Detection of COVID-19 pulmonary manifestations with radiotherapy simulation CT imaging.

COVID-19 is associated with characteristic lung CT findings. Radiotherapy simulation CT scans may reveal characteristic COVID-19 findings and identify patients with active or prior infection. We reviewed patients undergoing CT simulation at a major cancer center in an early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Scans were reviewed by radiation oncologists using established radiographic criteria for COVID-19 pneumonia. Radiographic classifications were compared with available COVID-19 PCR test results. A one-tailed t-test was used to compare the rate of positive COVID-19 tests in radiographically suspicious vs. non-suspicious groups. Scans deemed suspicious were re-reviewed by expert diagnostic radiologists. 414 CT simulation scans were performed on 400 patients. 119 patients had COVID-19 PCR test results available. Radiation oncologists considered 71 scans (17.1%) suspicious for COVID-19. Of these, 23 had corresponding COVID-19 PCR tests, and 3/23 (15.7%) were positive for COVID. 107 non-suspicious scans had corresponding COVID-19 test results, and 9 were positive (8.4%). The difference in positive test results between suspicious and non-suspicious groups was not significant (p = 0.23). Upon re-review by a diagnostic radiologist, 25 (35%) scans deemed suspicious by radiation oncologists were confirmed to meet criteria, while the rest were re-classified as "atypical" for COVID-19. We conclude that radiotherapy simulation CT scans can be reviewed for signs of COVID-19 pneumonia by radiation oncologists. However, suspicious CT simulation was not associated with a higher incidence of COVID infection compared with non-suspicious CT simulation, and there was low concordance between radiation oncologist and diagnostic radiologist classification of scans.

A Review and Analysis of Managing Commonly Seen Implanted Devices for Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: This review article aims to consolidate information regarding existing and emerging implanted devices used in patients undergoing radiation therapy and to categorize levels of attention needed for each device, including which devices require monitoring throughout treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on the collective information from scholar searches, manufacturers' technical reports, and institutional experiences in the past years, commonly present devices in patients with cancer are compiled. This work summarizes cardiac pacemaker, implanted cardiac defibrillator, hepatic pump, intrathecal pain pump, neurostimulator, shunt, loop recorder, and mediport. Three different classifications of implanted devices can be made based on the potential effect of radiation: life-dependent, nonlife-dependent but with adverse effects if overdosed, and devices without electronic circuits. Implanted devices that contain electronic circuits that would be life-dependent or have adverse effects if overdosed, include cardiac pacemakers, implanted cardiac defibrillators, programmable hepatic pumps, pain pumps, neurostimulators, and loop recorders. RESULTS: Dose exposure to these devices need to be calculated or measured in vivo, especially for cardiac implanted devices, and they should be minimized to assure continued healthy functioning. Treatment planning techniques should be chosen to reduce entry, exit and internal scatter dose. Lower energy photon beams should be used to decrease potential neutron contamination. Implanted devices without electronic circuits are less of a concern. If a patient is life-dependent on the implanted device, it is not recommended to treat the patient with proton therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study reviewed the management of patients with commonly seen implanted devices and summarized a workflow for identifying and planning when a patient has implanted devices. Classifications of implanted devices could help clinicians make proper decisions in regard to patients with specific implanted devices. Lastly, the management of such devices in the era of the pandemic is also discussed in this review article.

The 3 Bs of cancer care amid the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: "Be safe, be smart, be kind"-A multidisciplinary approach increasing the use of radiation and embracing telemedicine for head and neck cancer.

Because of the national emergency triggered by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, government-mandated public health directives have drastically changed not only social norms but also the practice of oncologic medicine. Timely head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment must be prioritized, even during emergencies. Because severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 predominantly resides in the sinonasal/oral/oropharyngeal tracts, nonessential mucosal procedures are restricted, and HNCs are being triaged toward nonsurgical treatments when cures are comparable. Consequently, radiation utilization will likely increase during this pandemic. Even in radiation oncology, standard in-person and endoscopic evaluations are being restrained to limit exposure risks and preserve personal protective equipment for other frontline workers. The authors have implemented telemedicine and multidisciplinary conferences to continue to offer standard-of-care HNC treatments during this uniquely challenging time. Because of the lack of feasibility data on telemedicine for HNC, they report their early experience at a high-volume cancer center at the domestic epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis.

Need for Caution in the Diagnosis of Radiation Pneumonitis During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at high risk for mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Radiation pneumonitis (RP) is a common toxicity of thoracic radiation therapy with clinical and imaging features that overlap with those of COVID-19; however, RP is treated with high-dose corticosteroids, which may exacerbate COVID-19-associated lung injury. We reviewed patients who presented with symptoms of RP during the intensification of a regional COVID-19 epidemic to report on their clinical course and COVID-19 testing results. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The clinical course and chest computed tomography (CT) imaging findings of consecutive patients who presented with symptoms of RP in March 2020 were reviewed. The first regional COVID-19 case was diagnosed on March 1, 2020. All patients underwent COVID-19 qualitative RNA testing. RESULTS: Four patients with clinical suspicion for RP were assessed. Three out of 4 patients tested positive for COVID-19. All patients presented with symptoms of cough and dyspnea. Two patients had a fever, of whom only 1 tested positive for COVID-19. Two patients started on an empirical high-dose corticosteroid taper for presumed RP, but both had clinical deterioration and ultimately tested positive for COVID-19 and required hospitalization. Chest CT findings in patients suspected of RP but ultimately diagnosed with COVID-19 showed ground-glass opacities mostly pronounced outside the radiation field. CONCLUSIONS: As this pandemic continues, patients with symptoms of RP require diagnostic attention. We recommend that patients suspected of RP be tested for COVID-19 before starting empirical corticosteroids and for careful attention to be paid to chest CT imaging to prevent potential exacerbation of COVID-19 in these high-risk patients.

Thoracic Radiation Therapy During Coronavirus Disease 2019: Provisional Guidelines from a Comprehensive Cancer Center within a Pandemic Epicenter.

Coronavirus disease 2019 is an unprecedented pandemic with significant and evolving impact on the practice of radiation oncology. Radiation oncology departments must anticipate and account for coronavirus disease 2019 exposure risk for both patients and staff. The potential for severe radiation therapy resource constraints, particularly due to staff illness, must also be considered. Here we present provisional guidelines for thoracic radiation therapy adopted at our facility, a high-volume cancer center located in a United States pandemic epicenter. Generally, these guidelines reflect the principle that where evidence-supported hypofractionated schedules with comparable efficacy and toxicity exist, the shortest such schedules should be employed. In addition, we discuss potential adaptations in the prioritization and timing of radiation therapy for thoracic malignancies under these circumstances.