Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care of cancer patients in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on public healthcare systems are limited, particularly in cancer management. As no such studies have been carried out in Spain, our objective is to describe and quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients in Spanish hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study collected information from hospital departments treating oncology patients. An electronic questionnaire comparing outcomes and management of oncohematological patients for the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods was used. RESULTS: Information from 78 departments (36 tertiary hospitals) was analyzed. Forty-four departments implemented adapted protocols during March 2020. Most of these (n = 38/44; 86.4%) carried out COVID-19 triage, while 26 of 44 (59.1%) carried out onsite polymerase chain reaction tests for clinically suspected cases. A shift from in-person to telephone visits was observed in 43 of 44 (97.7%) departments. Comparing the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods, the number of new patients decreased by 20.8% (from 160.2 to 126.4). Decreases were also seen in the mean number of total (2858.2 versus 1686.1) and cancer (465.5 versus 367.2) biopsies, as well as the mean number of bone marrow biopsies (30.5 versus 18.6). Concerning the number of patients visiting specific cancer care departments, a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen for mean number of chemotherapy treatments (712.7 versus 643.8) and radiation therapy (2169.9 versus 2139.9). Finally, a reduction from 2019 to 2020 of 12.9% (from 8.6 to 7.4) in the mean number of patients included in clinical trials was noted. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first comprehensive data concerning the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in Spain. The pandemic caused a 20.8% decrease in newly diagnosed patients, which may impact future outcomes. Measures must be taken to ensure cancer management receives priority in times of healthcare emergencies.

Association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms in DNA double-strand break repair genes and prostate cancer aggressiveness in the Spanish population.

BACKGROUND: Novel predictors of prognosis and treatment response for prostate cancer (PCa) are required to better individualize treatment. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in four genes directly (XRCC5 (X-ray repair complementing defective repair in Chinese hamster cells 5) and XRCC6 (X-ray repair complementing defective repair in Chinese hamster cells 6)) or indirectly (PARP1 and major vault protein (MVP)) involved in non-homologous end joining were examined in 494 Spanish PCa patients. METHODS: A total of 22 SNPs were genotyped in a Biotrove OpenArray NT Cycler. Clinical tumor stage, diagnostic PSA serum levels and Gleason score at diagnosis were obtained for all participants. Genotypic and allelic frequencies were determined using the web-based environment SNPator. RESULTS: (XRCC6) rs2267437 appeared as a risk factor for developing more aggressive PCa tumors. Those patients carrying the GG genotype were at higher risk of developing bigger tumors (odds ratio (OR)=2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-3.29, P=0.004), present higher diagnostic PSA levels (OR=2.12, 95% CI 1.19-3.78, P=0.011), higher Gleason score (OR=1.65, 95% CI 1.01-2.68, P=0.044) and D'Amico higher risk tumors (OR=2.38, 95% CI 1.24-4.58, P=0.009) than those patients carrying the CC/CG genotypes. Those patients carrying the (MVP) rs3815824 TT genotype were at higher risk of presenting higher diagnostic PSA levels (OR=4.74, 95% CI 1.40-16.07, P=0.013) than those patients carrying the CC genotype. When both SNPs were analyzed in combination, those patients carrying the risk genotypes were at higher risk of developing D'Amico higher risk tumors (OR=3.33, 95% CI 1.56-7.17, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We believe that for the first time, genetic variants at XRCC6 and MVP genes are associated with risk of more aggressive disease, and would be taken into account when assessing the malignancy of PCa.

[Current treatment in high risk and locally advanced prostate cancer]. / Tratamiento actual del cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo y localmente avanzado.

Treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer remains controversial. Treatment options include radical prostatectomy (PR), radiotherapy (RT) and hormonotherapy (HT). A Medline database search with key words "prostate cancer", "locally advanced", "high risk" and "treatment" in articles published during the last 15 years was done. Fifty one out of 329 papers were selected and reviewed. Selection criteria were a minimum of scientific evidence level of IIa, except for some specific level IV reference. Numerous randomized studies show that patients may benefit of a combined therapy with RT and HT. RP has shown its usefulness in selected cases of locally advanced prostate cancer. Results of long follow-up series are similar to those obtained with RT and HT. Furthermore, the possibility of clinical over staging is an argument in favour of RP. We perform an updated revision of every possible choice available in the treatment of these tumours.

Tratamiento actual del cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo y localmente avanzado / Current treatment in high risk and locally advanced prostate cancer

El tratamiento del cáncer de próstata localmente avanzado continúa siendo controvertido. Las opciones terapéuticas comprenden desde la prostatectomía radical (PR), a la radioterapia (RT) y la hormonoterapia (HT). Se ha efectuado una revisión en la base de datos Medline de los trabajos publicados en los últimos 15 años, con las palabras clave en inglés: “cáncer de próstata”, “localmente avanzado”, “alto riesgo” y “tratamiento”. Cincuenta y uno de 329 artículos fueron seleccionados y revisados. El criterio de selección incluía un mínimo nivel de evidencia científica IIa, destacando alguna referencia puntual con evidencia IV. Como demuestran múltiples estudios aleatorios, estos pacientes se pueden beneficiar de una terapia combinada con RT y HT. La PR en enfermedad localmente avanzada ha demostrado su utilidad en algunos casos seleccionados. Los resultados a largo plazo de algunas series son equiparables a los obtenidos con RT y HT. Además, la posibilidad de sobreestadiaje clínico también es un argumento a favor de la PR. Se realiza una revisión actualizada de todas las posibles opciones disponibles en el tratamiento de estos tumores

Treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer remains controversial. Treatment options include radical prostatectomy (PR), radiotherapy (RT) and hormonotherapy (HT). A Medline database search with key words “prostate cancer”, “locally advanced”, “high risk” and “treatment” in articles published during the last 15 years was done. Fifty one out of 329 papers were selected and reviewed. Selection criteria were a minimum of scientific evidence level of IIa, except for some specific level IV reference. Numerous randomized studies show that patients may benefit of a combined therapy with RT and HT. RP has shown its usefulness in selected cases of locally advanced prostate cancer. Results of long follow-up series are similar to those obtained with RT and HT. Furthermore, the possibility of clinical over staging is an argument in favour of RP. We perform an updated revision of every possible choice available in the treatment of these tumours

[Radiotherapy for the treatment of testicular seminomas]. / Radioterapia para el tratamiento de los seminomas testiculares.

OBJECTIVE: Conventional treatment of testicular seminoma has been orchiectomy followed by adjuvant lymph node irradiation. Over the last 10 years the role of postoperative elective radiotherapy has been questioned. This paper reviews the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of seminoma of the testis. METHODS: The literature is reviewed with special reference to the results achieved in the treatment of testicular seminoma with and without radiotherapy. The advantages and disadvantages of postoperative radiotherapy, the techniques and dose administered are discussed. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained with radiotherapy postorchidectomy in stage I seminoma of the testis are excellent, with a disease free survival of 95%-100%. The use of more limited fields of irradiation and lower dose has reduced the radiation-induced toxicity. Currently, many centers have opted for clinical surveillance after orchiectomy. Their experience have permitted identification of the risk factors and there have been attempts to identify the group of patients that benefit from adjuvant therapy. The low incidence of stage II tumors has not permitted performing randomized studies to determine the benefits of adjuvant therapy and its comparison with chemotherapy. Consolidation radiotherapy for bulky stage II and stage III and IV tumors continues to be a controversy, although its potential value in carefully selected patients is recognized.