The Day after Tomorrow: How Should We Address Health System Organization to Treat Cancer Patients after the Peak of the COVID-19 Epidemic?

Nanotech Probes: A Revolution in Cancer Diagnosis

Recent advances in nanotechnologies for cancer diagnosis and treatment have received considerable attention worldwide. Nanoparticles are being used to create nanodrugs and probes to diagnose and treat a variety of diseases, including cancer. Nanomedicines have unique advantages, such as increased surface-to-volume ratios, which enable them to interact with, absorb, and deliver small biomolecules to a very specific target, thereby improving the effectiveness of both probes and drugs. Nanoprobe biotechnology also plays an important role in the discovery of novel cancer biomarkers, and nanoprobes have become an important part of early clinical diagnosis of cancer. Various organic and inorganic nanomaterials have been developed as biomolecular carriers for the detection of disease biomarkers. Thus, we designed this review to evaluate the advances in nanoprobe technology in tumor diagnosis.

Carbon Ion Radiotherapy Acts as the Optimal Treatment Strategy for Unresectable Liver Cancer During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Crisis

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has greatly disrupted the normal treatment of patients with liver cancer and increased their risk of death. The weight of therapeutic safety was significantly amplified for decision-making to minimize the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Herein, the safety and effectiveness of carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for unresectable liver cancer (ULC) were evaluated, and Chinese experiences were shared to solve the predicament of ULC treatment caused by SARS-CoV-2. Worldwide studies were collected to evaluate CIRT for ULC as the world has become a community due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We not only searched five international databases including the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus but also performed supplementary retrieval with other sources. Chinese experiences of fighting against COVID-19 were introduced based on the advancements of CIRT in China and a prospective clinical trial of CIRT for treating ULC. A total of 19 studies involving 813 patients with ULC were included in the systematic review. The qualitative synthetic evaluation showed that compared with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), CIRT could achieve superior overall survival, local control, and relative hepatic protection. The systematic results indicated that non-invasive CIRT could significantly minimize harms to patients with ULC and concurrently obtain superior anti-cancer effectiveness. According to the Chinese experience, CIRT allows telemedicine within the hospital (TMIH) to keep a sufficient person-to-person physical distance in the whole process of treatment for ULC, which is significant for cutting off the transmission route of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, CIRT could maximize the utilization rate of hospitalization and outpatient care (UHO). Collectively, CIRT for ULC patients not only allows TMIH and the maximized UHO but also has the compatible advantages of safety and effectiveness. Therefore, CIRT should be identified as the optimal strategy for treating appropriate ULC when we need to minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and to improve the capacity of medical service in the context of the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis.

Hyperthermia ablation combined with transarterial chemoembolization versus monotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The existing evidence has indicated that hyperthermia ablation (HA) and HA combined with transarterial chemoembolization (HATACE) are the optimal alternative to surgical resection for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the COVID-19 crisis. However, the evidence for decision-making is lacking in terms of comparison between HA and HATACE. Herein, a comprehensive evaluation was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of HATACE with monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Worldwide studies were collected to evaluate the HATACE regimen for HCC due to the practical need for global extrapolation of applicative population. Meta-analyses were performed using the RevMan 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark).

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies involving a large sample of 5036 patients were included finally. Compared with HA alone, HATACE produced the advantage of 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (OR:1.90; 95%CI:1.46,2.46; p < 0.05) without increasing toxicity (p ≥ 0.05). Compared with TACE alone, HATACE was associated with superior 5-year OS rate (OR:3.54; 95%CI:1.96,6.37; p < 0.05) and significantly reduced the incidences of severe liver damage (OR:0.32; 95%CI:0.11,0.96; p < 0.05) and ascites (OR:0.42; 95%CI:0.20,0.88; p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis results of small (≤3 cm) HCC revealed that there were no significant differences between the HATACE group and HA monotherapy group in regard to the OS rates (p ≥ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TACE alone, HATACE was more effective and safe for HCC. Compared with HA alone, HATACE was more effective for non-small-sized (>3 cm) HCC with comparable safety. However, the survival benefit of adjuvant TACE in HATACE regimen was not found for the patients with small (≤3 cm) HCC.

The Impact of Routine Molecular Screening for SARS-CoV-2 in Patients Receiving Anti-Cancer Therapy: An Interim Analysis of the Observational COICA Study

INTRODUCTION

Cancer aggravates COVID-19 prognosis. Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly frequent in cancer patients, who need to attend hospitals regularly. Since March, 2020, all cancer patients having access to the Oncology Unit at the "Andrea Tortora" Hospital (Pagani, Salerno - referred to as "the Hospital") as inpatients or outpatients receiving intravenous therapy have been screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab. The ongoing COICA (COVID-19 Infection in Cancer Patients) study is an ambispective, multicenter, observational study designed to assess the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. The aim of the study presented here was to explore potential differences in COVID-19 related outcomes among screening-detected vs. non-screening detected SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.

METHODS

The COICA study enrolled cancer patients who had received any anti-cancer systemic therapy within 3 months since the day they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. The target accrual is 128 patients, and the study was approved by the competent Ethics Committee. Only the sub-group of patients enrolled at the Hospital was considered in this unplanned interim analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of screening-based vs. non screening based diagnosis.

RESULTS

Since March, 15 2020 until August, 15 2021, a total of 931 outpatients and 230 inpatients were repeatedly screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab at the Hospital. Among these, 71 asymptomatic patients were positive on routine screening and five patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 outside the institutional screening. Seven patients died because of COVID-19. At univariate analysis, non-screening vs. screening detected SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of O2 Therapy (OR= 16.2; 95% CI =2.2 to 117.1; p =0.006),hospital admission (OR=31.5; 95% CI=3.1 to 317.8; p=0.003 ), admission to ICU (OR=23.0; 95% CI = 2.4 to 223.8; p= 0.007) and Death (OR=8.8; 95%CI= 1.2 to 65.5; p =0.034).

CONCLUSION

Routine screening with RT-PCR may represent a feasible and effective strategy in reducing viral circulation and possibly COVID-19 mortality in patients with active cancer having repeated access to hospital facilities.

Cancer Australia consensus statement on COVID-19 and cancer care: embedding high value changes in practice

Introduction

Driven by the need to reduce risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and optimise use of health system resources, while maximising patient outcomes, the COVID‐19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented changes in cancer care. Some new or modified health care practices adopted during the pandemic will be of long term value in improving the quality and resilience of cancer care in Australia and internationally. The Cancer Australia consensus statement is intended to guide and enhance the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic and in a post‐pandemic environment. This article summarises the full statement, which is available at https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/covid‐19/covid‐19‐recovery‐implications‐cancer‐care.

Main recommendations

The statement is informed by a desktop literature review and input from cancer experts and consumers at a virtual roundtable, held in July 2020, on key elements of cancer care that changed during the pandemic. It describes targeted strategies (at system, service, practitioner and patient levels) to retain, enhance and embed high value changes in practice. Principal strategies include:

implementing innovative models of care that are digitally enabled and underpinned by clear governance, policies and procedures to guide best practice cancer care;

enabling health professionals to deliver evidence‐based best practice and coordinated, person‐centred cancer care; and

empowering patients to improve health literacy and enhancing their ability to engage in informed, shared decision making.

Changes in management as a result of this statement

Widespread adoption of high value health care practices across all levels of the cancer control sector will be of considerable benefit to the delivery of optimal cancer care into the future.

Impact of preoperative COVID infection on the outcomes of planned curative-intent cancer surgeries in the second wave of the pandemic from a tertiary care center in India

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) pandemic was an unforeseen calamity. Sudden disruption of nonemergency services led to disruption of treatment across all specialties. Oncology revolves around the tenet of timely detection and treatment. Disruption of any sort will jeopardize cure rates. The time interval between coronavirus infection and cancer surgery is variable and needs to be tailored to avoid the progression of the disease.

Methods

We analyzed the impact of preoperative coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection on the planned cancer surgery, delay, disease progression, and change of intent of treatment from April 1 to May 31, 2021 at a tertiary care center. All preoperative positive patients were retested after 2 weeks and were considered for surgery if the repeat test was negative and asymptomatic.

Findings

Our study included 432 preoperative patients of which 91 (21%) were COVID‐19 positive. Amongst this cohort, 76% were operated and the morbidity and mortality were comparable to the COVID‐19 negative cohort. Around 10% of the COVID‐19 positive were lost to follow up and 10% had disease progression and were deemed palliative

Interpretation

SARS‐CoV‐2 infection has adversely impacted cancer care and a 2‐week waiting period postinfection seems to be a safe interval in asymptomatic individuals to consider radical cancer surgery.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Care in the Post Pandemic World: Five Major Lessons Learnt from Challenges and Countermeasures of Major Asian Cancer Centres

Objective:

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected healthcare services around Asia. The Asian National Cancer Centres Alliance and the Asia-Pacific Organisation for Cancer Prevention collaborated to assess the mid- and long- term impact of COVID-19 to cancer care in Asia.

Methods:

The two entities organised a combined symposium and post-meeting interactions among representatives of major cancer centres from seventeen Asian countries to outlining major challenges and countermeasures.

Results:

Participating stakeholders distilled five big questions. 1) “Will there be an explosion of late-stage cancers after the pandemic?” To address and recover from perceived delayed prevention, screening, treatment and care challenges, collaboration of key stakeholders in the region and alignment in cancer care management, policy intervention and cancer registry initiatives would be of essential value. 2) “Operations and Finance” The pandemic has resulted in significant material and financial casualties. Flagged acute challenges (shortages of supplies, imposition of lockdown) as well as longer-standing reduction of financial revenue, manpower, international collaboration, and training should also be addressed. 3) “Will telemedicine and technological innovations revolutionize cancer care?” Deploying and implementing telemedicine such as teleconsultation and virtual tumour boards were considered invaluable. These innovations could become a new regular practice, leading to expansion of tele-collaboration through collaboration of institutions in the region. 4) “Will virtual conferences continue after the pandemic?” Virtual conferences during the pandemic have opened new doors for knowledge sharing, especially for representatives of low- and middle-income countries in the region, while saving time and costs of travel. 5) “How do we prepare for the next pandemic or international emergency?” Roadmaps for action to improve access to appropriate patient care and research were identified and scrutinised.

Conclusion:

Through addressing these five big questions, focused collaboration among members and with international organisations such as City Cancer Challenge will allow enhanced preparedness for future international emergencies.

Are colorectal cancer patients at risk for COVID-19 infection during the postoperative period? The Covid-GRECCAR study

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer patients have been regarded as having a high risk of severe events if they are infected with SARS-CoV-2, particularly those under medical or surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the posttreatment risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 in a population of patients operated on for colorectal cancer 3 months before the COVID-19 outbreak and who after hospitalization returned to an environment where the virus was circulating.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This French, multicenter cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for colorectal cancer between January 1 and March 31, 2020, at 19 GRECCAR hospitals. The outcome was the rate of COVID-19 infection in this group of patients who were followed until June 15, 2020.

RESULTS

This study included 448 patients, 262 male (58.5%) and 186 female (41.5%), who underwent surgery for colon cancer (n = 290, 64.7%), rectal cancer (n = 155, 34.6%), or anal cancer (n = 3, 0.7%). The median age was 68 years (19-95). Comorbidities were present in nearly half of the patients, 52% were at least overweight, and the median BMI was 25 (12-42). At the end of the study, 448 were alive. Six patients (1.3%) developed COVID-19 infection; among them, 3 were hospitalized in the conventional ward, and none of them died.

CONCLUSION

The results are reassuring, with only a 1.3% infection rate and no deaths related to COVID-19. We believe that we can operate on colorectal cancer patients without additional mortality from COVID-19, applying all measures aimed at reducing the risk of infection.