ABSTRACT
Genomic classifiers such as the Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) could help to personalize treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (I-PCa). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the ability of the GPS to change therapeutic decision making in I-PCa. Only patients in the intermediate NCCN risk group with Gleason score 3 + 4 were considered. The primary objective was to assess the impact of the GPS on risk stratification: NCCN clinical and genomic risk versus NCCN clinical risk stratification alone. We also analyzed the predictive role of the GPS for locally advanced disease (≥pT3+) and the potential change in treatment strategy. Thirty patients were tested for their GPS between November 2018 and March 2020, with the median age being 70 (45-79). Twenty-three patients had a clinical T1 stage. Eighteen patients were classified as favorable intermediate risk (FIR) based on the NCCN criteria. The median GPS score was 39 (17-70). Among the 23 patients who underwent a radical prostatectomy, Gleason score 3 + 4 was found in 18 patients. There was a significant correlation between the GPS and the percentage of a Gleason grade 4 or higher pattern in the surgical sample: correlation coefficient r = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.2-0.8; p = 0.005. In this study, the GPS combined with NCCN clinical risk factors resulted in significant changes in risk group.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: During the first weeks of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in France, it was necessary to clearly define organizational priorities in the radiation therapy (RT) departments. In this report, we focus on the urgent measures taken to reduce risk for both our staff and patients by reducing the number of patients receiving treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the fractionation schemes for all patients in our department, including those receiving treatment and those soon to start treatment. Our goals were to (1) decrease the number of patients coming daily to the hospital for RT, (2) adapt our human resources to continue patients' care in the department, and (3) help to cover understaffed COVID-19 sectors of the hospital. RESULTS: We identified 50 patients who were receiving treatment (n = 6), were going to start radiation after CT scan simulation (n = 41), or for whom the CT scan was pending (n = 3). The majority were women (64%) treated for breast cancer (54%). RT was delayed for 22 (44%) patients. The majority were offered hormone therapy as "waiting therapy." Hypofractionation was considered in 21 (42%) patients mainly with breast cancer (18 of 21, 86%). The number of courses initially planned and replanned as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak during the period of March 15 to May 31, 2020, were 1383 and 683, respectively, which represented a reduction of 50% (including delayed sessions) that allowed our reorganization process. CONCLUSIONS: To conserve resources during the pandemic, we successfully reduced the number of patients receiving treatment in a proactive fashion and adapted our organization to minimize the risk of COVID-19 contamination. Departments across the world may benefit from this same approach.