COVID-19-Associated Pneumonia: Radiobiological Insights.

The evolution of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia to acute respiratory distress syndrome is linked to a virus-induced "cytokine storm", associated with systemic inflammation, coagulopathies, endothelial damage, thrombo-inflammation, immune system deregulation and disruption of angiotensin converting enzyme signaling pathways. To date, the most promising therapeutic approaches in COVID-19 pandemic are linked to the development of vaccines. However, the fight against COVID-19 pandemic in the short and mid-term cannot only rely on vaccines strategies, in particular given the growing proportion of more contagious and more lethal variants among exposed population (the English, South African and Brazilian variants). As long as collective immunity is still not acquired, some patients will have severe forms of the disease. Therapeutic perspectives also rely on the implementation of strategies for the prevention of secondary complications resulting from vascular endothelial damage and from immune system deregulation, which contributes to acute respiratory distress and potentially to long term irreversible tissue damage. While the anti-inflammatory effects of low dose irradiation have been exploited for a long time in the clinics, few recent physiopathological and experimental data suggested the possibility to modulate the inflammatory storm related to COVID-19 pulmonary infection by exposing patients to ionizing radiation at very low doses. Despite level of evidence is only preliminary, these preclinical findings open therapeutic perspectives and are discussed in this article.

How did we take care of our older cancer patients during the first COVID-19 wave? The French experience.

BACKGROUND: The management of older cancer patients has been highly challenging for clinicians in a health-care system operating at maximum capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 9 different institutions. The primary endpoint was to assess the prevalence of adapted patient care during the pandemic for elderly cancer patients. The secondary endpoint was to assess the incidence of hospitalization and mortality due to COVID-19. All patients were older than 65years of age. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 332 outpatients' case files between 9th of March and 30th of April 2020. The median age was 75years (range: 65-101) and 53% were male. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than half of the outpatients received modified patient care, defined as postponement or cancellation of surgery, irradiation scheme adapted, systemic treatment or the use of telemedicine. Among patients with localized cancer, 60% had a change in management strategy due to the pandemic. Changes in management strategy were made for 53% of patients at the metastatic stage. GCSF was used , in 83% of patients, increasing considerably in the context of the pandemic. Sixty-nine percent of physicians used telemedicine. In the final analysis, only one patient was hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. No deaths due to COVID-19 were reported in elderly cancer patients during this time period. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to assess modification of patient care in elderly cancer outpatients during an epidemic. With this unprecedented crisis, our objective is to protect our patients from infection via protective barrier measures and social distancing, but also to guarantee the continuity of cancer care without overexposing this fragile population. Physicians were able to adapt their practice and used new forms of management, like telemedicine.

Evaluation of medical practices in oncology in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in France: Physicians' point of view: the PRATICOVID study.

The cancer population seems to be more susceptible to COVID-19 infection and have worse outcomes. We had to adapt our medical practice to protect our patients without compromising their cancer prognosis. The national PRATICOVID study aims to describe the adaptation of cancer patient care for this population. We analyzed data from nine different institutions. The primary endpoint was to assess the prevalence of adapted patient care during the pandemic. The secondary endpoints were to describe the point of view of clinicians and patients during and after the pandemic. We analyzed 435 medical procedures between 9th of March and 30th of April. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, 47.6% of the outpatients received modified patient care. Twenty-four percent of scheduled surgeries were postponed, or were performed without perioperative chemotherapy, 18.4% followed a hypofractioned schedule, and 57% had an adaptive systemic protocol (stopped, oral protocol, and spacing between treatments). Seventy percent of physicians used telemedicine. During this period, 67% of the physicians did not feel distressed taking care of their patients. However, 70% of physicians are worried about the aftermath of the lockdown, as regards future patient care. The PRATICOVID study is the first to assess modification of patient care in cancer outpatients during an epidemic. With this unprecedented crisis, physicians were able to adapt their practice in order to protect their patients against the virus while ensuring continuity of patient care. But physicians are worried about the aftereffects of the lockdown specifically in regard to care pathway issues.

Acute pulmonary embolism in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients referred to CTPA by emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of acute pulmonary embolism (APE) in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients referred to CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) by the emergency department. METHODS: From March 14 to April 6, 2020, 72 non-hospitalized patients referred by the emergency department to CTPA for COVID-19 pneumonia were retrospectively identified. Relevant clinical and laboratory data and CT scan findings were collected for each patient. CTPA scans were reviewed by two radiologists to determinate the presence or absence of APE. Clinical classification, lung involvement of COVID-19 pneumonia, and CT total severity score were compared between APE group and non-APE group. RESULTS: APE was identified in 13 (18%) CTPA scans. The mean age and D-dimer of patients from the APE group were higher in comparison with those from the non-APE group (74.4 vs. 59.6 years, p = 0.008, and 7.29 vs. 3.29 µg/ml, p = 0.011). There was no significant difference between APE and non-APE groups concerning clinical type, COVID-19 pneumonia lung lesions (ground-glass opacity: 85% vs. 97%; consolidation: 69% vs. 68%; crazy paving: 38% vs. 37%; linear reticulation: 69% vs. 78%), CT severity score (6.3 vs. 7.1, p = 0.365), quality of CTPA (1.8 vs. 2.0, p = 0.518), and pleural effusion (38% vs. 19%, p = 0.146). CONCLUSIONS: Non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia referred to CT scan by the emergency departments are at risk of APE. The presence of APE was not limited to severe or critical clinical type of COVID-19 pneumonia. KEY POINTS: • Acute pulmonary embolism was found in 18% of non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients referred by the emergency department to CTPA. Two (15%) patients had main, four (30%) lobar, and seven (55%) segmental acute pulmonary embolism. • Five of 13 (38%) patients with acute pulmonary embolism had a moderate clinical type. • Severity and radiological features of COVID-19 pneumonia showed no significant difference between patients with or without acute pulmonary embolism.

Acute Pulmonary Embolism In Non-Hospitalized Covid-19 Patients Referred To CTPA By Emergency Department (preprint)

Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence of acute pulmonary embolism (APE) in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients referred to CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) by Emergency Department.Methods: From March 14 to April 6, 2020, 72 non-hospitalized patients referred by Emergency Department to CTPA for COVID-19 pneumonia were retrospectively identified. Relevant clinical and laboratory data and CT scan findings were collected for each patient. CTPA scans were reviewed by two radiologists to determinate the presence or absence of APE. Clinical classification, lung involvement of COVID-19 pneumonia and CT total severity score were compared between APE group and Non-APE group.Results: APE was identified in 13 (18%) CTPA scans. The mean age and D-dimer of patients from APE group were higher in comparison with Non-APE group (74.4 vs. 59.6 years, p=0.008 and 7.29 vs. 3.29 µg/ml, p=0.011). There was no significant difference between APE and Non-APE groups concerning clinical type, COVID-19 pneumonia lung lesions (ground-glass opacity: 85 vs. 97%; consolidation: 69 vs. 68%; crazy paving: 38% vs. 37%; linear reticulation: 69 vs. 78%), CT severity score (6.3 vs. 7.1, p=0.365), quality of CTPA (1.8 vs. 2.0, p=0.518) and pleural effusion (38% vs. 19%, p=0.146).Conclusions: Non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia referred to CT-scan by Emergency Departments are at risk of APE. Presence of APE was not limited to severe or critical clinical type of COVID-19 pneumonia.