Cancer and COVID-19 Experiences at African Cancer Centers: The Silver Lining

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted cancer care in Africa, further exposing major health disparities. This paper compares and contrasts the experiences of 15 clinicians in six different African cancer centers to highlight the positive aspects (silver linings) in an otherwise negative situation.

METHODS

Data are from personal experience of the clinicians working at the six cancer centers blended with what is available in the literature.

RESULTS

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care appeared to vary not only across the continent but also over cancer centers. Different factors such as clinic location, services offered, available resources, and level of restrictions imposed because of COVID-19 were associated with these variations. Collectively, delays in treatment and limited access to cancer care were commonly reported in the different regions.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and online COVID-19 and cancer registries for Africa. Analysis of the available data, however, suggests a higher mortality rate for cancer patients with COVID-19 compared with those without cancer. Positive or silver linings coming out of the pandemic include the adoption of hypofractionated radiation therapy and teleoncology to enhance access to care while protecting patients and staff members. Increasing collaborations using online technology with oncology health professionals across the world are also being seen as a silver lining, with valuable sharing of experiences and expertise to improve care, enhance learning, and reduce disparities. Advanced information and communication technologies are seen as vital for such collaborations and could avail efforts in dealing with the ongoing pandemic and potential future crises.

Long-term primary results of accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: a randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial

BACKGROUND

Whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for patients with early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast-tumour recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. It is unknown whether accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) to only the tumour-bearing quadrant, which shortens treatment duration, is equally effective. In our trial, we investigated whether APBI provides equivalent local tumour control after lumpectomy compared with whole-breast irradiation.

METHODS

We did this randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial (NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413) in 154 clinical centres in the USA, Canada, Ireland, and Israel. Adult women (>18 years) with early-stage (0, I, or II; no evidence of distant metastases, but up to three axillary nodes could be positive) breast cancer (tumour size ≤3 cm; including all histologies and multifocal breast cancers), who had had lumpectomy with negative (ie, no detectable cancer cells) surgical margins, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a biased-coin-based minimisation algorithm to receive either whole-breast irradiation (whole-breast irradiation group) or APBI (APBI group). Whole-breast irradiation was delivered in 25 daily fractions of 50 Gy over 5 weeks, with or without a supplemental boost to the tumour bed, and APBI was delivered as 34 Gy of brachytherapy or 38·5 Gy of external bream radiation therapy in 10 fractions, over 5 treatment days within an 8-day period. Randomisation was stratified by disease stage, menopausal status, hormone-receptor status, and intention to receive chemotherapy. Patients, investigators, and statisticians could not be masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of invasive and non-invasive IBTR as a first recurrence was analysed in the intention-to-treat population, excluding those patients who were lost to follow-up, with an equivalency test on the basis of a 50% margin increase in the hazard ratio (90% CI for the observed HR between 0·667 and 1·5 for equivalence) and a Cox proportional hazard model. Survival was assessed by intention to treat, and sensitivity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00103181.

FINDINGS

Between March 21, 2005, and April 16, 2013, 4216 women were enrolled. 2109 were assigned to the whole-breast irradiation group and 2107 were assigned to the APBI group. 70 patients from the whole-breast irradiation group and 14 from the APBI group withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up at this stage, so 2039 and 2093 patients respectively were available for survival analysis. Further, three and four patients respectively were lost to clinical follow-up (ie, survival status was assessed by phone but no physical examination was done), leaving 2036 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in the APBI group evaluable for the primary outcome. At a median follow-up of 10·2 years (IQR 7·5-11·5), 90 (4%) of 2089 women eligible for the primary outcome in the APBI group and 71 (3%) of 2036 women in the whole-breast irradiation group had an IBTR (HR 1·22, 90% CI 0·94-1·58). The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR was 4·6% (95% CI 3·7-5·7) in the APBI group versus 3·9% (3·1-5·0) in the whole-breast irradiation group. 44 (2%) of 2039 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 49 (2%) of 2093 patients in the APBI group died from recurring breast cancer. There were no treatment-related deaths. Second cancers and treatment-related toxicities were similar between the two groups. 2020 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in APBI group had available data on adverse events. The highest toxicity grade reported was: grade 1 in 845 (40%), grade 2 in 921 (44%), and grade 3 in 201 (10%) patients in the APBI group, compared with grade 1 in 626 (31%), grade 2 in 1193 (59%), and grade 3 in 143 (7%) in the whole-breast irradiation group.

INTERPRETATION

APBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to whole-breast irradiation in controlling IBTR for breast-conserving therapy. Our trial had broad eligibility criteria, leading to a large, heterogeneous pool of patients and sufficient power to detect treatment equivalence, but was not designed to test equivalence in patient subgroups or outcomes from different APBI techniques. For patients with early-stage breast cancer, our findings support whole-breast irradiation following lumpectomy; however, with an absolute difference of less than 1% in the 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR, APBI might be an acceptable alternative for some women.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services.

Abstract GS4-04: Primary results of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 (NRG Oncology): A randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus partial breast irradiation (PBI) for women with stage 0, I, or II breast cancer

Background: Conventional WBI after lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. Accelerated PBI appears effective in reducing IBTR by treating only the tumor bed area. As the majority of IBTR occur at or in the vicinity of the tumor bed, we hypothesized that PBI would be as effective as WBI in controlling IBTR. The primary aim of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 was to determine if PBI provides equivalent local tumor control post lumpectomy compared to WBI in pts with early-stage breast cancer. The equivalency test was based on a 50% margin of increase in the hazard ratio (HR=1.5). Secondary endpoints included: overall survival (OS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant disease-free interval (DDFI), and toxicity.

Methods: Eligible pts had lumpectomy with histologically-free margins and 0-3 positive axillary nodes. Pts were stratified by stage, menopausal status, hormone receptor status, and intent to receive chemotherapy and then randomized to PBI or WBI. PBI was 10 fractions of 3.4-3.85 Gy, given twice daily with either brachytherapy or 3D external beam radiation. WBI was 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions given daily with a sequential boost to the surgical cavity. Follow-up was every 6 mos for 5 yrs and then annually. All analyses were by intent-to-treat.

Results: From 3-21-05 to 4-16-13, 4216 pts were randomized: 2107 PBI; 2109 WBI. 61% were postmenopausal; 81% were hormone receptor-positive; 29% intended to receive chemotherapy. Stage distribution was: DCIS, 24%; invasive pN0, 65%; invasive pN1, 10%. As of 7-31-18, median follow-up was 10.2 yrs. There were 161 IBTRs as first events: 90 PBI v 71 WBI (HR 1.22; 90%CI 0.94-1.58). Per protocol-defined margin, to declare PBI and WBI equivalent regarding IBTR risk, the 90% CI for the observed HR had to lie entirely between 0.667 and 1.5. The percent of pts IBTR-free at 10 yrs was 95.2% PBI v 95.9% WBI. A statistically significant difference in the 10-yr RFI rate favored WBI (91.9% PBI v 93.4% WBI; HR 1.32; 95%CI 1.04-1.68; p=0.02). No statistically significant differences existed between PBI and WBI in DDFI (HR 1.31; 95%CI 0.91-1.91; p=0.15), OS (HR 1.10; 95%CI 0.90-1.35; p=0.35), or DFS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.98-1.29; p=0.11). Grade 3 toxicity was 9.6% PBI v 7.1% WBI, and grade 4-5 toxicity was 0.5% v 0.3%, respectively.

Discussion: PBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to WBI in controlling IBTR based on the upper limit of the hazard ratio confidence interval. However, the absolute difference in 10-yr rate of IBTR was <1% (4.8% PBI v 4.1% WBI). The risk of an RFI event was statistically significantly higher for PBI compared to WBI, but the absolute difference in 10-yr RFI rate was also small (8.1% PBI v 6.6% WBI). DDFI, OS, and DFS were not statistically different for PBI v WBI. Grade 3-5 toxicities, although low, were more common for PBI than WBI. The trial population was heterogeneous, ranging from Stage 0-2 breast cancer, and outcome by risk categories are being analyzed.

Support: U10CA180868, -180822, UG1CA189867.

Citation Format: Vicini FA, Cecchini RS, White JR, Julian TB, Arthur DW, Rabinovitch RA, Kuske RR, Parda DS, Ganz PA, Scheier MF, Winter KA, Paik S, Kuerer HM, Vallow LA, Pierce LJ, Mamounas EP, Costantino JP, Bear HD, Germaine I, Gustafson G, Grossheim L, Petersen IA, Hudes RS, Curran, Jr. WJ, Wolmark N. Primary results of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 (NRG Oncology): A randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus partial breast irradiation (PBI) for women with stage 0, I, or II breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-04.

Epithelioid angiosarcoma of the vulva: A case report

•

Vulvar angiosarcoma in a patient with pelvic radiation and chronic lymphedema

•

Epithelioid histologic staining positive for vimentin, ERG, CD31

•

Gross appearance of violaceous hyperpigmentation of the mons pubis

Psychological benefits of theater-depicting cancer treatment

203

Background: The number of cancer survivors in the United States is increasing and estimated to exceed 13 million. Consequently, the quality of life of these patients and their family members has become a high priority. The best interventions to decrease distress, improve coping and quality of life for survivors are poorly understood but are becoming an important focus of research. We therefore, undertook a prospective pilot study using a questionnaire to measure the emotional impact of a play depicting cancer treatment on cancer survivors and their family members. This research project was reviewed and approved by the West Michigan Cancer Center Institutional Review Board (IRB). Methods: The emotional feelings and perceived levels of coping were measured and compared before and after the play. Statistical analyses of responses included chi-square and t-tests for continuous variables, or Fisher’s test or Wilcoxon’s test where parametric assumptions were not met. Results: A total of 60 survivors and 49 family members completed the research questionnaire. The most promising finding was that a majority of survivors and family members 51.0% (n = 50) felt they were coping better (p < 0.0001) after the play. Of the survivors, 73.0% said the play reflected their experiences and 78.0% felt it was helpful dealing with their emotions. Overall, 94.0% of those attending the play requested additional theater performances. Conclusions: Our preliminary data demonstrates that theater depicting cancer treatment has a strong emotional impact and potential therapeutic effects for cancer survivors and family members. Increased feelings of coping with the diagnosis occurred following the play. Attendees also felt less alone (59.5%) and more hopeful (53.4%) after the play.

Phase II trial of concomitant low dose temozolomide with external beam radiation (EBRT) followed by 12 months of temozolomide and irinotecan for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM): Preliminary results of RTOG 04–20

1510

Background: Irinotecan and temozolomide compare favorably to regimens tested in recurrent GBM. RTOG 04–20 intensifies the Stupp R, et al. (N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):987–96) adjuvant regimen, using irinotecan and temozolomide in place of temozolomide alone. Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed histologically confirmed, supratentorial GBM were eligible. Subjects began temozolomide 75mg/m2 daily the night before initiation of EBRT, and continued until the final day of RT. Pneumocystis prophylaxis was begun prior to RT and for 2 weeks following RT. Within 6 wks after EBRT, subjects with stable or improved MRI were scheduled to receive temozolomide 150mg/m2 on days 1–5, and irinotecan 200mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 of 28 day cycles × 12. Clinical assessments and post contrast MRI are required prior to EBRT, after RT, and after every 2 treatment cycles. Only nonenzyme inducing anticonvulsants were allowed. Results: Accrual of 170 patients was completed in September 2005 with 140 patients currently evaluable. Median age is 57yr, 80% were RPA class III or IV. Prior to cycle 1 of adjuvant therapy, 32 subjects withdrew (20 progressed, 4 toxicity). Of the first 25 subjects receiving irinotecan, 10 suffered grade 3–4 hematologic toxicities in the initial 3 cycles. The protocol was modified by dose reducing irinotecan to 100mg/m2 in cycle 1, escalating to 150 and 200mg/2 in subsequent cycles only if no dose limiting hematologic toxicity occured. No data is yet available on patients who started adjuvant therapy at the lower dose of irinotecan. Diarrhea and constitutional symptoms are the most common nonhematologic toxicies Conclusions: Irinotecan 200mg/m2 days 1 and 15 with temozolomide 150mg/m2 days 1–5 of 28 day cycles was well tolerated treating recurrent GBM, but this regimen was too myelosuppressive when given after concomitant low dose temozolomide and EBRT. Primary outcome data should be available in late 2006.

[Table: see text]