A multi-centre survey reveals variations in the standard treatments and treatment modifications for head and neck cancer patients during Covid-19 pandemic

Safety of An Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol After Head and Neck Free Tissue Transfer

OBJECTIVES

Implementing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols and decreasing length of stay (LOS) have become a priority for major surgeries, including microvascular free tissue transfer (MVFTT) reconstruction of the head and neck. We describe an ERAS protocol with the goal to further reduce length of stay beyond national medians.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review between August 2016 and February 2023, including all patients who underwent MVFTT after oral cavity, skull base, salivary gland, and cutaneous ablative surgery. An ERAS protocol was implemented in March 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 383 patients were included. Approximately 59.8% underwent oral cavity MVFTT, 34.5% cutaneous and lateral skull base, and 5.8% maxillary and anterior skull base. A total of 209 (54.7%) patients had surgery prior to implementation of the ERAS protocol and 174 (45.3%) after. Median LOS decreased from 9 days (interquartile interval [IQR] 8-11) to 6 (IQR 5-7.5, p < 0.0001) following oral cavity MVFTT. For cutaneous and lateral skull base reconstruction, median LOS decreased from 6 days (IQR 5-8) to 3 (IQR 3-7, p < 0.0001). For anterior skull base and sinonasal MVFTT, median LOS decreased from 8 (IQR 7-9) to 5 days (IQR 4.5-7, p = 0.0005). Rate of discharge to skilled nursing or subacute rehabilitation facilities decreased (24% before ERAS, 9.2% after, p < 0.0001). Thirty-day readmission rate was similar before and after implementation (10.5% vs. 10.3, p = 0.954). Discharge to facility was associated with readmission (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.12-4.89, p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Implementation of the ERAS protocol was associated with decreased LOS. There was no increase in rate of readmission.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:4527-4534, 2024.

Cancer management during the COVID-19 world pandemic

Since 2019, the world has been experiencing an outbreak of a novel beta-coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2. The worldwide spread of this virus has been a severe challenge for public health, and the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. As of June 8, 2023, the virus' rapid spread had caused over 767 million infections and more than 6.94 million deaths worldwide. Unlike previous SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreaks, the COVID-19 outbreak has led to a high death rate in infected patients; this has been caused by multiorgan failure, which might be due to the widespread presence of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors-functional receptors of SARS-CoV-2-in multiple organs. Patients with cancer may be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 because cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, immunotherapy) suppress the immune system. Thus, patients with cancer and COVID-19 may have a poor prognosis. Knowing how to manage the treatment of patients with cancer who may be infected with SARS-CoV-2 is essential. Treatment decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, and patient stratification is necessary during COVID-19 outbreaks. Here, we review the management of COVID-19 in patients with cancer and focus on the measures that should be adopted for these patients on the basis of the organs or tissues affected by cancer and by the tumor stage.

Effect of treatment interruptions and outcomes in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary care institute

Introduction

COVID-19 patients with cancer had poorer outcomes due to immunosuppression during cancer care, poor general condition, and other comorbidities. The study was conducted to present the real-world analysis of the effect of treatment interruptions on the outcomes of patients treated with radiation therapy during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary care institute in India.

Materials and methods

The study is a retrospective observational cohort study on cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy from March 2020 to January 2021. The study’s primary outcome was to analyze the effect of treatment interruptions on the outcomes of patients treated with radiation therapy during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Between March 2020 to January 2021, 218 eligible patients undergoing radiation therapy were found for the study. Among the 218 patients, 25 patients (11.47%) were found positive for COVID-19, while 193 patients (88.53%) were negative for COVID-19. Among COVID-19-positive patients, ten patients had < 3 weeks of treatment interruption, while 15 patients had > 3 weeks of treatment interruptions. After recovering from COVID-19, treatment was resumed and completed for 15 (60.00%) of the COVID-19-positive patients. In comparison, 13 patients (52.00%) were lost to follow-up. Three of the COVID-19-positive patients died. The disease was clinically controlled in 12 (48.00%) of the COVID-19-positive patients, and the patients reported locoregional disease progression in 10 (40.00%). Among the 193 COVID-19-negative patients, 32 patients (16.58%) had treatment interruption. Twelve patients (37.50%) had treatment interruptions for less than 1 week. There was a significant difference in the delay of radiation treatment delivery by 2 weeks (11 fractions) in COVID-19-positive patients compared to only two fractions delay in COVID-19-negative patients.

Conclusion

COVID-19 impacted the treatment outcomes in both COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative cohorts of patients. There was a longer duration of treatment interruptions in the COVID-19-positive patients, leading to fewer patients completing the radiation treatment and thereby increased locoregional disease progression. There was a significant difference in the delay in treatment between the two groups.

Similar long-term swallowing outcomes for accelerated, mildly-hypofractionated radiotherapy compared to conventional fractionation in oropharynx cancer: a multi-centre study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is renewed interest in hypofractionated radiotherapy, but limited data and a lack of consensus to support use for head and neck cancer. In this multicentre analysis we compared outcomes for patients with oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) treated with conventional and accelerated, mildly hypofractionated radiotherapy without chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multi-centre, observational study of consecutive OPSCCs treated between 2015 and 2018. Patients underwent curative-intent radiotherapy (oropharynx and bilateral neck) using conventionally fractionated (70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks, n = 97) or accelerated, mildly hypofractionated (65-66 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks, n = 136) radiotherapy without chemotherapy. Locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) were compared. Patients alive and cancer-free at a minimum of 2 years post-radiotherapy (n = 151, 65%) were sent an MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) questionnaire to assess swallow function.

RESULTS

LRC and OS were similar across schedules (p = 0.78 and 0.95 respectively, log-rank test). Enteral feeding rates during radiotherapy appeared higher in the 7-week group though this did not reach statistical significance (59% vs 48%, p = 0.08). Feeding rates were similar at 1 year post radiotherapy for both groups (10% vs 6%, p = 0.27). 107 patients returned MDADI questionnaires (71%); there were no differences between the 6- and 7-week groups for median global (60.0 vs 60.0, p = 0.99) and composite (65.8 vs 64.2, p = 0.44) MDADI scores.

CONCLUSION

Patients with OPSCC treated with radiotherapy alone have similar swallowing outcomes, LRC and OS following accelerated, mild hypofractionation and standard fractionation schedules, supporting its use as a standard-of-care option for patients unsuitable for concurrent chemotherapy.

Organisation of cancer care in troubling times: A scoping review of expert guidelines and their implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic

This scoping review mapped the main themes in existing expert guidelines for cancer care issued during the COVID-19 crisis from the period of March 2020-August 2021. The guidelines published during the research period principally relate to the first two waves in Europe and until the beginning of the vaccination campaign. They elaborated recommendations for cancer care reorganisation, in particular triage and quality of care issues. The article highlights the ethical, epistemological, as well as practical reasons that guidelines were not always followed to provide some lessons learned for future crises to enable better guideline development processes. We also elaborate early evidence on the impact of triage decisions and different perspectives on cancer care reorganisation from ethics and social science literature.