7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          During a global pandemic the benefit of routine visits and treatment of cancer patients must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers Radiation Oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiotherapy management decisions.

          Patients and Methods

          Radiation Oncologists from the United States and United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage prostate cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: Remote visits, and Avoidance, Deferment, and Shortening of radiotherapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches.

          Results

          Recommendations are provided by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, including clinical node positive, post-prostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits was deemed safe based on stage of disease between 1-6 months. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node positive, recurrence post-surgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4-6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation was preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation was preferred for post-prostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage was preferred to adjuvant radiation.

          Conclusion

          Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (Remote visits, and Avoidance, Deferment, and Shortening of radiotherapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

          Abstract

          A RADS framework (Remote visits, and Avoidance, Deferment, and Shortening of radiotherapy) was created and applied to determine the appropriate management for men with prostate cancer during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Consensus was reached that all aspects of patient visits, treatment, and overall resource utilization can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

            To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cancer patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide analysis in China

              China and the rest of the world are experiencing an outbreak of a novel betacoronavirus known as severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). 1 By Feb 12, 2020, the rapid spread of the virus had caused 42 747 cases and 1017 deaths in China and cases have been reported in 25 countries, including the USA, Japan, and Spain. WHO has declared 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, a public health emergency of international concern. In contrast to severe acute respiratory system coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, more deaths from COVID-19 have been caused by multiple organ dysfunction syndrome rather than respiratory failure, 2 which might be attributable to the widespread distribution of angiotensin converting enzyme 2—the functional receptor for SARS-CoV-2—in multiple organs.3, 4 Patients with cancer are more susceptible to infection than individuals without cancer because of their systemic immunosuppressive state caused by the malignancy and anticancer treatments, such as chemotherapy or surgery.5, 6, 7, 8 Therefore, these patients might be at increased risk of COVID-19 and have a poorer prognosis. On behalf of the National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, we worked together with the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China to establish a prospective cohort to monitor COVID-19 cases throughout China. As of the data cutoff on Jan 31, 2020, we have collected and analysed 2007 cases from 575 hospitals (appendix pp 4–9 for a full list) in 31 provincial administrative regions. All cases were diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 acute respiratory disease and were admitted to hospital. We excluded 417 cases because of insufficient records of previous disease history. 18 (1%; 95% CI 0·61–1·65) of 1590 COVID-19 cases had a history of cancer, which seems to be higher than the incidence of cancer in the overall Chinese population (285·83 [0·29%] per 100 000 people, according to 2015 cancer epidemiology statistics 9 ). Detailed information about the 18 patients with cancer with COVID-19 is summarised in the appendix (p 1). Lung cancer was the most frequent type (five [28%] of 18 patients). Four (25%) of 16 patients (two of the 18 patients had unknown treatment status) with cancer with COVID-19 had received chemotherapy or surgery within the past month, and the other 12 (25%) patients were cancer survivors in routine follow-up after primary resection. Compared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer were older (mean age 63·1 years [SD 12·1] vs 48·7 years [16·2]), more likely to have a history of smoking (four [22%] of 18 patients vs 107 [7%] of 1572 patients), had more polypnea (eight [47%] of 17 patients vs 323 [23%] of 1377 patients; some data were missing on polypnea), and more severe baseline CT manifestation (17 [94%] of 18 patients vs 1113 [71%] of 1572 patients), but had no significant differences in sex, other baseline symptoms, other comorbidities, or baseline severity of x-ray (appendix p 2). Most importantly, patients with cancer were observed to have a higher risk of severe events (a composite endpoint defined as the percentage of patients being admitted to the intensive care unit requiring invasive ventilation, or death) compared with patients without cancer (seven [39%] of 18 patients vs 124 [8%] of 1572 patients; Fisher's exact p=0·0003). We observed similar results when the severe events were defined both by the above objective events and physician evaluation (nine [50%] of 18 patients vs 245 [16%] of 1572 patients; Fisher's exact p=0·0008). Moreover, patients who underwent chemotherapy or surgery in the past month had a numerically higher risk (three [75%] of four patients) of clinically severe events than did those not receiving chemotherapy or surgery (six [43%] of 14 patients; figure ). These odds were further confirmed by logistic regression (odds ratio [OR] 5·34, 95% CI 1·80–16·18; p=0·0026) after adjusting for other risk factors, including age, smoking history, and other comorbidities. Cancer history represented the highest risk for severe events (appendix p 3). Among patients with cancer, older age was the only risk factor for severe events (OR 1·43, 95% CI 0·97–2·12; p=0·072). Patients with lung cancer did not have a higher probability of severe events compared with patients with other cancer types (one [20%] of five patients with lung cancer vs eight [62%] of 13 patients with other types of cancer; p=0·294). Additionally, we used a Cox regression model to evaluate the time-dependent hazards of developing severe events, and found that patients with cancer deteriorated more rapidly than those without cancer (median time to severe events 13 days [IQR 6–15] vs 43 days [20–not reached]; p<0·0001; hazard ratio 3·56, 95% CI 1·65–7·69, after adjusting for age; figure). Figure Severe events in patients without cancer, cancer survivors, and patients with cancer (A) and risks of developing severe events for patients with cancer and patients without cancer (B) ICU=intensive care unit. In this study, we analysed the risk for severe COVID-19 in patients with cancer for the first time, to our knowledge; only by nationwide analysis can we follow up patients with rare but important comorbidities, such as cancer. We found that patients with cancer might have a higher risk of COVID-19 than individuals without cancer. Additionally, we showed that patients with cancer had poorer outcomes from COVID-19, providing a timely reminder to physicians that more intensive attention should be paid to patients with cancer, in case of rapid deterioration. Therefore, we propose three major strategies for patients with cancer in this COVID-19 crisis, and in future attacks of severe infectious diseases. First, an intentional postponing of adjuvant chemotherapy or elective surgery for stable cancer should be considered in endemic areas. Second, stronger personal protection provisions should be made for patients with cancer or cancer survivors. Third, more intensive surveillance or treatment should be considered when patients with cancer are infected with SARS-CoV-2, especially in older patients or those with other comorbidities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Advances in Radiation Oncology
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Society for Radiation Oncology.
                2452-1094
                1 April 2020
                1 April 2020
                :
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA
                [2]Department of Therapeutic Radiology/Radiation Oncology, Yale, New Haven, CT, USA
                [3]Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
                [4]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
                [5]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
                [6]Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber, Boston, MA, USA
                [7]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA
                [8]Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [9]Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [10]Department of Clinical Oncology, The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
                [11]Knight Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
                [12]Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, London, UK
                [13]Department of Radiation Oncology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
                [14]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
                Author notes
                [# ]Corresponding author: Daniel E Spratt, MD Department of Radiation Oncology University of Michigan 1500 East Medical Center Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Phone: 734 936 9630 sprattda@ 123456med.umich.edu
                Article
                S2452-1094(20)30061-0
                10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.010
                7118610
                32292839
                6d3811af-a25f-4323-8095-456dc47baeaf
                © 2020 The Author(s)

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 22 March 2020
                : 24 March 2020
                : 24 March 2020
                Categories
                Article

                coronavirus,prostate cancer,radiotherapy,radiation oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article