Pandemic upon Pandemic: Middle-Aged and Older Men Who Have Sex with Men Living with HIV Coping and Thriving during the Peak of COVID-19.

When the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in early 2020, not only did it abruptly impede the progress that was being made toward achieving global targets to end the HIV pandemic, but it also created significant impacts on the physical and mental health of middle-aged and older men who have sex with men living with HIV. Utilizing a qualitative, community-based participatory research approach, we conducted semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with 16 ethnoracially diverse, middle-aged and older men who have sex with men living with HIV residing in Southern Nevada, to examine the different ways the COVID-19 pandemic directly impacted their physical and mental health, and explore how they eventually coped and thrived during the peak of the crisis. Using thematic analysis to analyze our interview data, we identified three prominent themes: (1) challenges to obtaining credible health information, (2) the physical and mental health impacts of the COVID-19-pandemic-imposed social isolation, and (3) digital technologies and online connections for medical and social purposes. In this article, we extensively discuss these themes, the current discourse on these themes in academic literature, and how the perspectives, input, and lived experiences of our participants during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic could be critical to addressing issues they had already been experiencing prior to the emergence of the pandemic in 2020, and just as importantly, helping us best prepare in stark anticipation of the next potentially devastating pandemic.

The Collateral Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on HPV-positive Oropharyngeal Cancer Diagnosis

Purpose We aim to assess the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic delays in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and to describe their underlying reasons. Methods All HPV+ OPC referred to a tertiary cancer centre and diagnosed between June-December 2019 (Pre-Pandemic cohort) vs June-December 2020 (Pandemic cohort) were reviewed. TNM classification, gross-tumor-volumes (GTV) and intervals between sign/symptom onset and treatment initiation were compared between the cohorts. Reasons for delay (>6 months from onset of signs/symptoms to a positive biopsy of the primary tumor, or a delay specifically mentioned in the patient chart) in establishing the diagnosis were recorded per clinician's documentation, and categorized as COVID-related or non-COVID-related. Results A total of 157 consecutive HPV+ OPC patients were identified (Pre-Pandemic: 92;Pandemic: 65). Compared to the Pre-Pandemic cohort, Pandemic cohort patients had a higher proportion of N2-N3 (32% vs 15%, p=0.019) and stage III (38% vs 23%, p=0.034) disease at presentation. The differences in proportions with >6 months delay from symptom onset to establishing the diagnosis (29% vs 20%, p=0.16) or to first treatment (49% vs 38%, p=0.22) were not statistically different. 47% of diagnostic delays in the Pandemic cohort were potentially attributable to COVID-19. Conclusion We observed a collateral impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HPV+ OPC care through more advanced stage at presentation and a non-significant but numerically longer interval to diagnosis. This could adversely impact patient outcomes and future resource allocation. Both COVID-19-related or unrelated factors contribute to diagnostic delay. Tailored interventions to reduce delays are warranted.

The collateral impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer diagnosis.

PURPOSE: We aim to assess the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic delays in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and to describe their underlying reasons. METHODS: All HPV + OPC referred to a tertiary cancer centre and diagnosed between June-December 2019 (Pre-Pandemic cohort) vs June-December 2020 (Pandemic cohort) were reviewed. TNM classification, gross-tumor-volumes (GTV) and intervals between sign/symptom onset and treatment initiation were compared between the cohorts. Reasons for delay (>6 months from onset of signs/symptoms to a positive biopsy of the primary tumor, or a delay specifically mentioned in the patient chart) in establishing the diagnosis were recorded per clinician's documentation, and categorized as COVID-related or non-COVID-related. RESULTS: A total of 157 consecutive HPV + OPC patients were identified (Pre-Pandemic: 92; Pandemic: 65). Compared to the Pre-Pandemic cohort, Pandemic cohort patients had a higher proportion of N2-N3 (32 % vs 15 %, p = 0.019) and stage III (38 % vs 23 %, p = 0.034) disease at presentation. The differences in proportions with > 6 months delay from symptom onset to establishing the diagnosis (29 % vs 20 %, p = 0.16) or to first treatment (49 % vs 38 %, p = 0.22) were not statistically different. 47 % of diagnostic delays in the Pandemic cohort were potentially attributable to COVID-19. CONCLUSION: We observed a collateral impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HPV + OPC care through more advanced stage at presentation and a non-significant but numerically longer interval to diagnosis. This could adversely impact patient outcomes and future resource allocation. Both COVID-19-related and unrelated factors contribute to diagnostic delays. Tailored interventions to reduce delays are warranted.

Practice recommendations for risk-adapted head and neck cancer radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ASTRO-ESTRO consensus statement.

PURPOSE: Because of the unprecedented disruption of health care services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) identified an urgent need to issue practice recommendations for radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer (HNC) in a time of limited resources and heightened risk for patients and staff. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A panel of international experts from ASTRO, ESTRO, and select Asia-Pacific countries completed a modified rapid Delphi process. Topics and questions were presented to the group, and subsequent questions were developed from iterative feedback. Each survey was open online for 24 hours, and successive rounds started within 24 hours of the previous round. The chosen cutoffs for strong agreement (≥80%) and agreement (≥66%) were extrapolated from the RAND methodology. Two pandemic scenarios, early (risk mitigation) and late (severely reduced radiation therapy resources), were evaluated. The panel developed treatment recommendations for 5 HNC cases. RESULTS: In total, 29 of 31 of those invited (94%) accepted, and after a replacement 30 of 30 completed all 3 surveys (100% response rate). There was agreement or strong agreement across a number of practice areas, including treatment prioritization, whether to delay initiation or interrupt radiation therapy for intercurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, approaches to treatment (radiation dose-fractionation schedules and use of chemotherapy in each pandemic scenario), management of surgical cases in event of operating room closures, and recommended adjustments to outpatient clinic appointments and supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: This urgent practice recommendation was issued in the knowledge of the very difficult circumstances in which our patients find themselves at present, navigating strained health care systems functioning with limited resources and at heightened risk to their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this consensus statement is to ensure high-quality HNC treatments continue, to save lives and for symptomatic benefit.

Non-operative management for oral cavity carcinoma: Definitive radiation therapy as a potential alternative treatment approach.

PURPOSE: To determine the outcomes of oral cavity squamous cell cancer (OSCC) patients treated with non-surgical approach i.e. definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: All OSCC patients treated radically with IMRT (without primary surgery) between 2005-2014 were reviewed in a prospectively collected database. OSCC patients treated with definitive RT received concurrent chemotherapy except for early stage patients or those who declined or were unfit for chemotherapy. The 5-year local, and regional, distant control rates, disease-free, overall, and cancer-specific survival, and late toxicity were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 1316 OSCC patients treated with curative-intent; 108 patients (8%) received non-operative management due to: medical inoperability (n = 14, 13%), surgical unresectability (n = 8, 7%), patient declined surgery (n = 15, 14%), attempted preservation of oral structure/function in view of required extensive surgery (n = 53, 49%) or extensive oropharyngeal involvement (n = 18, 17%). Sixty-eight (63%) were cT3-4, 38 (35%) were cN2-3, and 38 (35%) received concurrent chemotherapy. With a median follow-up of 52 months, the 5-year local, regional, distant control rate, disease-free, overall, and cancer-specific survival were 78%, 92%, 90%, 42%, 50%, and 76% respectively. Patients with cN2-3 had higher rate of 5-year distant metastasis (24% vs 3%, p = 0.001), with detrimental impact on DFS (p = 0.03) and OS (p < 0.02) on multivariable analysis. Grade ≥ 3 late toxicity was reported in 9% of patients (most common: grade 3 osteoradionecrosis in 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-operative management of OSCC resulted in a meaningful rate of locoregional control, and could be an alternative curative approach when primary surgery would be declined, unsuitable or unacceptably delayed.

Tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis management in laryngectomy patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been significant changes and challenges in the management of oncology patients. One of the major strategies to reduce transmission of the virus between patients and healthcare workers is deferral of follow-up visits. However, deferral may not be possible in total laryngectomy patients. Urgent procedures may be necessary to prevent complications related to ill-fitting tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) voice prostheses, such as aspiration or loss of voicing. In this paper, we describe the Princess Margaret Cancer Center's approach to managing this unique patient population.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy alone with 2.4 Gy per fraction for head and neck cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: The Princess Margaret experience and proposal.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify a subgroup of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) who might be suitable for hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT-hypo) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: HNSCC cases (oropharynx/larynx/hypopharynx) treated with definitive RT-hypo (60 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks), moderately accelerated radiotherapy (RT-acc) alone (70 Gy in 35 fractions over 6 weeks), or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) during 2005-2017 were included. Locoregional control (LRC) and distant control (DC) after RT-hypo, RT-acc, and CCRT were compared for various subgroups. RESULTS: The study identified 994 human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma cases (with 61, 254, and 679 receiving RT-hypo, RT-acc, and CCRT, respectively) and 1045 HPV- HNSCC cases (with 263, 451, and 331 receiving RT-hypo, RT-acc, and CCRT, respectively). The CCRT cohort had higher T/N categories, whereas the radiotherapy-alone patients were older. The median follow-up was 4.6 years. RT-hypo, RT-acc, and CCRT produced comparable 3-year LRC and DC for HPV+ T1-2N0-N2a disease (seventh edition of the TNM system [TNM-7]; LRC, 94%, 100%, and 94%; P = .769; DC, 94%, 100%, and 94%; P = .272), T1-T2N2b disease (LRC, 90%, 94%, and 97%; P = .445; DC, 100%, 96%, and 95%; P = .697), and T1-2N2c/T3N0-N2c disease (LRC, 89%, 93%, and 95%; P = .494; DC, 89%, 90%, and 87%; P = .838). Although LRC was also similar for T4/N3 disease (78%, 84%, and 88%; P = .677), DC was significantly lower with RT-hypo or RT-acc versus CCRT (67%, 65%, and 87%; P = .005). For HPV- HNSCC, 3-year LRC and DC were similar with RT-hypo, RT-acc, and CCRT in stages I and II (LRC, 85%, 89%, and 100%; P = .320; DC, 99%, 98%, and 100%; P = .446); however, RT-hypo and RT-acc had significantly lower LRC in stage III (76%, 69%, and 91%; P = .006), whereas DC rates were similar (92%, 85%, and 90%; P = .410). Lower LRC in stage III predominated in patients with laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma receiving RT-acc (62%) but not RT-hypo (80%) or CCRT (92%; RT-hypo vs CCRT: P = .270; RT-acc vs CCRT: P = .004). CCRT had numerically higher LRC in comparison with RT-hypo or RT-acc in stage IV (73%, 65%, and 66%; P = .336). CONCLUSIONS: It is proposed that RT-hypo be considered in place of CCRT for HPV+ T1-T3N0-N2c (TNM-7) HNSCCs, HPV- T1-T2N0 HNSCCs, and select stage III HNSCCs during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Practice Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ASTRO-ESTRO Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: Because of the unprecedented disruption of health care services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) identified an urgent need to issue practice recommendations for radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer (HNC) in a time of limited resources and heightened risk for patients and staff. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A panel of international experts from ASTRO, ESTRO, and select Asia-Pacific countries completed a modified rapid Delphi process. Topics and questions were presented to the group, and subsequent questions were developed from iterative feedback. Each survey was open online for 24 hours, and successive rounds started within 24 hours of the previous round. The chosen cutoffs for strong agreement (≥80%) and agreement (≥66%) were extrapolated from the RAND methodology. Two pandemic scenarios, early (risk mitigation) and late (severely reduced radiation therapy resources), were evaluated. The panel developed treatment recommendations for 5 HNC cases. RESULTS: In total, 29 of 31 of those invited (94%) accepted, and after a replacement 30 of 30 completed all 3 surveys (100% response rate). There was agreement or strong agreement across a number of practice areas, including treatment prioritization, whether to delay initiation or interrupt radiation therapy for intercurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, approaches to treatment (radiation dose-fractionation schedules and use of chemotherapy in each pandemic scenario), management of surgical cases in event of operating room closures, and recommended adjustments to outpatient clinic appointments and supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: This urgent practice recommendation was issued in the knowledge of the very difficult circumstances in which our patients find themselves at present, navigating strained health care systems functioning with limited resources and at heightened risk to their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this consensus statement is to ensure high-quality HNC treatments continue, to save lives and for symptomatic benefit.

Considerations for head and neck oncology practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Wuhan and Toronto experience.

The practices of head and neck surgical oncologists must evolve to meet the unprecedented needs placed on our health care system by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Guidelines are emerging to help guide the provision of head and neck cancer care, though in practice, it can be challenging to operationalize such recommendations. Head and neck surgeons at Wuhan University faced significant challenges in providing care for their patients. Similar challenges were faced by the University of Toronto during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic in 2003. Herein, we outline our combined experience and key practical considerations for maintaining an oncology service in the midst of a pandemic.