and mesorectal fascia status was employed to reduce confounding bias. Primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS).

RESULTS

The study comprised 372 patients, with 73 patients in each group after PSM. Compared with CRT, both STNT and LTNT demonstrated improved DFS (5-year rate: 59.7% vs. 77.8% vs. 76.5%, p = 0.027) and MFS (5-year rate: 65.1% vs. 81.3% vs. 81.4%, p = 0.030). There was no difference in DFS or MFS between STNT and LTNT. These favorable outcomes were consistent among subgroups defined by tumor distance from the anal verge ≥ 5 cm, clinical T3 stage, clinical N positive status, or involved mesorectal fascia.

CONCLUSION

Compared to CRT, both STNT and LTNT demonstrated improved DFS and MFS outcomes. Notably, survival outcomes were similar between STNT and LTNT, suggesting that chemotherapy cycles in TNT may not significantly impact survival.

Inequalities in the recovery of colorectal cancer services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national population-based study

AIM

Evidence is lacking on whether there were inequalities in the recovery of colorectal cancer (CRC) services within the English National Health Service (NHS) following the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate recovery according to patient age and socioeconomic status.

METHOD

Using routinely collected data, CRC patients diagnosed and treated in the English NHS were identified for two timeframes: the 'initial pandemic period' (April-June 2020) and the 'pandemic period' (April 2020-March 2022). Poisson models evaluated changes in numbers of diagnoses, major resections, adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant radiotherapy use for each timeframe, relative to the equivalent pre-pandemic timeframe (April-June 2019 and April 2018-March 2020, respectively), stratified by age and socioeconomic status. Tumour stage at presentation was evaluated over time.

RESULTS

Substantial deficits in diagnoses, major resections and adjuvant chemotherapy were identified in the initial pandemic period, whilst the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy increased. Overall, these deficits recovered. Patients outside screening age, and in the most deprived group, had greater deficits in diagnoses and major resections. There was no evidence of stage migration by June 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC services showed recovery to baseline during the pandemic. However, evident inequalities must be addressed in ongoing recovery efforts. Long-term outcomes will fully establish the impact of the pandemic on CRC patients.

Colorectal cancer treatment guidelines and shared decision making quality and reporting assessment: Systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Physicians must share decisions and choose personalised treatments regarding patients´ beliefs and values.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the quality of the recommendations about shared decision making (SDM) in colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer treatment clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Guidelines were systematically reviewed following prospective registration (Prospero: CRD42021286146) without language restrictions searching 15 databases and 59 professional society websites from January 2010 to November 2021. A validated 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was employed to extract data in duplicate.

RESULTS

We identified 134 guidelines. Only 46/134 (34.3 %) mentioned SDM. Fifteen (11.1 %) made clear, precise and actionable recommendations, while 9/134 (6.7 %) indicated the strength of the SDM-related recommendations. CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews reported SDM more often than those based on consensus or reviews (35.9 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.031). Guidelines that reported following quality tools (i.e., AGREE II) more commonly commented about SDM than when it was not reported (75.0 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Most of the CRC and anal treatment guidelines did not mention SDM and it was superficial. Guidelines based on systematic reviews and those using quality tools demonstrated better reporting of SDM. Recommendations about SDM in these guidelines merit urgent improvement.

Radiotherapy service amidst COVID-19: Experience from Tertiary Referral Hospital in Semarang, Indonesia

Background

Several changes in hospital policies took place to mitigate the spread of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the patient's perception to these abrupt changes in medical services is not known. This study analyzed the quality of radiotherapy service during the COVID-19 pandemic and the patient's perception of them.

Methods

This descriptive study will qualitatively assess cancer patient perception of the quality of radiotherapy service during COVID-19 pandemic. Willing participants were given a questionnaire that explore two major aspects: the patient's general knowledge of COVID-19 and their perception of radiotherapy service during the pandemic.

Results

The 145 participants of this study were generally well-informed about the significance of COVID-19 pandemic. Most respondents claimed to adequately practice preventive measures and put high regards in personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by them and healthcare workers for their safety. Their level of trust to all healthcare workers remained high and identified hospital announcements (television, brochures) educated them the most in regards to the relationship of COVID-19 and cancer.

Conclusion

The changes in hospital policies and radiation oncology service in our institution were well-received by the study population. Despite the majority of respondents were afraid and anxious of being infected of COVID-19 while undergoing treatment, only a minority of them contemplated to delay or completely stop going for treatment. By adhering to major guidelines and adjustments of local resources, the delivery of radiotherapy service can remain consistent during the pandemic.

Total neoadjuvant therapy versus chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total neoadjuvant therapy is a promising treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, utilizing either short-course radiotherapy or long-course chemoradiotherapy, but their relative efficacy remains unclear. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis was to investigate clinical outcomes amongst patients receiving total neoadjuvant therapy with short-course radiotherapy or long-course chemoradiotherapy, and those receiving long-course chemoradiotherapy alone.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. All studies that compared at least two of these three treatments for locally advanced rectal cancer were included. The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response rate, and survival outcomes were adopted as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty cohorts were included. Compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy, both total neoadjuvant therapy with long-course chemoradiotherapy (OR 1.78, 95 per cent c.i. 1.43 to 2.26) and total neoadjuvant therapy with short-course radiotherapy (OR 1.75, 95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 2.50) improved the pathological complete response rate. Similar benefits were observed in the sensitivity and subgroup analyses, except for short-course radiotherapy with one to two cycles of chemotherapy. No significant differences in survival outcomes were found amongst the three treatments. Long-course chemoradiotherapy with consolidation chemotherapy (HR 0.44, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.99) exhibited higher disease-free survival than long-course chemoradiotherapy alone.

CONCLUSION

Compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy, both short-course radiotherapy with greater than or equal to three cycles of chemotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy with long-course chemoradiotherapy can improve the pathological complete response rate, and long-course chemoradiotherapy with consolidation chemotherapy may lead to a marginal benefit in disease-free survival. The pathological complete response rate and survival outcomes are similar for total neoadjuvant therapy with short-course radiotherapy or long-course chemoradiotherapy.

Hospital-based proton therapy implementation during the COVID pandemic: early clinical and research experience in a European academic institution

INTRODUCTION

A rapid deploy of unexpected early impact of the COVID pandemic in Spain was described in 2020. Oncology practice was revised to facilitate decision-making regarding multimodal therapy for prevalent cancer types amenable to multidisciplinary treatment in which the radiotherapy component searched more efficient options in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, minimizing the risks to patients whilst aiming to guarantee cancer outcomes.

METHODS

A novel Proton Beam Therapy (PBT), Unit activity was analyzed in the period of March 2020 to March 2021. Institutional urgent, strict and mandatory clinical care standards for early diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 infection were stablished in the hospital following national health-authorities' recommendations. The temporary trends of patients care and research projects proposals were registered.

RESULTS

3 out of 14 members of the professional staff involved in the PBR intra-hospital process had a positive test for COVID infection. Also, 4 out of 100 patients had positive tests before initiating PBT, and 7 out of 100 developed positive tests along the weekly mandatory special checkup performed during PBT to all patients. An update of clinical performance at the PBT Unit at CUN Madrid in the initial 500 patients treated with PBT in the period from March 2020 to November 2022 registers a distribution of 131 (26%) pediatric patients, 63 (12%) head and neck cancer and central nervous system neoplasms and 123 (24%) re-irradiation indications. In November 2022, the activity reached a plateau in terms of patients under treatment and the impact of COVID pandemic became sporadic and controlled by minor medical actions. At present, the clinical data are consistent with an academic practice prospectively (NCT05151952). Research projects and scientific production was adapted to the pandemic evolution and its influence upon professional time availability. Seven research projects based in public funding were activated in this period and preliminary data on molecular imaging guided proton therapy in brain tumors and post-irradiation patterns of blood biomarkers are reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital-based PBT in European academic institutions was impacted by COVID-19 pandemic, although clinical and research activities were developed and sustained. In the post-pandemic era, the benefits of online learning will shape the future of proton therapy education.

Hypofractionation as a solution to radiotherapy access in latin america: expert perspective

Background

Limited radiation therapy resources have resulted in an interest in developing time and cost-saving innovations to expand access to cancer treatment, in Latin America. Therefore, hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) is a possible solution, as this modality delivers radiation over a shorter period of time.

Materials and methods

A selected panel of Latin American (LA) experts in fields related to HRT were provided with a series of relevant questions to address, prior to the multi-day conference. Within this meeting, each narrative was discussed and edited, through numerous rounds of discussion, until agreement was achieved.

Results

The challenges identified in increasing the adoption of HRT in LA include a lack of national and regional clinical practice guidelines and cancer registries; a lack of qualified human resources and personnel education; high up-front costs of equipment; disparate resource distribution and scarce HRT research. An analysis for these overarching challenges was developed and answered with recommendations.

Conclusion

Extending the adoption of HRT in LA can provide a path forward to increase access to radiotherapy and overcome the shortage of equipment. HRT has the potential to improve population health outcomes and patient centered care, while offering comparable local control, toxicity, palliation, and late effects for multiple indications, when compared to conventional RT. Concerted efforts from all involved stakeholders are needed to overcome the barriers in adopting this strategy in LA countries. The recommendations presented in this article can serve as a plan of action for HRT adoption in other countries in a similar situation.

Guidance documents for colorectal and anal cancer treatment: A systematic quality and reporting assessment

AIM

Evidence-based medicine is essential for clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) ought to follow a consistent methodology to underpin high-quality healthcare. We systematically analysed the quality and reporting of colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer CPGs and CSs.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and online sources (59 professional society websites and eight guideline databases) were systematically searched following prospective registration (PROSPERO no. CRD42021286146) by two reviewers independently, without language restrictions. CPGs and CSs about CRC and anal cancer treatment were included from January 2018 to November 2021 and were assessed using the AGREE II tool (per cent of maximum score) and the RIGHT tool (per cent of total 35 items) for quality and reporting respectively.

RESULTS

The median overall quality and reporting of the 59 guidelines analysed were 55.0% (interquartile range 47.0-62.0) and 58% (interquartile range 50.0-67.9), respectively, with a proportion scoring less than half (<50%) for quality (20/59, 33.9%) and reporting (15/59, 25.4%). Guidance reported that following AGREE II methodology scored better on average than that without (AGREE II 77.7% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 50.0% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.001). Guidelines based on systematic reviews had better quality and reporting on average than those based on consensus (AGREE II 56.5% vs. 46.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 36.9% vs. 35.4%, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

The quality and reporting of colorectal and anal cancer treatment CPGs and CSs were poor. Despite AGREE II and RIGHT inherent methodological limitations, few high-quality guidelines were found. Despite wide variability in scoring different domains, they merit urgent improvement in all areas. It has also been demonstrated that CPGs and CSs should be underpinned by systematic reviews collecting the best available clinical research findings.

Age, race, insurance type, and digital divide index are associated with video visit completion for patients seen for oncologic care in a large hospital system during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic drove rapid adoption of telehealth across oncologic specialties. This revealed barriers to telehealth access and telehealth-related disparities. We explored disparities in telehealth access in patients with cancer accessing oncologic care.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Data for all unique patient visits at a large academic medical center were acquired pre- and intra-pandemic (7/1/2019-12/31/2020), including visit type (in-person, video, audio only), age, race, ethnicity, rural/urban (per zip code by Federal Office of Rural Health Policy), distance from medical facility, insurance, and Digital Divide Index (DDI; incorporates technology/internet access, age, disability, and educational attainment metrics by geographic area). Pandemic phases were identified based on visit dynamics. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine associations of these variables with successful video visit completion.

RESULTS

Data were available for 2,398,633 visits for 516,428 patients across all specialties. Among these, there were 253,880 visits from 62,172 patients seen in any oncology clinic. Dramatic increases in telehealth usage were seen during the pandemic (after 3/16/2020). In multivariable analyses, patient age [OR: 0.964, (95% CI 0.961, 0.966) P<0.0001], rural zip code [OR: 0.814 (95% CI 0.733, 0.904) P = 0.0001], Medicaid enrollment [OR: 0.464 (95% CI 0.410, 0.525) P<0.0001], Medicare enrollment [OR: 0.822 (95% CI 0.761, 0.888) P = 0.0053], higher DDI [OR: 0.903 (95% CI 0.877, 0.930) P<0.0001], distance from the facility [OR: 1.028 (95% CI 1.021, 1.035) P<0.0001], black race [OR: 0.663 (95% CI 0.584, 0.753) P<0.0001], and Asian race [OR: 1.229 (95% CI 1.022, 1.479) P<0.0001] were associated with video visit completion early in the pandemic. Factors related to video visit completion later in the pandemic and within sub-specialties of oncology were also explored.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients from older age groups, those with minority backgrounds, and individuals from areas with less access to technology (high DDI) as well as those with Medicare or Medicaid insurance were less likely to use video visits. With greater experience through the pandemic, disparities were not mitigated. Further efforts are required to optimize telehealth to benefit all patients and avoid increasing disparities in care delivery.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer patients

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed an unprecedented challenge to healthcare systems worldwide, causing downscaling of almost all other activities, especially in its early stages. Currently, the availability of vaccines along with the spread of new viral variants has modified the epidemiology of the disease, and the previous activity is being gradually resumed in most healthcare facilities. In this review, we have summarized the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Population-based screening with either colonoscopy or fecal occult blood tests has proven to reduce CRC incidence and mortality, so screening programs have been implemented in most western countries. However, during the first COVID-19 wave, most of these programs had to be disrupted temporarily. In this review, we have thoroughly analyzed the consequences of these disruptions of screening programs as well as of the forced delays in diagnostic and therapeutic services on CRC prognosis, although its exact impact cannot be exactly measured yet. In any way, strategies to minimize its effect, such as catch-up strategies expanding the colonoscopy capacity or using fecal occult blood concentration and other risk factors to prioritize patients, are urgently needed. The COVID-19 pandemic has also led to a change in CRC patient presentation, with an overall temporary decreased incidence due to postponed diagnoses, but with more patients presenting in need of an emergency admission or with symptoms. Finally, changes in treatment approaches in CRC patients have been reported during the pandemic, namely a drop in the proportion of laparoscopic surgeries or a rise in short-term radiotherapy courses. We have therefore aimed to summarize the available evidence to guide the healthcare professionals treating CRC patients to choose the best treatment options in the current pandemic situation.

Covid-19 and radiotherapy: a systematic review after 2 years of pandemic

Introduction

Following the Covid-19 pandemic spread, changes in clinical practice were necessary to limit the pandemic diffusion. Also, oncological practice has undergone changes with radiotherapy (RT) treatments playing a key role.Although several experiences have been published, the aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence after 2 years of pandemic to provide useful conclusions for clinicians.

Methods

A Pubmed/MEDLINE and Embase systematic review was conducted. The search strategy was "Covid AND Radiotherapy" and only original articles in the English language were considered.

Results

A total of 2.733 papers were obtained using the mentioned search strategy. After the complete selection process, a total of 281 papers were considered eligible for the analysis of the results.

Discussion

RT has played a key role in Covid-19 pandemic as it has proved more resilient than surgery and chemotherapy. The impact of the accelerated use of hypofractionated RT and telemedicine will make these strategies central also in the post-pandemic period.

Impact of COVID-19 on service delivery in radiology and radiotherapy

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on radiography services globally. The reshaping of service delivery continues to impact patient management and the experience of the radiography workforce should be evaluated to determine how effective service delivery can be maintained in the ongoing and post-pandemic world.

Methods

A mixed methods approach was adopted. Questionnaires, designed using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) online survey software, were used to survey radiographers throughout Northern Ireland (NI). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with radiography service managers in the NHS and private sector in NI. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and coded independently by 2 researchers.

Results

A total of 106 Radiographers completed the online survey i.e. 82 Diagnostic and 24 Therapeutic. Variations were reported regarding staff concern for contracting COVID-19 and passing it on. Clinical workload was reported to fluctuate during the early period of the pandemic, however, both diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers reported workloads which were higher than normal at the time of the data collection. Nine service managers participated in the interviews plus two band 8 superintendent radiographers. Staff faced many challenges whilst delivering services due to COVID-19. The two most frequently cited challenges included issues related to (i) Implementation of PPE and (ii) Changes to work practices.

Conclusion

A pre-prepared pandemic plan should be established and stress tested for the future. The plan should be devised in consultation with both the public and private sector to determine the very best use of resources.

Implications for practice

The radiography workforce has worked continuously throughout the pandemic and needs to be supported to deal with the potential increase in demand for services in the post-pandemic world.

Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiation: US Experience of a Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Therapy

BACKGROUND

Short-course radiation followed by chemotherapy as total neoadjuvant therapy has been investigated primarily in Europe and Australia with increasing global acceptance. There are limited data on this regimen's use in the United States, however, potentially delaying implementation.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare clinical performance and oncologic outcomes of 2 rectal cancer neoadjuvant treatment modalities: short-course total neoadjuvant therapy versus standard chemoradiation.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

This study was performed at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center.

PATIENTS

A total of 413 patients had locally advanced rectal cancers diagnosed from June 2009 to May 2018 and received either short-course total neoadjuvant therapy or standard chemoradiation.

INTERVENTIONS

There were 187 patients treated with short-course total neoadjuvant therapy (5 × 5 Gy radiation followed by consolidation oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy) compared with 226 chemoradiation recipients (approximately 50.4 Gy radiation in 28 fractions with concurrent fluorouracil equivalent).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary end points were tumor downstaging, measured by complete response and "low" neoadjuvant rectal score rates, and progression-free survival. Secondary analyses included treatment characteristics and completion, sphincter preservation, and recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher rates of complete response (26.2% vs 17.3%; p = 0.03) and "low" neoadjuvant rectal scores (40.1% vs 25.7%; p < 0.01) despite a higher burden of node-positive disease (78.6% vs 68.9%; p = 0.03). Short-course recipients also completed trimodal treatment more frequently (88.4% vs 50.4%; p < 0.01) and had fewer months with temporary stomas (4.8 vs 7.0; p < 0.01). Both regimens achieved comparable local control (local recurrence: 2.7% short-course total neoadjuvant therapy vs 2.2% chemoradiation, p = 0.76) and 2-year progression-free survival (88.2% short-course total neoadjuvant therapy (95% CI, 82.9-93.5) vs 85.6% chemoradiation (95% CI, 80.5-90.7)).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, unbalanced disease severity, and variable dosing of neoadjuvant consolidation chemotherapy were limitations of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with improved downstaging and similar progression-free survival compared with chemoradiation. These results were achieved with shortened radiation courses, improved treatment completion, and less time with diverting ostomies. Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy is an optimal regimen for locally advanced rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B724.TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL CON RADIACIÓN DE CORTA DURACIÓN: EXPERIENCIA ESTADOUNIDENSE DE UNA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE CONTRA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO.

ANTECEDENTES

La radiación de corta duración seguida de quimioterapia como terapia neoadyuvante total se ha investigado principalmente en Europa y Australia con una aceptación mundial cada vez mayor. Sin embargo, datos limitados sobre el uso de este régimen en los Estados Unidos, han potencialmente retrasando su implementación.

OBJETIVO

Comparar el desempeño clínico y los resultados oncológicos de dos modalidades de tratamiento neoadyuvante del cáncer de recto: terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración versus quimioradiación. estándar.

DISEO

Cohorte retrospectivo.

AJUSTE

Centro oncológico designado por el NCI.

PACIENTES

Un total de 413 cánceres rectales localmente avanzados diagnosticados entre junio de 2009 y mayo de 2018 que recibieron cualquiera de los regímenes neoadyuvantes.

INTERVENCIONES

Hubo 187 pacientes tratados con terapia neoadyuvante total de ciclo corto (radiación 5 × 5 Gy seguida de quimioterapia de consolidación basada en oxaliplatino) en comparación con 226 pacientes de quimiorradiación (aproximadamente 50,4 Gy de radiación en 28 fracciones con equivalente de fluorouracilo concurrente).

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

Los criterios primarios de valoración fueron la disminución del estadio del tumor, medido por la respuesta completa y las tasas de puntuación rectal neoadyuvante "baja", y la supervivencia libre de progresión. Los análisis secundarios incluyeron las características del tratamiento y las tasas de finalización, conservación del esfínter y recurrencia.

RESULTADOS

La terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración, se asoció con tasas más altas de respuesta completa (26,2% versus 17,3%, p = 0,03) y puntuaciones rectales neoadyuvantes "bajas" (40,1% versus 25,7%, p < 0,01) a pesar de una mayor carga de enfermedad con ganglios positivos (78,6% versus 68,9%, p = 0,03). Los pacientes de ciclo corto también completaron el tratamiento trimodal con mayor frecuencia (88,4% versus 50,4%, p < 0,01) y tuvieron menos meses con estomas temporales (4,8 versus 7,0, p < 0,01). Ambos regímenes lograron un control local comparable (recidiva local: 2,7% de SC-TNT versus 2,2% de TRC, p = 0,76) y supervivencia libre de progresión a 2 años (88,2% de SC-TNT [IC: 82,9 - 93,5] versus 85,6% CRT [CI: 80,5 - 90,7]).

LIMITACIONES

Diseño retrospectivo, gravedad de la enfermedad desequilibrada y dosificación variable de quimioterapia neoadyuvante de consolidación.

CONCLUSIONES

La terapia neoadyuvante total de ciclo corto se asoció con una mejora en la reducción del estadio y una supervivencia libre de progresión similar en comparación con la quimioradiación. Estos resultados se lograron con ciclos de radiación más cortos, tratamientos mejor finalizados y menos tiempo en ostomías de derivación. La terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración es un régimen óptimo para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B724. (Traducción- Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Preoperative short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy for treatment with locally advanced rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

The addition of consolidation chemotherapy to preoperative short-course radiotherapy during the prolonged interval between the completion of radiation and surgery in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) could enhance pathologic response and might act on potential micrometastasis. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (SCRT/CCT) could be a neoadjuvant treatment option compared with conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT).

Methods

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary endpoints were pathological outcomes, and the secondary endpoints included survival rate, sphincter preservation rate, R0 resection rate and toxicity. RevMan 5.3 was used to calculate pooled risk ratio (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of seven eligible studies and 1865 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the LCCRT, SCRT/CCT increased pathologic complete response (pCR) rate [RR = 1.74, 95% CI (1.41, 2.15), P < 0.01] and led to a lower proportion of patients with adjuvant pathologic tumor stage 3–4 (ypT3-4) disease [RR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.80, 0.97), P = 0.01] or lymph node positive (ypN +) disease [RR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.71, 0.98), P = 0.02]. In addition, the disease-free survival (DFS) was better in SCRT/CCT group [RR = 1.10, 95% CI (1.02, 1.18), P = 0.01], while overall survival rate and toxicity and surgical procedures were similar between two groups.

Conclusion

Based on better pathological outcomes and DFS in SCRT/CCT group, we recommended preoperative short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy as the optional neoadjuvant treatment for LARC.

Unequal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric cancer care: a population-based cohort study in China

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread adverse collateral effects on health care delivery for non-COVID-19 disease conditions. Paediatric oncology care is reliant on prompt testing and diagnosis and on timely and coordinated multimodal treatment, all of which have been impacted by the pandemic. This study aimed to quantify the initial and enduring effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the utilization of paediatric cancer care and to examine whether the pandemic differentially impacted specific demographic groups.

Method

We performed an interrupted time series analysis using negative binomial regression to estimate the change in the monthly admissions for paediatric cancer patients (Age 0-17) associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown policies. We obtained data from deidentified individual electronic medical records of paediatric cancer inpatients admitted between January 1, 2015 and May 31, 2021 to a tertiary hospital that provides general and specialized healthcare services to an estimated population of 8.4 million in Jining China. Relative risk (RR) estimates representing monthly admissions compared with expected admissions had the pandemic not occurred were derived. The number of inpatient admissions lost due to the pandemic were estimated.

Findings

The overall denominator for the paediatric population was 1 858 209 individuals in January 2015, which increased to 2 043 803 by May 2021. In total, there were 4 901 admissions for paediatric cancer during the study period, including 1 479 (30%) since February 2020 when the lockdown was implemented. A 33% reduction (95% CI: -43% to -22%) in admissions was observed in February 2020, with the largest relative reduction (-48%, 95% CI: -64% to -24%) among first-time admissions and admissions for patients from rural districts (-46%, 95% CI: -55% to -36%). Admissions quickly rebounded in March 2020 when many government-imposed mobility restrictions were lifted, and continued to resume gradually over time since April 2020, leading to a full recovery as of November 2020. However, the recovery for first-time admissions, and among female patients, younger patients (<5 years) and patients from rural districts was slower over time and incomplete (first-time admissions and rural patients) as of January 2021.

Interpretation

The COVID-19 pandemic has had substantial impact on the timely utilization of paediatric oncology services in China, particularly in the early stage of the first wave. Importantly, some population groups were disproportionately affected and the recovery of admissions among those subgroups has been slow and incomplete, warranting targeted approaches to address potentially exacerbated gender and socio-economic inequalities in access to healthcare resources.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer patients at an NHS Foundation Trust hospital-A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Current NHS guidelines recommend that treatment of colorectal patients referred through the two-week wait referral system should occur within sixty two days from the date of referral. The COVID-19 pandemic which started in March 2020 has however led to significant delays in the delivery of health services, including colorectal cancer treatments. This study investigates the effects of delayed colorectal cancer treatments during the COVID pandemic on disease progression.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 107 patients with histologically confirmed diagnosis of colorectal cancer was conducted. The occurrence of cancer upstaging after initial diagnosis was assessed and compared between patients with treatment delays and patients who received treatments within the period recommended by NHS guidelines. A logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between treatment delays beyond 62 days and cancer upstaging.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 71.2 years and 64.5% of the patients were over 65 years. Treatment delays were observed in 53.3% of reviewed patients. Patients with treatment delays received cancer treatments 95.8 (31.0) days on average after referral, compared to 46.3 (11.5) days in patients who experienced no treatment delays (p-value<0.0001). 38.6% of patients with treatment delays experienced cancer upstaging by the time of treatment, compared to 20% in the non-delay group (p-value = 0.036). Patients who received treatment after sixty two days from date of referral were 3.27 times more likely to experience colorectal cancer upstaging compared to those who received timely treatments.

CONCLUSION

Although an effective response to the Covid-19 pandemic requires the reallocation of healthcare resources, there is a need to ensure that treatments and health outcomes of patients with chronic diseases such as colorectal cancer continue to be prioritized and delivered in timely fashion.

Healthcare Professional and Patient Perceptions of Changes in Colorectal Cancer Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Health Inequalities

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way in which people were diagnosed and treated for cancer. We explored healthcare professional and patient perceptions of the main changes to colorectal cancer delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they impacted on socioeconomic inequalities in care.

Methods

In 2020, using a qualitative approach, we interviewed patients (n = 15) who accessed primary care with colorectal cancer symptoms and were referred for further investigations. In 2021, we interviewed a wide range of healthcare professionals (n = 30) across the cancer care pathway and gathered national and local documents/guidelines regarding changes in colorectal cancer care.

Results

Changes with the potential to exacerbate inequalities in care, included: the move to remote consultations; changes in symptomatic triage, new COVID testing procedures/ways to access healthcare, changes in visitor policies and treatment (e.g., shorter course radiotherapy). Changes that improved patient access/convenience or the diagnostic process have the potential to reduce inequalities in care.

Discussion

Changes in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic have the ongoing potential to exacerbate existing health inequalities due to changes in how patients are triaged, changes to diagnostic and disease management processes, reduced social support available to patients and potential over-reliance on digital first approaches. We provide several recommendations to help mitigate these harms, whilst harnessing the gains.

Rectal cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic (ReCaP): multicentre prospective observational study

Concerns over unacceptable high mortality in patients with rectal cancer undergoing surgery or systemic therapy who contract COVID-19 have led to widespread adoption of alternative treatment strategies.The ReCaP study aimed to study these variations and associated outcomes.

Radiotherapy regimens for rectal cancer: long-term outcomes and health-related quality of life in the Stockholm III trial

BACKGROUND

The Stockholm III trial randomly assigned 840 patients to short-course radiotherapy of 5 × 5 Gy with surgery within 1 week (SRT), short-course radiotherapy of 5 × 5 Gy with surgery after 4-8 weeks (SRT-delay), or long-course radiotherapy of 25 × 2 Gy with surgery after 4-8 weeks (LRT-delay). This study details the long-term oncological outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

Patients with biopsy-proven resectable adenocarcinoma of the rectum were included. Primary outcome was time to local recurrence (LR), and secondary endpoints were distant metastases (DMs), overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and HRQoL. Patients were analysed in a three-arm randomization and a short-course radiotherapy comparison.

RESULTS

From 1998 to 2013, 357, 355, and 128 patients were randomized to the SRT, SRT-delay, and LRT-delay groups respectively. Median follow-up time was 5.7 (range 5.3-7.6) years. Comparing patients in the three-arm randomization, the incidence of LR was three of 129 patients, four of 128, and seven of 128, and DM 31 of 129 patients, 38 of 128, and 38 of 128 in the SRT, SRT-delay, and LRT-delay groups respectively. In the short-course radiotherapy comparison, the incidence of LR was 11 of 357 patients and 13 of 355, and DM 88 of 357 patients and 82 of 355 in the SRT and SRT-delay groups respectively. No comparisons showed statistically significant differences. Median OS was 8.1 (range 6.9-11.2), 10.3 (range 8.2-12.8), and 10.5 (range 7.0-11.3) years after SRT, SRT-delay, and LRT-delay respectively. Median OS was 8.1 (range 7.2-10.0) years after SRT and 10.2 (range 8.5-11.7) years after SRT-delay. There were no statistically significant differences in HRQoL.

CONCLUSION

After a follow-up of 5 years, delaying surgery for 4-8 weeks after radiotherapy treatment with 5 × 5 Gy was oncologically safe. Long-term HRQoL was similar among the treatment arms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTC00904813.

The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical radiography practice: A systematic literature review and recommendations for future services planning

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, reports and experiences indicate that there has been extensive re-organisation within diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy departments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was necessary due to changes in workload and working practice guidelines that have evolved during the pandemic. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiography practice, service delivery and workforce wellbeing.

METHODS

A systematic review methodology was adopted to obtain data from primary studies of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs from databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and SCOPUS: all 2020 to present). The included articles were subjected to information extraction and results-based convergent synthesis.

RESULTS

The electronic database search yielded 10,420 articles after removal of duplicates. Of these, 31 articles met the final inclusion criteria with some (n = 8) fully focussed on radiotherapy workforce and service delivery. The pandemic impact on radiography practice is broadly themed around: training, communication, and information dissemination; infrastructure, technology, and clinical workflow; and workforce mental health and well-being.

CONCLUSION

Globally, most radiographers received inadequate training for managing COVID-19 patients during the initial acute phase of the pandemic. Additionally, there were significant changes to clinical practice, working patterns and perceived increase in workload due to surges in COVID-19 patients and the consequent strict adherence to new infection protocols. These changes, coupled with fear emanating from the increased risk of the workforce to contracting the infection, contributed to anxiety and workplace-related stress during the pandemic.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Local pandemic response strategies must be appropriately developed from standard protocols in readiness for safe clinical practice and well-being management training of practitioners.

Lessons Learned in Managing Patients with Colorectal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OPINION STATEMENT

The COVID-19 pandemic forced us to rapidly and dramatically shift our medical priorities and decision making. With little literature or experience to rely on, the initial priority was to minimize patient exposure to the hospital and to others. It remains unclear whether cancer patients are at higher risk of infection or serious complications, or if it is our traditional therapies that place them to be at higher risk. By far, the greatest negative impact was on screening. Routine colonoscopies were considered elective, and as a result, delays in diagnosis will be felt for years to come. The most positive changes were the incorporation of tele-visits, increased use of oral therapies, alterations in treatment schedules of both chemotherapy and radiation, and an increased emphasis on neoadjuvant therapy. These too will be felt for years to come. The colorectal cancer medical community has responded collaboratively and effectively to maintain treatment and to optimize outcomes for our patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Acute and late toxicities of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and treated for cancer with radiation therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the risk of acute and late radiation-induced toxicity in patients with COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All the patients irradiated in Institut Curie from March to July 2020 were included if the first symptoms related to COVID-19 occurred no more than two months before the start of radiation therapy (RT) or 15 days after the end of RT.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were included in this analysis. Twenty-five patients had no co-morbidities (86.2%), including morbid obesity. The diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was based on a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA test for 18 patients (62.1%), a positive serology test for three patients (10.3%), and/or radiologic findings for 12 patients (41.4%). Three patients with symptoms highly suggestive of COVID-19 were included, although they had negative biologic tests and did not have a chest CT scan. Median time from the diagnosis of COVID-19 to the onset of RT was 5.5 days. Modification of RT course due to COVID-19 status was observed in 15 patients, including four for whom RT was definitively stopped. Six patients needed hospitalization for hypoxemic lung disease requiring intensive care. The majority of patients did not experience severe (> grade 2) acute toxicity. After a median follow-up of 6 months (IQR, 1-9 months), none of the patients had unusual clinical or radiological late toxicities.

CONCLUSION

The observed acute and late toxicities were ultimately similar to those observed in a population not infected with COVID-19. These results do not prompt modification of standard RT protocols for irradiation of COVID-19 patients.

Insights into the management of anorectal disease in the coronavirus 2019 disease era

Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) has created major impacts on public health. The virus has plagued a large population requiring hospitalization and resource utilization. Knowledge about the COVID-19 virus continues to grow. It can commonly present with gastrointestinal symptoms; initially, this was considered an atypical presentation, which led to delays in care. The pandemic has posed serious threats to the care of anorectal diseases. Urgent surgeries have been delayed, and the care of cancer patients and cancer screenings disrupted. This had added to patient discomfort and the adverse outcomes on healthcare will continue into the future. The better availability of personal protective equipment to providers and standard checklist protocols in operating rooms can help minimize healthcare-related spread of the virus. Telehealth, outpatient procedures, and biochemical tumor marker tests can help with mitigation of anorectal-disease-related problems. There is limited literature about the clinical management of anorectal diseases during the pandemic. We performed a detailed literature review to guide clinicians around management options for anorectal disease patients. We also highlighted the health challenges seen during the pandemic.

Could diagnostic and therapeutic delay affect the prognosis of gastrointestinal primary malignancies in the COVID-19 pandemic era? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Emergency situations, as the Covid-19 pandemic that is striking the world nowadays, stress the national health systems which are forced to rapidly reorganizing their sources. Therefore, many elective diagnostic and surgical procedures are being suspended or significantly delayed. Moreover, patients might find it difficult to refer to physicians and delay the diagnostic and even the therapeutic procedures because of emotional or logistic problems. The effect of diagnostic and therapeutic delay on survival in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies is still unclear.

METHODS

We carried out a review of the available literature, in order to determine whether the delay in performing diagnosis and curative-intent surgical procedures affects the oncological outcomes in patients with oesophageal, gastric, colorectal cancers, and colorectal liver metastasis.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that for oesophageal, gastric and colon cancers delaying surgery up to 2 months after the end of the staging process does not worsen the oncological outcomes. Oesophageal cancer should undergo surgery within 7-8 weeks after the end of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Rectal cancers should undergo surgery within 31 days after the diagnostic process and within 12 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy. Adjuvant therapy should start within 4 weeks after surgery, especially in gastric cancer; a delay up to 42 days may be allowed for oesophageal cancer undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal malignancies can be safely managed taking into account that reasonable delays of planned treatments appear a generally safe approach, not having a significant impact on long-term oncological outcome.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer patients: a single-center retrospective study

Background

Since December 2019, China has experienced a public health emergency from the coronavirus disease, which has become a pandemic and is impacting the care of cancer patients worldwide. This study evaluated the impact of the pandemic on colorectal cancer (CRC) patients at our center and aimed to share the lessons we learned with clinics currently experiencing this impact.

Methods

We retrospectively collected data on CRC patients admitted between January 1, 2020 and May 3, 2020; the control group comprised patients admitted between January 1, 2019 and May 3, 2019.

Results

During the pandemic, outpatient volumes decreased significantly, especially those of nonlocal and elderly patients, whereas the number of patients who received chemotherapy and surgery remained the same. During the pandemic, 710 CRC patients underwent curative resection. The proportion of patients who received laparoscopic surgeries was 49.4%, significantly higher than the 39.5% during the same period in 2019. The proportion of major complication during the pandemic was not significantly different from that of the control group. The mean hospital stay was significantly longer than that of the control group.

Conclusions

CRC patients confirmed to be infection-free can receive routine treatment. Using online medical counseling and appropriate identification, treatment and follow-up can be effectively maintained. Adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy should not be discontinued. Endoscopic polypectomy, elective, palliative, and multidisciplinary surgeries can be postponed, while curative surgery should proceed as usual. For elderly CRC patients, endoscopic surgery and neoadjuvant radiotherapy are recommended.

Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer in the UK in 2020

AIMS

Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision is the current standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for rectal cancer is increasing in the UK. However, the extent of IMRT implementation and current practice was not previously known. A national survey was commissioned to investigate the landscape of IMRT use for rectal cancer and to inform the development of national rectal cancer IMRT guidance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A web-based survey was developed by the National Rectal Cancer IMRT Guidance working group in collaboration with the Royal College of Radiologists and disseminated to all UK radiotherapy centres. The survey enquired about the implementation of IMRT with a focus on the following aspects of the workflow: dose fractionation schedules and use of a boost; pre-treatment preparation and simulation; target volume/organ at risk definition; treatment planning and treatment verification. A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

In total, 44 of 63 centres (70%) responded to the survey; 30/44 (68%) and 36/44 (82%) centres currently use IMRT to treat all patients and selected patients with rectal cancer, respectively. There was general agreement concerning several aspects of the IMRT workflow, including patient positioning, use of intravenous contrast and bladder protocols. Greater variation in practice was identified regarding rectal protocols; use of a boost to primary/nodal disease; target volume delineation; organ at risk delineation and dose constraints and treatment verification. Delineation of individual small bowel loops and daily volumetric treatment verification were considered potentially feasible by most centres.

CONCLUSION

This survey identified that IMRT is already used to treat rectal cancer in many UK radiotherapy centres, but there is heterogeneity between centres in its implementation and practice. These results have been a valuable aid in framing the recommendations within the new National Rectal Cancer IMRT Guidance.

Assessment of Simulated SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Mortality Risk Associated With Radiation Therapy Among Patients in 8 Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer therapy may put patients at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. The impacts of proposed alternatives on reducing infection risk are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with the risks and benefits of standard radiation therapy (RT).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This comparative effectiveness study used estimated individual patient-level data extracted from published Kaplan-Meier survival figures from 8 randomized clinical trials across oncology from 1993 to 2014 that evaluated the inclusion of RT or compared different RT fractionation regimens. Included trials were Dutch TME and TROG 01.04 examining rectal cancer; CALGB 9343, OCOG hypofractionation trial, FAST-Forward, and NSABP B-39 examining early stage breast cancer, and CHHiP and HYPO-RT-PC examining prostate cancer. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality associated with receipt of RT in the treatment arms were simulated and trials were reanalyzed. Data were analyzed between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020.

EXPOSURES

COVID-19 risk associated with treatment was simulated across different pandemic scenarios, varying infection risk per fractions (IRFs) and case fatality rates (CFRs).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Overall survival was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards modeling under different pandemic scenarios.

RESULTS

Estimated IPLD from a total of 14 170 patients were included in the simulations. In scenarios with low COVID-19-associated risks (IRF, 0.5%; CFR, 5%), fractionation was not significantly associated with outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, short-course RT was associated with better outcomes than long-course chemoradiation (TROG 01.04) and was associated with similar outcomes as RT omission (Dutch TME) in most settings (eg, TROG 01.04 median HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96]; Dutch TME median HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.80-1.03] in a scenario with IRF 5% and CFR 20%). Moderate hypofractionation in early stage breast cancer (OCOG hypofractionation trial) and prostate cancer (CHHiP) was not associated with survival benefits in the setting of COVID-19 (eg, OCOG hypofractionation trial median HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.06]; CHHiP median HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.75-1.01] under high-risk scenario with IRF 10% and CFR 30%). More aggressive hypofractionation (FAST-Forward, HYPO-RT-PC) and accelerated partial breast irradiation (NSABP B-39) were associated with improved survival in higher risk scenarios (eg, FAST-Forward median HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.68]; HYPO-RT-PC median HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.75] under scenario with IRF 10% and CFR 30%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this comparative effectiveness study of data from 8 clinical trials of patients receiving radiation therapy to simulate COVID-19 risk and mortality rates, treatment modification was not associated with altered risk from COVID-19 in lower-risk scenarios and was only associated with decreased mortality in very high COVID-19-risk scenarios. This model, which can be adapted to dynamic changes in COVID-19 risk, provides a flexible, quantitative approach to assess the potential impact of treatment modifications and supports the continued delivery of standard evidence-based care with appropriate precautions against COVID-19.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

There are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on cancer care but there is little direct evidence to quantify any effect. This study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England.

METHODS

Data were extracted from four population-based datasets spanning NHS England (the National Cancer Cancer Waiting Time Monitoring, Monthly Diagnostic, Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care and the National Radiotherapy datasets) for all referrals, colonoscopies, surgical procedures, and courses of rectal radiotherapy from Jan 1, 2019, to Oct 31, 2020, related to colorectal cancer in England. Differences in patterns of care were investigated between 2019 and 2020. Percentage reductions in monthly numbers and proportions were calculated.

FINDINGS

As compared to the monthly average in 2019, in April, 2020, there was a 63% (95% CI 53-71) reduction (from 36 274 to 13 440) in the monthly number of 2-week referrals for suspected cancer and a 92% (95% CI 89-95) reduction in the number of colonoscopies (from 46 441 to 3484). Numbers had just recovered by October, 2020. This resulted in a 22% (95% CI 8-34) relative reduction in the number of cases referred for treatment (from a monthly average of 2781 in 2019 to 2158 referrals in April, 2020). By October, 2020, the monthly rate had returned to 2019 levels but did not exceed it, suggesting that, from April to October, 2020, over 3500 fewer people had been diagnosed and treated for colorectal cancer in England than would have been expected. There was also a 31% (95% CI 19-42) relative reduction in the numbers receiving surgery in April, 2020, and a lower proportion of laparoscopic and a greater proportion of stoma-forming procedures, relative to the monthly average in 2019. By October, 2020, laparoscopic surgery and stoma rates were similar to 2019 levels. For rectal cancer, there was a 44% (95% CI 17-76) relative increase in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in April, 2020, relative to the monthly average in 2019, due to greater use of short-course regimens. Although in June, 2020, there was a drop in the use of short-course regimens, rates remained above 2019 levels until October, 2020.

INTERPRETATION

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a sustained reduction in the number of people referred, diagnosed, and treated for colorectal cancer. By October, 2020, achievement of care pathway targets had returned to 2019 levels, albeit with smaller volumes of patients and with modifications to usual practice. As pressure grows in the NHS due to the second wave of COVID-19, urgent action is needed to address the growing burden of undetected and untreated colorectal cancer in England.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, NHS Digital, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy before total mesorectal excision (TME) versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy, TME, and optional adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (RAPIDO): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Systemic relapses remain a major problem in locally advanced rectal cancer. Using short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy and delayed surgery, the Rectal cancer And Preoperative Induction therapy followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial aimed to reduce distant metastases without compromising locoregional control.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 54 centres in the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, had a biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, which was classified as high risk on pelvic MRI (with at least one of the following criteria: clinical tumour [cT] stage cT4a or cT4b, extramural vascular invasion, clinical nodal [cN] stage cN2, involved mesorectal fascia, or enlarged lateral lymph nodes), were mentally and physically fit for chemotherapy, and could be assessed for staging within 5 weeks before randomisation. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a management system with a randomly varying block design (each block size randomly chosen to contain two to four allocations), stratified by centre, ECOG performance status, cT stage, and cN stage, to either the experimental or standard of care group. All investigators remained masked for the primary endpoint until a prespecified number of events was reached. Patients allocated to the experimental treatment group received short-course radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy over a maximum of 8 days) followed by six cycles of CAPOX chemotherapy (capecitabine 1000 mg/m² orally twice daily on days 1-14, oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 15-21) or nine cycles of FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, leucovorin [folinic acid] 200 mg/m² intravenously on days 1 and 2, followed by bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m² intravenously and fluorouracil 600 mg/m² intravenously for 22 h on days 1 and 2, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 3-14) followed by total mesorectal excision. Choice of CAPOX or FOLFOX4 was per physician discretion or hospital policy. Patients allocated to the standard of care group received 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy up to 50·4 Gy or 25 fractions of 2·0 Gy up to 50·0 Gy (per physician discretion or hospital policy), with concomitant twice-daily oral capecitabine 825 mg/m² followed by total mesorectal excision and, if stipulated by hospital policy, adjuvant chemotherapy with eight cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of FOLFOX4. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-related treatment failure, defined as the first occurrence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, new primary colorectal tumour, or treatment-related death, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the EudraCT, 2010-023957-12, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01558921, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

Between June 21, 2011, and June 2, 2016, 920 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment, of whom 912 were eligible (462 in the experimental group; 450 in the standard of care group). Median follow-up was 4·6 years (IQR 3·5-5·5). At 3 years after randomisation, the cumulative probability of disease-related treatment failure was 23·7% (95% CI 19·8-27·6) in the experimental group versus 30·4% (26·1-34·6) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·95; p=0·019). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event during preoperative therapy in both groups was diarrhoea (81 [18%] of 460 patients in the experimental group and 41 [9%] of 441 in the standard of care group) and neurological toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy in the standard of care group (16 [9%] of 187 patients). Serious adverse events occurred in 177 (38%) of 460 participants in the experimental group and, in the standard of care group, in 87 (34%) of 254 patients without adjuvant chemotherapy and in 64 (34%) of 187 with adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four participants in the experimental group (one cardiac arrest, one pulmonary embolism, two infectious complications) and in four participants in the standard of care group (one pulmonary embolism, one neutropenic sepsis, one aspiration, one suicide due to severe depression).

INTERPRETATION

The observed decreased probability of disease-related treatment failure in the experimental group is probably indicative of the increased efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy as opposed to adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting. Therefore, the experimental treatment can be considered as a new standard of care in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer.

FUNDING

Dutch Cancer Foundation, Swedish Cancer Society, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Spanish Clinical Research Network.

Radiotherapy management of rectal cancer in the backdrop of the COVID pandemic

Background

COVID‐19 outbreak was declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Over the last 3 months, the pandemic has challenged the diagnosis and treatment of all cancer, including rectal cancer. Constraints in resources call for a change in the treatment strategy without compromising efficacy.

Recent Findings

Delivery of shorter treatment schedules for radiotherapy offers advantages like short overall treatment time, improved throughput on the machine, improved compliance and reduced risk of transmission of COVID 19. Other strategies include delaying surgery, reducing the intensity of chemotherapy and adoption of organ preservation approach.

Conclusion

The curative treatment of rectal cancer should not be hindered during the COVID pandemic, and modifications in the multi‐modality treatment will help achieve quality care.

Personalised treatment for older adults with cancer: The role of frailty assessment

It is widely accepted in clinical practice that chronological age is a poor predictor of treatment tolerance and outcomes in older adults with cancer. Intrinsic vulnerability is more a function of underlying frailty, rather than chronological age. Frailty is a state of increased vulnerability to stressors, such as cancer and its treatment, which can lead to adverse health outcomes for patients. Capturing this heterogeneity in reserve capacity is the cornerstone of management in geriatricmedicine, but remains poorly understood or adopted in radiation oncology. A two-step approach, using a shorter screening tool, followed by full assessment for those who need it, is the mostresourceful way of implementing frailty assessment in radiotherapy departments. It is important for radiation oncology professionals to identify frailty and to use this information in multidisciplinary decision making in order to develop a personalised radiotherapy approach for the older person. There are many ways we can effectively use this information, such as considering treatment fractionation schedules that would limit the burden of travel for those with social frailty, or reviewing the range of modalities at our disposal, which might limit toxicity in the older person at high risk of deterioration during treatment. Frailty assessment is not carried out in many radiotherapy departments presently, but there are many international models to use as exemplars as to how it may be implemented in clinical practice. There are many opportunities for further research and role development in this field at the current time.

Older cancer patients and COVID-19 outbreak: Practical considerations and recommendations

Since the COVID-19 outbreak started, it has been affecting mainly older individuals. Among the most vulnerable older individuals are those with cancer. Many published guidelines and consensus papers deal with prioritizing cancer care. Given the lack of high-quality evidence for management of cancer in older patients also in normal times, it is even more stringent to provide some resources on how to avoid both undertreatment and overtreatment in this population, who as of now is twice challenged to death, due to both a greater risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as well as from cancer not adequately addressed and treated. We hereby discuss some general recommendations (implement triage procedures; perform geriatric assessment; carefully assess comorbidity; promote early integration of palliative care in oncology; acknowledge the role of caregivers; maintain active take in charge to avoid feeling of abandonment; mandate seasonal flu vaccination) and discuss practical suggestions for specific disease settings (early-stage and advanced-stage disease for solid tumors, and hematological malignancies). The manuscript provides resources on how to avoid both undertreatment and overtreatment in older patients with cancer, who as of now is twice challenged to death, due to both a greater risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as well as from cancer not adequately addressed and treated.

Making the Most of a Crisis: A Proposal for Network-Based Palliative Radiation Therapy to Reduce Travel Toxicity

A multipronged model is proposed to improve the delivery of palliative radiotherapy by increasing access to care and reducing travel burden for patients.

The Landscape of COVID-19 in Cancer Patients: Prevalence, Impacts, and Recommendations

Cancer patients are susceptible groups to COVID-19, and risk-adjusted models show that most cancer patients have a 25-39% mortality risk if infected with COVID-19. The infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in cancer patients in China was 0.79% (12 of 1524 patients; 95% CI, 0.31.2%). The case fatality rate of COVID-19 in the overall population ranges from 2.3 to 8.0%; among these, the case fatality rate for cancer patients is at 5.6%. In a retrospective cohort study of 28 COVID-19-infected cancer patients, a total of 15 (53.6%) patients had severe outcomes with a mortality rate of 28.6%. In a pooled analysis by Aakash et al, a 2% cancer prevalence was found among admitted patients with COVID-19. In Italy, a report shows that among the 3200 patients who died of SARS-CoV-2, 19.4% were patients with cancer. In New York, 61 (28%) cancer patients succumbed to COVID-19 with a case fatality rate of 37% (20/54) and 25% (41/164) for hematologic and solid malignancies, respectively. Impacts of COVID-19 in cancer care include interruptions of life-saving therapies, distraction effects, and diagnostic overshadowing that involve diverting attention to the pandemic rather than to cancer patients and disruptions of primary palliative care to patients due to forced quarantine. Herein, we review the landscape of COVID-19 in cancer care. We also briefly share our experience and the measures in place to protect cancer patients against COVID-19 in our center.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiography practice: findings from a UK radiography workforce survey

OBJECTIVES

Radiographers are key patient-facing healthcare professionals involved in many aspects of patient care. The working patterns and professional practice of the radiography workforce (RW) has been altered during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on radiography practice in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey of the UK RW was performed (March 25th to April 26th, 2020). The survey sought information regarding 1. Demographics 2. Impact of the pandemic on professional practice 3. Infection prevention/control and 4. COVID-19 related stress. Data collected was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (v.26).

RESULTS

A total of 522 responses were received, comprising n = 412 (78.9%) diagnostic and n = 110 (21.1%) therapeutic RW categories from across the UK. 12.5% (65/522) of the respondents were redeployed. Redeployment did not appear to contribute (p = 0.31) to work-related stress. However, fear of contracting the infection and perceived inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE) were identified as key contributors to stress during the study period. Compared to the therapeutic RW, a significantly higher proportion of the diagnostic RW identified fear of being infected as a major stressor (166/412 (40.3%) vs 30/110 (27.3%), p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This survey has demonstrated changes to clinical practice, in particular to working patterns, service delivery and infection prevention and control were key contributors to workplace-related stress during the pandemic.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Timely and adequate staff training and availability of PPE as well as psychosocial support during future pandemics would enhance quality patient and staff safety.

Impact of COVID-19 on the performance of a radiation oncology department at a major comprehensive cancer centre in Poland during the first ten weeks of the epidemic

The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus rapidly altered radiotherapy service delivery around the world.

AIM

The main objective of this study was to assess the impact of precautionary measures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on the performance of a radiation oncology departments and on mitigation the risk of COVID-19 contagion between and among patients and staff.

METHODS

The study period was from March 15 until May 22, 2020. We evaluated total number of patients irradiated and those who initiated treatments, taking into account tumours localisations. We assessed the relationship of potential risk of contagion with patients' domiciles locations in regions with high number of COVID19 case.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The number of patients treated with radiotherapy during the study period decreased due to precautionary measures. After five weeks, the number of radiotherapy treatments began to increase. Just over half of the radiotherapy patients (53.5%) treated at the GPCC reside in the city of Poznan or in one of the ten surrounding counties where COVID19 incidence was low and reached at the end of the study period cumulative number of cases n = 204. The precautionary measures were effective qRT-PCR tests were performed in 1545 individuals (patients and hospital staff) revealing four staff members and none patient with a positive PCR result. Immunoglobulin testing was performed in 1132 individuals (patients and hospital staff). A total of 63 individuals were positive for antibodies.

A Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has inevitably caused those involved in cancer care to change clinical practice in order to minimize the risk of infection while maintaining cancer treatment as a priority. General advice during the pandemic suggests that most patients continue with ongoing therapies or planned surgeries, while follow-up visits may instead be delayed until the resolution of the outbreak. We conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify articles published in English language that reported on care recommendations for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic from its inception up to 1st June 2020, using the terms "(cancer or tumor) AND (COVID 19)". Articles were selected for relevance and split into five categories: (1) personal recommendations of single or multiple authors, (2) recommendations of single authoritative centers, (3) recommendations of panels of experts or of multiple regional comprehensive centers, (4) recommendations of multicenter cooperative groups, (5) official guidelines or recommendations of health authorities. Of the 97 included studies, 10 were personal recommendations of single or multiple independent authors, 16 were practice recommendations of single authoritative cancer centers, 35 were recommendations provided by panel of experts or of multiple regional comprehensive centers, 19 were cooperative group position papers, and finally, 17 were official guidelines statements. The COVID-19 pandemic is a global emergency, and has rapidly modified our clinical practice. Delaying unnecessary treatment, minimizing toxicity, and identifying care priorities for surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapies must be viewed as basic priorities in the COVID-19 era.

Deep learning-based survival analysis for brain metastasis patients with the national cancer database

PURPOSE

Prognostic indices such as the Brain Metastasis Graded Prognostic Assessment have been used in clinical settings to aid physicians and patients in determining an appropriate treatment regimen. These indices are derivative of traditional survival analysis techniques such as Cox proportional hazards (CPH) and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). Previous studies have shown that by evaluating CPH risk with a nonlinear deep neural network, DeepSurv, patient survival can be modeled more accurately. In this work, we apply DeepSurv to a test case: breast cancer patients with brain metastases who have received stereotactic radiosurgery.

METHODS

Survival times, censorship status, and 27 covariates including age, staging information, and hormone receptor status were provided for 1673 patients by the NCDB. Monte Carlo cross-validation with 50 samples of 1400 patients was used to train and validate the DeepSurv, CPH, and RPA models independently. DeepSurv was implemented with L2 regularization, batch normalization, dropout, Nesterov momentum, and learning rate decay. RPA was implemented as a random survival forest (RSF). Concordance indices of test sets of 140 patients were used for each sample to assess the generalizable predictive capacity of each model.

RESULTS

Following hyperparameter tuning, DeepSurv was trained at 32 min per sample on a 1.33 GHz quad-core CPU. Test set concordance indices of 0.7488 ± 0.0049, 0.6251 ± 0.0047, and 0.7368 ± 0.0047, were found for DeepSurv, CPH, and RSF, respectively. A Tukey HSD test demonstrates a statistically significant difference between the mean concordance indices of the three models.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that deep learning-based survival prediction can outperform traditional models, specifically in a case where an accurate prognosis is highly clinically relevant. We recommend that where appropriate data are available, deep learning-based prognostic indicators should be used to supplement classical statistics.

Recommendations on Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: an Iranian Consensus

Purpose

Today, the rapid outbreak of COVID-19 is the leading health issue. Patients with cancer are at high risk for the development of morbidities of COVID-19. Hence, oncology centers need to provide organ-based recommendations for optimal management of cancer in the COVID-19 era.

Methods

In this article, we have provided the recommendations on management of locally advanced rectal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic based on our experience in Shohada-e Tajrish Hospital, Iran.

Results

We recommend that patients with locally advanced rectal cancer should be managed in an individualized manner in combination with local conditions related to COVID-19.

Conclusion

Our recommendation may provide a guide for oncology centers of developing countries for better management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Management Considerations for the Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer During the Global Covid-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic requires to conscientiously weigh "timely surgical intervention" for colorectal cancer against efforts to conserve hospital resources and protect patients and health care providers.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Professional societies provided ad-hoc guidance at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic on deferral of surgical and perioperative interventions, but these lack specific parameters to determine the optimal timing of surgery.

METHODS

Using the GRADE system, published evidence was analyzed to generate weighted statements for stage, site, acuity of presentation, and hospital setting to specify when surgery should be pursued, the time and duration of oncologically acceptable delays, and when to utilize nonsurgical modalities to bridge the waiting period.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer surgeries-prioritized as emergency, urgent with imminent emergency or oncologically urgent, or elective-were matched against the phases of the pandemic. Surgery in COVID-19-positive patients must be avoided. Emergent and imminent emergent cases should mostly proceed unless resources are exhausted. Standard practices allow for postponement of elective cases and deferral to nonsurgical modalities of stage II/III rectal and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologically urgent cases may be delayed for 6(-12) weeks without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. Outside established principles, administration of nonsurgical modalities is not justified and increases the vulnerability of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed already limited health care resources and forced rationing, triage, and prioritization of care in general, specifically of surgical interventions. Established guidelines allow for modifications of optimal timing and type of surgery for colorectal cancer during an unrelated pandemic.

Management Considerations for the Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer During the Global Covid-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic requires to conscientiously weigh "timely surgical intervention" for colorectal cancer against efforts to conserve hospital resources and protect patients and health care providers.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Professional societies provided ad-hoc guidance at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic on deferral of surgical and perioperative interventions, but these lack specific parameters to determine the optimal timing of surgery.

METHODS

Using the GRADE system, published evidence was analyzed to generate weighted statements for stage, site, acuity of presentation, and hospital setting to specify when surgery should be pursued, the time and duration of oncologically acceptable delays, and when to utilize nonsurgical modalities to bridge the waiting period.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer surgeries-prioritized as emergency, urgent with imminent emergency or oncologically urgent, or elective-were matched against the phases of the pandemic. Surgery in COVID-19-positive patients must be avoided. Emergent and imminent emergent cases should mostly proceed unless resources are exhausted. Standard practices allow for postponement of elective cases and deferral to nonsurgical modalities of stage II/III rectal and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologically urgent cases may be delayed for 6(-12) weeks without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. Outside established principles, administration of nonsurgical modalities is not justified and increases the vulnerability of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed already limited health care resources and forced rationing, triage, and prioritization of care in general, specifically of surgical interventions. Established guidelines allow for modifications of optimal timing and type of surgery for colorectal cancer during an unrelated pandemic.

Adapting care for older cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations from the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) COVID-19 Working Group

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a barrier to equal and evidence-based management of cancer in older adults. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) formed a panel of experts to develop consensus recommendations on the implications of the pandemic on several aspects of cancer care in this age group including geriatric assessment (GA), surgery, radiotherapy, systemic treatment, palliative care and research. Age and cancer diagnosis are significant predictors of adverse outcomes of the COVID-19 infection. In this setting, GA is particularly valuable to drive decision-making. GA may aid estimating physiologic reserve and adaptive capability, assessing risk-benefits of either providing or temporarily withholding treatments, and determining patient preferences to help inform treatment decisions. In a resource-constrained setting, geriatric screening tools may be administered remotely to identify patients requiring comprehensive GA. Tele-health is also crucial to ensure adequate continuity of care and minimize the risk of infection exposure. In general, therapeutic decisions should favor the most effective and least invasive approach with the lowest risk of adverse outcomes. In selected cases, this might require deferring or omitting surgery, radiotherapy or systemic treatments especially where benefits are marginal and alternative safe therapeutic options are available. Ongoing research is necessary to expand knowledge of the management of cancer in older adults. However, the pandemic presents a significant barrier and efforts should be made to ensure equitable access to clinical trials and prospective data collection to elucidate the outcomes of COVID-19 in this population.

Radiotherapy after the easing of public restrictions during COVID-19 epidemic

The daily new confirmed Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases have decreased in some European and Asian countries. Many countries and areas have started to ease public restrictions. Here, we share our experiences and recommendations on how to conduct radiotherapy after public restrictions have eased or upon reopening. Firstly, COVID-19 nucleic acid test screening should be performed for all new admitted patients in areas with enough test capability. Secondly, radiotherapy can be conducted reference to consensus or recommendations on radiotherapy during COVID-19. Thirdly, it is not the time to consider compromising the guidance and the guidance on radiotherapy workflow and protection procedures still should be strictly followed.

Recommendations for the use of radiation therapy in managing patients with gastrointestinal malignancies in the era of COVID-19

As of April 6, 2020, there are over 1,200,000 reported cases and 70,000 deaths worldwide due to COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and these numbers rise exponentially by the day [1]. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the most effective means of minimizing the spread of the virus is through reducing interactions between individuals [2]. We performed a review of the literature, as well as national and international treatment guidelines, seeking data in support of the RADS principle (Remote visits, Avoid radiation, Defer radiation, Shorten radiation) [3] as it applies to gastrointestinal cancers. The purpose of the present work is to guide radiation oncologists managing patients with gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 crisis in order to maintain the safety of our patients, while minimizing the impact of the pandemic on cancer outcomes.