ABSTRACT
Background and objectives: Social distancing and quarantine implanted during the COVID-19 outbreak could have delayed the accession of oncologic patients to hospitals and treatments. This study analysed the management of sarcoma patients during this period in five Spanish hospitals. Design and methods: Clinical data from adult sarcoma patients, soft tissue and bone sarcomas, managed during the COVID-19 outbreak, from 15 March to 14 September 2020 (Covid cohort), were retrospectively collected and time for diagnosis, surgery and active treatments were compared with sarcoma patients managed during the same pre-pandemic period in 2018 (Control cohort). Results: A total of 126 and 182 new sarcoma patients were enrolled in the Covid and Control cohorts, respectively, who were mainly diagnosed as soft tissue sarcomas (81.0% and 80.8%) and at localized stage (80.2% and 79.1%). A diagnostic delay was observed in the Covid cohort with a median time for the diagnosis of 102.5 days (range 6-355) versus 83 days (range 5-328) in the Control cohort (p = 0.034). Moreover, a delay in surgery was observed in cases with localized disease from the Covid cohort with a median time of 96.0 days (range 11-265) versus 54.5 days (range 2-331) in the Control cohort (p = 0.034). However, a lower delay for neoadjuvant radiotherapy was observed in the Covid cohort with a median time from the diagnosis to the neoadjuvant radiotherapy of 47 days (range 27-105) versus 91 days (range 27-294) in the Control cohort (p = 0.039). No significant differences for adjuvant radiotherapy, neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant/adjuvant palliative chemotherapy were observed between both cohorts. Neither progression-free survival (PFS) nor overall survival (OS) was significantly different. Conclusion: Delays in diagnosis and surgery were retrospectively observed in sarcoma patients during the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain, while the time for neoadjuvant radiotherapy was reduced. However, no impact on the PFS and OS was observed.
ABSTRACT
Around 50% of the familial breast cancer (BC) cases are estimated to be caused by germline variants in known low-, moderate-, and high-risk susceptibility genes, while the other half is of unknown genetic origin. In the present study, we wanted to evaluate the role of the RECQ helicases, some of which have been studied in the past as candidates, with unclear results about their role in the disease. Using next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology, we analyzed the whole coding sequence of BLM, RECQL1, RECQL4, RECQL5, and WRN in almost 2000 index cases from BC Spanish families that had previously tested negative for the known BC susceptibility genes (BRCAX) and compared the results with the controls extracted from gnomAD. Our results suggest that BLM, RECQL1, RECQL4, and WRN do not play a major role in BC susceptibility. However, in the combined analysis, joining the present results with those previously reported in a series of 1334 BC Spanish patients and controls, we found a statistically significant association between Loss of Function (LoF) variants in RECQL5 and BC risk, with an OR of 2.56 (p = 0.009; 95% CI, 1.18-4.98). Our findings support our previous work and places the RECQL5 gene as a new moderate-risk BC gene.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of FDG-PET/contrast enhanced CT (FDG-PET/ceCT) in the detection of unsuspected recurrence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with high risk of relapse. METHODS: Thirty-three patients (14 females and 19 males, mean age: 62, range: 41-78), with CRC in complete remission, were prospectively included. All patients underwent FDG-PET/ceCT (58 studies). FDG-PET/ceCT was requested in the surveillance setting, and performed following a standardized protocol. A portal venous phase CT scan was performed after the injection of iodinated contrast agent. An individual and combined assessment of both techniques (PET and ceCT) was performed. Concordant and discordant findings of PET, ceCT and FDG-PET/ceCT were compared in a patient-based and a lesion-based analysis. The final diagnosis, recurrence or disease free status (DFS), were established by histopathology or clinical/radiological follow-up of at least 6 months. RESULTS: Seven out of 33 patients had a confirmed recurrence and the rest of patients had a DFS. In a patient-based analysis the sensitivity and specificity of PET, ceCT and PET/ceCT was of 86% and 88%, 86% and 92%, 86% and 85%, respectively. Attending to the lesion-based analysis, the sensitivity for PET, ceCT and PET/ceCT was of 56%, 71% and 97%, respectively. Both techniques showed a good concordance in the establishment of the final patient status. However, on a lesion-based analysis, no concordance was observed between them. CONCLUSION: PET and ceCT seem to have similar value in the detection of unsuspected recurrence of CRC in a patient-based analysis. However, the combined assessment of PET/ceCT improves the accuracy in the lesion-based analysis.
