Experience of Telemedicine Visits in Radiation Oncology During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A US National Survey and Lessons Learned for Incorporating Telemedicine Post-COVID-19.

Purpose: We sought to survey the attitudes and perceptions of US radiation oncologists toward the adoption of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer suggestions for its integration in the postpandemic era. Methods and Materials: A 25-question, anonymous online survey was distributed nationwide to radiation oncologists. Results: One hundred and twenty-one respondents completed the survey, with 92% from academia. Overall, 79% worked at institutions that had implemented a work-from-home policy, with which 74% were satisfied. Despite nearly all visit types being conducted in-person before COVID-19, 25%, 41%, and 5% of the respondents used telemedicine for more than half of their new consultations, follow-up, and on-treatment visits, respectively, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most (83%) reported being comfortable integrating telemedicine. Although telemedicine was appreciated as being more convenient for patients (97%) and reducing transmission of infectious agents (83%), the most commonly perceived disadvantages were difficulty in performing physical examinations (90%), patients' inability to use technology adequately (74%), and technical malfunctions (72%). Compared with in-person visits, telemedicine was felt to be inferior in establishing a personal connection during consultation (90%) and assessing for toxicity while on-treatment (88%) and during follow-up (70%). For follow-up visits, genitourinary and thoracic were perceived as most appropriate for telemedicine while gynecologic and head and neck were considered the least appropriate. Overall, 70% were in favor of more telemedicine, even after pandemic is over. Conclusions: Telemedicine will likely remain part of the radiation oncology workflow in most clinics after the pandemic. It should be used in conjunction with in-person visits, and may be best used for conducting follow-up visits in certain disease sites such as genitourinary and thoracic malignancies.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer 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 radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, 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 of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. 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 postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis of Telemedicine Services in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Health systems have increased telemedicine use during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak to limit in-person contact. We used time-driven activity-based costing to evaluate the change in resource use associated with transitioning to telemedicine in a radiation oncology department. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using a patient undergoing 28-fraction treatment as an example, process maps for traditional in-person and telemedicine-based workflows consisting of discrete steps were created. Physicians/physicists/dosimetrists and nurses were assumed to work remotely 3 days and 1 day per week, respectively. Mapping was informed by interviews and surveys of personnel, with cost estimates obtained from the department's financial officer. RESULTS: Transitioning to telemedicine reduced provider costs by $586 compared with traditional workflow: $47 at consultation, $280 during treatment planning, $237 during on-treatment visits, and $22 during the follow-up visit. Overall, cost savings were $347 for space/equipment and $239 for personnel. From an employee perspective, the total amount saved each year by not commuting was $36,718 for physicians (7243 minutes), $19,380 for physicists (7243 minutes), $17,286 for dosimetrists (7210 minutes), and $5599 for nurses (2249 minutes). Patients saved $170 per treatment course. CONCLUSIONS: A modified workflow incorporating telemedicine visits and work-from-home capability conferred savings to a department as well as significant time and costs to health care workers and patients alike.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer 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 radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, 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 of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. 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 postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.