Teleconsultation Perceptions of Medical and Radiation Oncologists in the COVID-19 and Post-COVID-19 Era: A National Survey in the Philippines.

PURPOSE: The study reports on the current perception of medical and radiation oncologists regarding teleconsultation in the Philippines. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the adoption of telemedicine was not widespread. With movement restrictions imposed during the pandemic, physicians were compelled to use telemedicine. It is uncertain whether physicians will still adopt its use in practice in the post-COVID-19 era. This study gives insight into the possible adaptation of this mode of consultation in the future, especially in areas with limited health care resources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a national survey among medical oncologists and radiation oncologists in the Philippines. A 43-item online survey was developed, validated, and administered to the oncologists. The demographics and data from categorical questions were reported as frequencies and percentages. RESULTS: A total of 142 responses were gathered from 82 medical oncologists and 60 radiation oncologists. There was agreement among participants that, during the pandemic, teleconsultation could be used for the first visit, diagnostic workup request, treatment explanation, follow-up care, and chronic disease management. There was disagreement whether cancer diagnosis disclosure and cancer prognosis revelation could be performed via teleconsultation, and there was agreement that emergency consultation and physical examination would warrant a face-to-face consultation. After the COVID-19 pandemic, 78.7% intend to continue using teleconsultation except for emergency consultations, first visits, physical examination, diagnosis disclosure, and cancer prognosis revelation. CONCLUSION: Teleconsultation was perceived by oncologists as an acceptable method of providing cancer care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Oncologists also intend to use teleconsultation in the post-COVID-19 era in certain aspects of patient care.

Technical details and clinical outcomes after high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of external auditory canal and external beam radiotherapy for nodal coverage: A case report.

Purpose: To report technical details and 15-month outcomes of a patient with node-positive external auditory canal (EAC) squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) treated with definitive intracavitary high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy to primary tumor, and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to draining lymphatics. Material and methods: A 21-year-old male was diagnosed with SCC of the right EAC. The patient underwent definitive HDR intracavitary brachytherapy, 340 cGy/fraction for 14 twice-daily fractions, followed by EBRT using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to cover the grossly enlarged pre-auricular node, ipsilateral intra-parotid, and cervical lymph node levels II and III. Results: The approved brachytherapy plan had an average high-risk clinical tumor volume (CTV-HR) D90 of 341 cGy with a total dose of 47.7 Gy (BED, 80.3 Gy, EQD2, 66.6 Gy). For the approved IMRT plan, the prescription to the involved right pre-auricular node was 66 Gy in 33 fractions, and more than 95% of the target received at least 62.7 Gy. High-risk nodal regions were simultaneously prescribed: 59.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions, and more than 95% received at least 56.4 Gy. Organs at risk (OARs) were kept below their dose constraints.The patient tolerated both the procedures with no grade ≥ 2 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 1 dermatitis in the right pre-auricular and cervical areas during the course of EBRT was experienced. Fifteen months post-RT, the patient has no evidence of disease, and was noted to have EAC stenosis, which translated to moderate conductive hearing loss of the right ear. Thyroid function was normal at 15 months after EBRT. Conclusions: This case report illustrates that the delivered definitive radiotherapy is technically feasible, effective, and well-tolerated in patients with SCC of EAC.

The Role of postoperative external beam radiotherapy for differentiated thyroid carcinoma: A Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The indications for external beam radiotherapy (RT) in differentiated thyroid carcinomas (DTC) are still undefined. The objective of this study was to synthesize current evidence defining the role of postoperative RT in patients with DTC. A systematic review and meta-analysis were done. Included studies compared oncologic outcomes and toxicity of RT vs no RT in patients with DTC. Nine studies were included, two prospective and seven retrospective cohorts. RT improved 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival but not overall survival and distant metastasis failure-free survival. The locoregional control benefit was seen in patients at increased risk for recurrence, including those with advanced age, locoregionally advanced disease, gross or microscopic residual tumor, and structural invasion. Serious RT-related acute and late toxicities were rare. Available evidence suggests that postoperative RT can improve locoregional control in high-risk DTC with acceptable toxicity. Further prospective studies are warranted.

Assessing the Effect of Radiotherapy in Addition to Surgery in Colon Adenocarcinomas: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Contemporary Evidence.

PURPOSE: This study aims to review the contemporary evidence investigating radiotherapy (RT) in addition to surgery for colon adenocarcinomas. METHODS: We searched the following databases: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, ASCOpubs, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies (since January 2005) comparing outcomes of high-risk colon adenocarcinomas who underwent RT in addition to surgery versus no RT were eligible. Pooling of outcomes from published results or from analysis of survival curves was done. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine if the efficacy of RT varies with RT timing. RESULTS: Eight studies were included (five retrospective cohorts, three population-based studies). Pooled analysis from retrospective cohorts showed a reduction in 5-year LR (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21-0.79; p = 0.007) in the RT group. A benefit in 3-year (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.15-2.87; p = 0.01) and 5-year (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.21-3.63; p = 0.008) DFS and in 3-year (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.43-4.54; p = 0.001) and 5-year (OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.17-3.41; p = 0.01) OS was seen in the RT group. The OS benefit was demonstrated in the subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant RT, but not with adjuvant RT. The improvement in OS with neoadjuvant RT was supported by a population-based study from NCDB, while results from two population-based studies investigating adjuvant RT were conflicting. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the limitations of the studies, our review of evidence suggests a possible role of RT in improving oncologic outcomes of select colon adenocarcinomas. Prospective studies are needed to definitively assess the value of RT for colon cancer.

Reirradiation for Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinomas: Experience From an Academic Tertiary Center in a Low- to Middle-Income Country.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to report the oncologic outcomes and the treatment-related toxicities after reirradiation (re-RT) for recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (rNPC) at our institution and to apply a recently published prognostic model for survival in rNPC in our cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with rNPC treated at the authors' institution with re-RT were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment modalities for re-RT were intensity-modulated radiotherapy (n = 14), three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (n = 9), single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (n = 6), fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (n = 2), and high dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy (n = 1). Twenty-seven patients received re-RT with curative intent, whereas five patients were treated palliatively. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 15.5 months (range, 1 to 123 months) for the entire cohort and 20 months (range, 3 to 123 months) for patients treated with curative intent. For the entire cohort, median locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) was 14 months, with actuarial 1- and 2-year LRRFS estimates of 67.5% and 44.0%, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) time was 38 months, with actuarial 1- and 2-year estimates of 74.2% and 57.2%, respectively. For patients treated with curative intent, median LRRFS was not reached. Actuarial 1- and 2-year LRRFS estimates were 68.2% and 54.5%, respectively. Median OS time after curative intent re-RT was 42 months, with actuarial 1- and 2-year estimates of 75.4% and 63.8%, respectively. One- and 2-year OS estimates based on risk stratification were 68.6% for high risk compared with 80.8% for low risk and 34.3% for high risk compared with 70.7% for low risk, respectively ( P = .223). Three patients (9.4%) developed symptomatic temporal lobe necrosis. There was no reported grade 5 treatment-related toxicity. CONCLUSION: Results of the study suggest that re-RT is an effective and safe salvage treatment strategy for rNPC. Re-RT to a maximum equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions of 60 Gy may yield good LRRFS and translate to prolonged OS.

Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy Versus No Radiotherapy for Stage IV Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to review the contemporary evidence comparing neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NRT) versus no radiotherapy (no RT) in patients with stage IV rectal cancer. METHODS: Literature was searched for studies using the following databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Scopus, ASCOpubs, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies reporting outcomes for stage IV rectal cancer patients who underwent NRT or no RT were selected. RESULTS: A total of eight studies were included in this review (one RCT, five retrospective cohorts, two population-based studies). The only RCT in this review reported no significant difference in 2- and 5-year local recurrence (NRT versus no RT) 10.1% versus 23.8%, and 15.9% versus 26.9%, respectively. However, multivariate analysis showed the effect of treatment might not have differed between subgroups according to stage. Pooled analysis from five retrospective studies showed significantly improved local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) with NRT (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.31, p = 0.03), which was maintained in the subgroup who underwent metastasectomy. (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.01-1.37, p = 0.04). Pooled 5-year overall survival (OS) showed a statistically significant benefit with NRT (RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.14-1.89, p = 0.003), which was not seen in the subgroup who underwent metastasectomy (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.94-1.82, p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: The current available evidence shows an LRFS benefit with NRT over no RT in patients with stage IV rectal cancer. The review also suggests a possible OS benefit with NRT, although this finding should be interpreted with caution.