Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 51
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 9(1)2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1627444

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Australia and has the highest cancer burden. Numerous reports describe variations in lung cancer care and outcomes across Australia. There are no data assessing compliance with treatment guidelines and little is known about lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) infrastructure around Australia. METHODS: Clinicians from institutions treating lung cancer were invited to complete an online survey regarding the local infrastructure for lung cancer care and contemporary issues affecting lung cancer. RESULTS: Responses from 79 separate institutions were obtained representing 72% of all known institutions treating lung cancer in Australia. Most (93.6%) held a regular MDT meeting although recommended core membership was only achieved for 42/73 (57.5%) sites. There was no thoracic surgery representation in 17/73 (23.3%) of MDTs and surgery was less represented in regional and low case volume centres. Specialist nurses were present in just 37/79 (46.8%) of all sites. Access to diagnostic and treatment facilities was limited for some institutions. IT infrastructure was variable and most sites (69%) do not perform regular audits against guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven most sites to incorporate virtual MDT meetings, with variable impact around the country. Clinician support for a national data-driven approach to improving lung cancer care was unanimous. DISCUSSION: This survey demonstrates variations in infrastructure support, provision and membership of lung cancer MDTs, in particular thoracic surgery and specialist lung cancer nurses. This heterogeneity may contribute to some of the well-documented variations in lung cancer outcomes in Australia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Neoplasms , Australia/epidemiology , Hospitals , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Patient Care Team , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Khirurgiia (Mosk) ; (12): 15-19, 2021.
Article in Russian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1599981

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the features of preoperative preparation and postoperative outcomes in patients with lung cancer and previous COVID-19 pneumonia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: There were 7 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and previous bilateral viral pneumonia between June 2020 and January 2021. In 3 cases, lung cancer was detected in a hospital for COVID-19 patients. Four patients had persistent structural changes in X-ray images. After appropriate preparation, all patients underwent total resection. RESULTS: At admission, all patients had severe physical and functional exhaustion associated with prolonged hypoxia and adynamia that required preoperative rehabilitation. Considering high risk of thromboembolic complications, we administered anticoagulation throughout the entire perioperative period and after discharge. Surgical treatment included anatomical resection (extended lobectomy). Postoperative complications occurred in 2 cases and were associated with prolonged air discharge through the pleural drainage tube. CONCLUSION: As we study the consequences of the new coronavirus infection COVID-19, it becomes obvious that a new category of patients requiring specific diagnosis and treatment has emerged.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Pneumonia, Viral , Humans , Lung , Lung Neoplasms/complications , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , SARS-CoV-2
3.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 8(1)2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1505920

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on outcomes in lung cancer leading to later stage presentation, less curative treatment and higher mortality. This has amplified the existing problem of late-stage presentation in lung cancer and is a call to arms for a multifaceted strategy to address this, including public awareness campaigns to promote healthcare review in patients with persistent chest symptoms. We report the learning from patient and public insight work from across the North of England exploring the barriers to seeking healthcare review with persistent chest symptoms. Members of the public described how a lack of importance is placed on the common symptoms of lung cancer and a feeling of being unworthy of review by healthcare professionals. They would feel motivated to seek review by dispelling the nihilism of lung cancer and would be able to take action more easily by removing the logistical hassle in the process. We propose a four-pillar framework (validation-endorsement-motivation-action) for developing the content of any public awareness campaigns promoting early diagnosis of lung cancer based on the findings of this comprehensive insight work. All providers and commissioners must work together to overcome the perceived and real barriers to patients with persistent chest symptoms.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Curr Oncol ; 28(6): 4247-4255, 2021 10 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1480613

ABSTRACT

The large burden of COVID-19 on health care systems worldwide has raised concerns among medical oncologists about the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients. In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the impact of COVID-19 on lung cancer diagnosis and treatment before and during the COVID-19 era. New lung cancer diagnoses decreased by 34.7% during the pandemic with slightly more advanced stages of disease, there was a significant increase in the utilization of radiosurgery as the first definitive treatment, and a decrease in both systemic treatment as well as surgery compared to the pre-COVID-19 era. There was no significant delay in starting chemotherapy and radiation treatment during the pandemic compared to pre-COVID-19 time. However, we observed a delay to lung cancer surgery during the pandemic time. COVID-19 seems to have had a major impact at our lung cancer center on the diagnoses and treatment patterns of lung cancer patients. Many oncologists fear that they will see an increase in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients in the coming year. This study is still ongoing and further data will be collected and analyzed to better understand the total impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our lung cancer patient population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Neoplasms , Canada , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Technol Cancer Res Treat ; 20: 15330338211050764, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477207

ABSTRACT

A pandemic of coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is a major public health emergency that has spread in the fastest speed, and caused the most extensive infection world widely. Transbronchial biopsy (TBB) and computed tomography guided percutaneous needle biopsy (CTPNB) is the most common and significant method for the diagnosis of lung cancer. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the indications of TBB and CTPNB must be managed strictly. Therefore, it is extremely indispensable to perform meticulous and individualized management for lung cancer patients to protect the patients from COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Biopsy , Bronchi/pathology , Bronchoscopy/methods , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Disease Susceptibility , Humans , Image-Guided Biopsy/methods , Lung/pathology , Lung Neoplasms/complications , Medical Oncology/methods , Postoperative Period , Prognosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
6.
Cancer Res Treat ; 53(3): 650-656, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1403959

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread worldwide rapidly and patients with cancer have been considered as a vulnerable group for this infection. This study aimed to examine the expressions of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) in tumor tissues of six common cancer types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The expression levels of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in tumors and control samples were obtained from online databases. Survival prognosis and biological functions of these genes were investigated for each tumor type. RESULTS: There was the overexpression of ACE2 in colon and stomach adenocarcinomas compared to controls, meanwhile colon and prostate adenocarcinomas showed a significantly higher expression of TMPRSS2. Additionally, survival prognosis analysis has demonstrated that upregulation of ACE2 in liver hepatocellular carcinoma was associated with higher overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; p=0.016) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; p=0.007), while overexpression of TMPRSS2 was associated with a 26% reduced risk of death in lung adenocarcinoma (p=0.047) but 50% increased risk of death in breast invasive carcinoma (p=0.015). CONCLUSION: There is a need to take extra precautions for COVID-19 in patients with colorectal cancer, stomach cancer, and lung cancer. Further information on other types of cancer at different stages should be investigated.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/genetics , Serine Endopeptidases/genetics , Adenocarcinoma/complications , Adenocarcinoma/diagnosis , Adenocarcinoma/epidemiology , Adenocarcinoma/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/complications , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/genetics , Case-Control Studies , Databases as Topic , Female , Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/complications , Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/genetics , Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Humans , Liver Neoplasms/complications , Liver Neoplasms/diagnosis , Liver Neoplasms/epidemiology , Liver Neoplasms/genetics , Lung Neoplasms/complications , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/genetics , Male , Mutation , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pandemics , Prognosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/complications , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/genetics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Survival Analysis
9.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 8(1)2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1350027

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer survival rates in the UK are among the lowest in Europe, principally due to late-stage diagnosis. Alternative routes to earlier diagnosis of lung cancer are needed in socioeconomically deprived communities that are disproportionately affected by poor lung cancer outcomes. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a community-based pharmacy referral service to encourage earlier symptomatic referral for chest X-rays. METHODS: Seventeen community pharmacies located in a deprived area of Wales participated between March 2019 and March 2020. Stakeholder interviews were conducted with four patients, seven pharmacy professionals and one general practitioner. Four focus groups were conducted, including one with healthcare professionals (n=6) and three with members of the public who were current and former smokers (n=13). Quantitative data regarding patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected from hospital records and patient referral questionnaires completed by pharmacists and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data sets were analysed thematically and triangulated. RESULTS: Twelve patients used the pharmacy referral service, all of whom were male. Average length of the pharmacy consultation was 13 min, with a mean 3 days to accessing chest X-rays in secondary care. Patients experienced a mean 46-day wait for results, with no lung cancer detected. Participants found the service to be acceptable and considered the pharmacy element to be broadly feasible. Perceived barriers included low awareness of the service and concerns about the role and capacity of pharmacists to deliver the service. Facilitators included perceived approachability and accessibility of pharmacists. A well-publicised, multifaceted awareness campaign was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: A community pharmacy referral service for lung symptoms was considered an acceptable alternative pathway to symptomatic diagnosis of lung cancer in deprived communities. Wider implementation of the service would require workforce capacity and training to be addressed to ensure optimum utilisation and promotion of the service.


Subject(s)
Community Pharmacy Services , Lung Neoplasms , Pharmacies , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Male , Referral and Consultation
10.
Cancer Res Treat ; 53(3): 678-684, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1317296

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze whether patients with lung cancer have a higher susceptibility of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe presentation, and higher mortality than those without lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nationwide cohort of confirmed COVID-19 (n=8,070) between January 1, 2020, and May 30, 2020, and a 1:15 age-, sex-, and residence-matched cohort (n=121,050) were constructed. A nested case-control study was performed to compare the proportion of patients with lung cancer between the COVID-19 cohort and the matched cohort. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with lung cancer was significantly higher in the COVID-19 cohort (0.5% [37/8,070]) than in the matched cohort (0.3% [325/121,050]) (p=0.002). The adjusted odds ratio [OR] of having lung cancer was significantly higher in the COVID-19 cohort than in the matched cohort (adjusted OR, 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 2.10). Among patients in the COVID-19 cohort, compared to patients without lung cancer, those with lung cancer were more likely to have severe COVID-19 (54.1% vs. 13.2%, p < 0.001), including mortality (18.9% vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001). The adjusted OR for the occurrence of severe COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer relative to those without lung cancer was 2.24 (95% CI, 1.08 to 4.74). CONCLUSION: The risk of COVID-19 occurrence and severe presentation, including mortality, may be higher in patients with lung cancer than in those without lung cancer.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Neoplasms , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19/pathology , Case-Control Studies , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Incidence , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Lung Neoplasms/complications , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Prognosis , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
11.
Prev Med ; 151: 106640, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1294329

ABSTRACT

Cancer screening rates declined sharply early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the pandemic may have exacerbated existing disparities in cancer screening due to the disproportionate burden of illness and job loss among racial/ ethnic minorities, and potentially, uneven resumption of care between different racial/ ethnic groups. Using electronic health record data from Mass General Brigham (MGB), we assessed changes in rates of breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening before and during the pandemic. Among patients who received primary care in an MGB-affiliated primary care practice, cancer screening rates were calculated as the number of individuals who received a screening test for each cancer type over the number of individuals due for each test, during each month between April 2019-November 2020. We conducted an interrupted time-series analysis to test for changes in screening rates by race/ethnicity before and during the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, relative to White individuals, Asian women were less likely to receive breast cancer screening (p < 0.001), and Latinx and Black individuals were less likely to screen for lung cancer (p < 0.001 and p = 0.02). Our results did not show significant improvement or worsening of racial/ethnic disparities for any cancer screening type as screening resumed. However, as of November 2020 rates of screening for breast cancer were lower than pre-pandemic levels for Latinx individuals, and lung cancer screening rates were higher than baseline for Latinx, Black or White individuals. Further monitoring of disparities in cancer screening is warranted as the pandemic evolves.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
12.
JAMA Oncol ; 7(6): 885-894, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1274648

ABSTRACT

Importance: In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear. Objective: To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, 2020, and used 4 validated mathematical models from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network using data from 20 million simulated women born in 1965 in the US. Interventions: Forty-five screening strategies were modeled that combined breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer (LC) screenings; restricted to 1, 2, 3 or 4 screenings per year; or all eligible screenings once every 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Modeled life-years gained from restricted cancer screenings as a fraction of those attainable from full compliance with USPSTF recommendations (maximum benefits). Results were stratified by LC screening eligibility (LC-eligible/ineligible). We repeated the analysis with 2018 adherence rates, evaluating the increase in adherence required for restricted screenings to have the same population benefit as USPSTF recommendations. Results: This modeling study of 20 million simulated US women found that it was possible to reduce screening intensity to 1 carefully chosen test per year in women who were ineligible for LC screening and 2 tests per year in eligible women while maintaining 94% or more of the maximum benefits. Highly ranked strategies screened for various cancers, but less often than recommended by the USPSTF. For example, among LC-ineligible women who obtained just 1 screening per year, the optimal strategy frequently delayed breast and cervical cancer screenings by 1 year and skipped 3 mammograms entirely. Among LC-eligible women, LC screening was essential; strategies omitting it provided 25% or less of the maximum benefits. The top-ranked strategy restricted to 2 screenings per year was annual LC screening and alternating fecal immunochemical test with mammography (skipping mammograms when due for cervical cancer screening, 97% of maximum benefits). If adherence in a population of LC-eligible women obtaining 2 screenings per year were to increase by 1% to 2% (depending on the screening test), this model suggests that it would achieve the same benefit as USPSTF recommendations at 2018 adherence rates. Conclusions and Relevance: This modeling study of 45 cancer screening strategies suggests that women who are noncompliant with cancer screening guidelines may be able to reduce USPSTF-recommended screening intensity with minimal reduction in overall benefits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Early Detection of Cancer , Models, Theoretical , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/virology , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/virology , Female , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/virology , Mammography , Patient Compliance , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
13.
Br J Cancer ; 125(5): 629-640, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1223084

ABSTRACT

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
14.
J Med Case Rep ; 15(1): 218, 2021 Apr 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1207607

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started in December 2020, and is a global problem now. There are several sets of established data regarding computed tomography (CT) findings in COVID-19 pneumonia with many differential diagnoses. During the early days of the pandemic, there was little data regarding lung CT features of COVID-19 in a cancer patient. In this paper, we described a rare case of simultaneous presentation of COVID-19 with pulmonary metastasis. CASE PRESENTATION: A Persian patient with a history of chondrosarcoma presented to our clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic with a new-onset cough. He had experienced no recurrence during previous follow-up visits. Chest CT scan revealed numerous bilateral small peripheral and perilymphatic pulmonary nodules, unilateral ground-glass patch, and nodular interlobular septal thickening. Biopsy of the pulmonary nodules established pulmonary metastasis of chondrosarcoma origin, and pharyngeal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary metastasis should be considered as a differential diagnosis of COVID-19 features in cancer patients in the pandemic era.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chondrosarcoma , Lung Neoplasms , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Chondrosarcoma/epidemiology , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Iran/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/complications , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Male , Middle Aged
16.
JAMA Oncol ; 7(6): 885-894, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1206734

ABSTRACT

Importance: In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear. Objective: To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, 2020, and used 4 validated mathematical models from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network using data from 20 million simulated women born in 1965 in the US. Interventions: Forty-five screening strategies were modeled that combined breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer (LC) screenings; restricted to 1, 2, 3 or 4 screenings per year; or all eligible screenings once every 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Modeled life-years gained from restricted cancer screenings as a fraction of those attainable from full compliance with USPSTF recommendations (maximum benefits). Results were stratified by LC screening eligibility (LC-eligible/ineligible). We repeated the analysis with 2018 adherence rates, evaluating the increase in adherence required for restricted screenings to have the same population benefit as USPSTF recommendations. Results: This modeling study of 20 million simulated US women found that it was possible to reduce screening intensity to 1 carefully chosen test per year in women who were ineligible for LC screening and 2 tests per year in eligible women while maintaining 94% or more of the maximum benefits. Highly ranked strategies screened for various cancers, but less often than recommended by the USPSTF. For example, among LC-ineligible women who obtained just 1 screening per year, the optimal strategy frequently delayed breast and cervical cancer screenings by 1 year and skipped 3 mammograms entirely. Among LC-eligible women, LC screening was essential; strategies omitting it provided 25% or less of the maximum benefits. The top-ranked strategy restricted to 2 screenings per year was annual LC screening and alternating fecal immunochemical test with mammography (skipping mammograms when due for cervical cancer screening, 97% of maximum benefits). If adherence in a population of LC-eligible women obtaining 2 screenings per year were to increase by 1% to 2% (depending on the screening test), this model suggests that it would achieve the same benefit as USPSTF recommendations at 2018 adherence rates. Conclusions and Relevance: This modeling study of 45 cancer screening strategies suggests that women who are noncompliant with cancer screening guidelines may be able to reduce USPSTF-recommended screening intensity with minimal reduction in overall benefits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Early Detection of Cancer , Models, Theoretical , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/virology , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/virology , Female , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/virology , Mammography , Patient Compliance , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
18.
Expert Rev Respir Med ; 15(6): 773-779, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1165209

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Bronchoscopy and related procedures have unambiguously been affected during the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Corona Virus-2 (SARS COV-2). Ordinary bronchoscopy practices and lung cancer services might have changed over this pandemic and for the years to come.Areas covered: This manuscript summarizes the utility of bronchoscopy in COVID-19 patients, and the impact of the pandemic in lung cancer diagnostic services, in view of possible viral spread during these We conducted a literature review of articles published in PubMed/Medline from inception to November 5th, 2020 using relevant terms.Expert opinion: Without doubt this pandemic has changed the way bronchoscopy and related procedures are being performed. Mandatory universal personal protective equipment, pre-bronchoscopy PCR tests, dedicated protective barriers and disposable bronchoscopes might be the safest and simpler way to perform even the most complicated procedures.


Subject(s)
Bronchoscopy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Bronchoscopes/microbiology , Bronchoscopes/standards , Bronchoscopes/virology , Bronchoscopy/instrumentation , Bronchoscopy/methods , Bronchoscopy/standards , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Equipment Contamination/prevention & control , History, 21st Century , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Medical Oncology/instrumentation , Medical Oncology/methods , Medical Oncology/standards , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/virology , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , SARS-CoV-2/physiology
19.
Exp Mol Pathol ; 120: 104634, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1152690

ABSTRACT

Lung and colorectal cancers (CRC) have two of the highest mortality rates among all cancer types, and their occurrence and the need for personalized diagnostics and subsequent therapy were not influenced by the COVID-19 pandemics. However, due to the disruption of established delivery chains, standard assays for in vitro diagnostics of those cancers were temporarily not available, forcing us to implement alternative testing methods that enabled at least basic therapy decision making. For this reason, we evaluated rapid testing on the Biocartis Idylla™ platform (Biocartis, Mechelen, Belgium) for four important genes commonly mutated in lung and colorectal cancers, namely EGFR, NRAS, KRAS, and BRAF. Clinical specimens from which the mutation status has previously been determined using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), were retested to determine whether Idylla™ can offer accurate results. To compare the results, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) are calculated for each of the mutation types and then combined to determine the values of the Idylla™ system in total, while setting NGS as the gold-standard basis the assays were compared with. Idylla testing thereby displayed acceptable sensitivity and specificity and delivered reliable results for initial therapy decisions.


Subject(s)
DNA Mutational Analysis/methods , GTP Phosphohydrolases/genetics , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing/methods , Membrane Proteins/genetics , Mutation , Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf/genetics , Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)/genetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/genetics , ErbB Receptors/genetics , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/genetics , Pandemics , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...