Surveillance versus Adjuvant Treatment with Chemotherapy or Radiotherapy for Stage I Seminoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to EAU COVID-19 Recommendations.

Background and Objectives: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group (GORRG) recommended that patients with clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma be offered active surveillance (AS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of AS versus adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy for improving the overall survival (OS) of CSI seminoma patients. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. The primary outcome was 5-year OS, and the secondary outcome was the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS). The outcomes were analyzed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 14 studies were included. Overall, the quality scores were relatively high, and little publication bias was noted. In terms of the 5-year OS, 7 studies were analyzed; there was no significant difference between AS and adjuvant treatment (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.41-2.39; p = 0.97). In terms of 5-year RFS, 12 studies were analyzed. Adjuvant treatment reduced the risk of 5-year recurrence by 85% compared with AS (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08-0.26; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In terms of the OS in CSI seminoma patients, no intergroup difference was noted, so it is reasonable to offer AS, as recommended by the EAU GORRG until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, since there is a large intergroup difference in the recurrence rate, further research on the long-term (>5 years) outcomes is warranted.

The utility of physical examination in ovarian cancer recurrence detection: a retrospective analysis informing virtual surveillance care.

OBJECTIVES: Given the recent rapid increase in telemedicine in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to investigate the utility of symptom review, CA125, and physical examination in the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence to determine the role of virtual surveillance care in the COVID-19 era. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2013 and 2020 who achieved remission after primary treatment and then had recurrence while in a routine surveillance program. Modalities that detected recurrence including symptoms, CA125, physical examination, or 'other,' which was denoted if imaging was obtained for reasons other than suspected recurrence and recurrence was incidentally identified, were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the cohort. RESULTS: One hundred and nine patients met inclusion criteria. At time of recurrence, elevated CA125 was present in 97 (89.0%) patients, symptoms in 41 (37.6%), and abnormal physical exam findings in 27 (24.8%). Recurrence was incidentally found with imaging obtained for reasons other than suspicion of recurrence in six (5.5%) patients. Recurrence was suspected based on multiple modalities in 46 (42.2%) patients. Elevated CA125, symptoms, or both were present in 102 (93.6%) patients. Of patients with abnormal physical exam findings, 26 (96.3%) also had elevated CA125 or symptoms present. Recurrence was suspected based on physical exam findings alone in one (0.9%) patient. CONCLUSIONS: Over 90% of ovarian cancer recurrences were detected by rising CA125, symptoms, or both. Only one patient had recurrence detected by physical examination alone. Given that review of symptoms and CA125 can be conducted virtually, virtual visits may offer a reasonable alternative to in-person visits for ovarian cancer surveillance for patients who have pre-treatment elevated CA125.

Symptom-based remote assessment in post-treatment head and neck cancer surveillance: A prospective national study.

OBJECTIVES: To report the incidence of locoregional recurrence in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients under surveillance following treatment undergoing symptom-based remote assessment. DESIGN: A 16-week multicentre prospective cohort study. SETTING: UK ENT departments. PARTICIPANTS: HNC patients under surveillance following treatment undergoing symptom-based telephone assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of locoregional recurrent HNC after minimum 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Data for 1078 cases were submitted by 16 centres, with follow-up data completed in 98.9% (n = 1066). Following telephone consultation, 83.7% of referrals had their face-to-face appointments deferred (n = 897/1072). New symptoms were reported by 11.6% (n = 124/1072) at telephone assessment; 72.6% (n = 90/124) of this group were called for urgent assessments, of whom 48.9% (n = 44/90) came directly for imaging without preceding clinical review. The sensitivity and specificity for new symptoms as an indicator of cancer recurrence were 35.3% and 89.4%, respectively, with a negative predictive value of 99.7% (p = .002). Locoregional cancer identification rates after a minimum of 6 months of further monitoring, when correlated with time since treatment, were 6.0% (n = 14/233) <1 year; 2.1% (n = 16/747) between 1 and 5 years; and 4.3% (n = 4/92) for those >5 years since treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone assessment, using patient-reported symptoms, to identify recurrent locoregional HNC was widely adopted during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. The majority of patients had no face-to-face reviews or investigations. New symptoms were significantly associated with the identification of locoregional recurrent cancers with a high specificity, but a low sensitivity may limit symptom assessment being used as the sole surveillance method.

Fear of Cancer Recurrence and COVID-19 Anxiety Among Cancer Survivors: A Cross-Sectional Study in Southeast Iran.

Cancer survivors face numerous therapeutic and health challenges during the COVID-19 epidemic. These patients experience high levels of anxiety and stress due to illness, external stresses, and crises, such as the COVID-19 epidemic. The present study showed a positive relationship between FCR and COVID-19 anxiety as well as moderate levels of FCR (according to the midpoint score of the questionnaire) and COVID-19 anxiety among cancer survivors. Factors affecting the mental condition of cancer survivors can play an important role in completing treatment and preventing disease exacerbation.

On top of that all, now Covid-19, too. A scoping review of specificities and correlates of fear of cancer recurrence in breast cancer patients during COVID-19.

Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a normal response in cancer survivors and one of the most prevalent reactions reported by up to 87% of them. However, elevated levels of FCR impair well-being, quality of life and professional functioning, and lead to anxiety, depression or PTSD. COVID-19 pandemic can exacerbate FCR symptoms, given the restricting access to follow-up investigations and treatment, the isolation restrictions imposed and the possibility of the medical system becoming overworked. This scoping review's objective was to synthesize the literature investigating the factors associated with higher levels of FCR in cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus was on FCR in breast cancer patients, including most of the studies (5 out of 9) on this topic. However, given the novelty of the subject, the increased interest in it, and the fact that there are few studies in this field, the review included 4 other studies with mixed samples of patients with breast cancer and other oncological pathologies. Following rigorous methodological criteria, 9 studies with quantitative or mixed methodology were included (N = 4831 patients). The results indicate that high levels of FCR are associated with distress and concerns regarding the pandemic impact, with most common concerns of patients being changes in treatment plan (delays and interruptions), dysfunctional communication with medical staff or difficult access to food or medicine. The most common correlates of FCR during the pandemic are marital status, childlessness, low financial status, level of education, type of cancer diagnosis, generalized anxiety and depression.

Evaluating potential delays and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical resection for locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer during a pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant disruption of colorectal cancer (CRC) care pathways. This study evaluates the management and outcomes of patients with primary locally advanced or recurrent CRC during the pandemic in a single tertiary referral centre. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective surgery for advanced or recurrent CRC with curative intent between March 2020 and March 2021 were identified. Following first multidisciplinary team discussion patients were broadly classified into two groups: straight to surgery (n=22, 45%) or neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery (n=27, 55%). Primary outcome was COVID-19-related complication rate. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range: 54-73) were included. No patients developed a COVID-19 infection or related complication during hospital admission. Significant delays were identified in the treatment pathway of patients in the straight to surgery group, mostly due to delays in referral from external centres. Nine of 22 patients in the straight to surgery group had evidence of tumour progression compared with 3 of 27 in the neoadjuvant group (p=0.015839). Seven of 27 patients in the neoadjuvant group showed evidence of tumour regression. During the study, surgical waiting times were reduced, and more operations were performed during the second wave of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that it is possible to mitigate the risks of COVID-19-related complications in patients undergoing complex surgery for locally advanced and recurrent CRC. Delay in surgical intervention is associated with tumour progression, particularly in patients who may not have neoadjuvant therapy. Efforts should be made to prioritise resources for patients requiring time-sensitive surgery for advanced and recurrent CRC.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Treatment Patterns for Patients With Metastatic Solid Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for life-threatening conditions; however, its impact on treatment patterns for patients with metastatic cancer is unknown. We assessed the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on time to treatment initiation (TTI) and treatment selection for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer. METHODS: We used an electronic health record-derived longitudinal database curated via technology-enabled abstraction to identify 14 136 US patients newly diagnosed with de novo or recurrent metastatic solid cancer between January 1 and July 31 in 2019 or 2020. Patients received care at approximately 280 predominantly community-based oncology practices. Controlled interrupted time series analyses assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period (April-July 2020) on TTI, defined as the number of days from metastatic diagnosis to receipt of first-line systemic therapy, and use of myelosuppressive therapy. RESULTS: The adjusted probability of treatment within 30 days of diagnosis was similar across periods (January-March 2019 = 41.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 32.2% to 51.1%; April-July 2019 = 42.6%, 95% CI = 32.4% to 52.7%; January-March 2020 = 44.5%, 95% CI = 30.4% to 58.6%; April-July 2020 = 46.8%, 95% CI= 34.6% to 59.0%; adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.4%, 95% CI = -2.7% to 5.5%). Among 5962 patients who received first-line systemic therapy, there was no association between the pandemic period and use of myelosuppressive therapy (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.6%, 95% CI = -2.6% to 5.8%). There was no meaningful effect modification by cancer type, race, or age. CONCLUSIONS: Despite known pandemic-related delays in surveillance and diagnosis, the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect TTI or treatment selection for patients with metastatic solid cancers.

Imaging-guided radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma in typical and atypical sites: Long term follow up.

PURPOSE: To assess efficacy and safety of imaging-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of Osteoid Osteoma (OO) in both typical and atypical sites. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 2014 and March 2019, 102 consecutive percutaneous RFA were performed and retrospectively reviewed. The procedures were performed using a RFA bipolar ablation system (Covidien, exposed tip of 0.7-1cm), under Computed Tomography (CT) guidance or using a navigation system (Masmec) under CT and Cone Beam CT (CBCT) guidance. Patients were followed up over 24 months. Clinical success and recurrences were considered on the base of established criteria. In patients with clinical failure and/or imaging evidence of relapse, retreatment was considered. RESULTS: Administered power per-procedure was ≤8 W (mean temperature, 90°C). The pre-procedure average value of visual analog scale (VAS) was 8.33+/-0.91. Primary and secondary success rate 96.08% (98/102) and100% (102/102), respectively. No major complication was described. Technical success was proved in every patient by CT scan acquisition after needle positioning. Relapse and tumour location were significantly correlated (p-value = 0.0165). The mean dose-length product was 751.55 mGycm2. Advanced bone healing was noted in 68 lesions after 1y-follow up and in 86 lesions after 2y-follow up. CONCLUSION: Imaging-guided percutaneous RFA is a highly effective technique for OO, both in typical and atypical sites. CT or CBCT guidance, navigation systems and operator experience grant the technical success, which is the most crucial parameter affecting outcome.

Surveillance and Monitoring of Hepatocellular Carcinoma During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is expected to have a long-lasting impact on the approach to care for patients at risk for and with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to the risks from potential exposure and resource reallocation. The goal of this document is to provide recommendations on HCC surveillance and monitoring, including strategies to limit unnecessary exposure while continuing to provide high-quality care for patients. Publications and guidelines pertaining to the management of HCC during COVID-19 were reviewed for recommendations related to surveillance and monitoring practices, and any available guidance was referenced to support the authors' recommendations when applicable. Existing HCC risk stratification models should be utilized to prioritize imaging resources to those patients at highest risk of incident HCC and recurrence following therapy though surveillance can likely continue as before in settings where COVID-19 prevalence is low and adequate protections are in place. Waitlisted patients who will benefit from urgent LT should be prioritized for surveillance whereas it would be reasonable to extend surveillance interval by a short period in HCC patients with lower risk tumor features and those more than 2 years since their last treatment. For patients eligible for systemic therapy, the treatment regimen should be dictated by the risk of COVID-19 associated with route of administration, monitoring and treatment of adverse events, within the context of relative treatment efficacy.

Effect of coronavirus disease 2019 on recurrences and follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective study aimed to evaluate possible diagnostic delays in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma recurrences due to the changed follow-up protocol during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: The follow-up appointments of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients treated more than one year prior to the pandemic were changed to telephone appointments in order to reduce physical visits to the hospital. All contacts, reasons for contact and recurrent cancers were recorded. RESULTS: There were 17 recurrences during a seven-month study period among 178 patients treated in the previous year (10 per cent); 14 of these recurrences occurred in patients whose treatment had ended less than one year previously and 3 occurred more than one year after treatment had ended. There was no delay in diagnoses of recurrent tumours or treatment despite reduced visits because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. CONCLUSION: According to our analyses, no delay was caused in the diagnoses of recurrent diseases. Follow up by telephone or telemedicine can be considered as part of the follow-up protocol one year after the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma when necessary.

Balancing patients' fears of recurrence and fears of COVID-19 when considering their preference for review consultations.

PURPOSE: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients may experience fears regarding cancer recurrence (FoR) and of catching COVID-19. There could be unease for attending hospital clinics for face to face (F2F) examination. F2F benefit in cancer surveillance has to be balanced against the risk of virus transmission. This study aimed to report perceptions of fear of cancer and fear of COVID-19 and to report patient preference for follow-up consultation in HNC survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The study ran from lockdown in England on 24th March to 29th July 2020. Patients were offered preference to postpone their consultation, to have it by telephone, or F2F. A postal survey was undertaken in the 2 weeks post-consultation (actual or postponed). RESULTS: There were 103 patients. Initial action by consultant and patient resulted in 51 postponed consultations, 35 telephone consultations and 17 F2F meetings, with 10 F2F triggered by the patient. There were 58 responders to the survey and most (39) had a clear preference for one mode of follow-up consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic, with half (19) preferring F2F. A similar response was seen regarding their consultations in general to address unmet needs and concerns, with 38 having a preferred mode, 29 preferring F2F. Serious fears about recurrence and COVID-19 were at relatively low levels with a tendency to be more concerned about recurrence. CONCLUSION: Any redesign of mode and frequency of out-patient follow-up in light of COVID-19 should be undertaken in discussion with patient groups and with individual patients.