A COVID19 lockdown in India posed signi cant challenges to the continuation of radiotherapy (RT) and systemic therapy services. While several COVID19 service guidelines have been promulgated, implementation data is yet unavailable. We performed a comprehensive audit of the implementation of services in a clinical oncology department. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A departmental protocol of priority-based treatment guidance was developed and a departmental staff rotation policy was implemented. Data was collected for the period of lockdown on outpatient visits, starting, and delivery of RT and systemic therapy. Adherence to protocol was audited, and factors affecting change from pre-COVID standards analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Outpatient consults dropped by 58%. Planned RT starts were implemented in 90%, 100%, 92%, 90% and 75% of priority level 1-5 patients. While 17% had a deferred start, the median time to start of adjuvant RT and overall treatment times were maintained. Concurrent chemotherapy was administered in 89% of those eligible. Systemic therapy was administered to 84.5% of planned patients with 33% and 57% of curative and palliative patients receiving modi ed or deferred cycles. The patient's inability to come was the commonest reason for RT or ST deviation. Factors independently associated with a change from pre-COVID practice was priority level allocation for RT and age and palliative intent for systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite signi cant access limitations a planned priority-based system of delivery of treatment could be implemented.

Background During the COVID-19 lockdown, referrals via the 2-week-wait urgent pathway for suspected cancer in England, UK, are reported to have decreased by up to 84%. We aimed to examine the impact of different scenarios of lockdown-accumulated backlog in cancer referrals on cancer survival, and the impact on survival per referred patient due to delayed referral versus risk of death from nosocomial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Methods In this modelling study, we used age-stratified and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England, UK, for 20 common tumour types diagnosed in 2008–17 at age 30 years and older from Public Health England. We also used data for cancer diagnoses made via the 2-week-wait referral pathway in 2013–16 from the Cancer Waiting Times system from NHS Digital. We applied per-day hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer progression that we generated from observational studies of delay to treatment. We quantified the annual numbers of cancers at stage I–III diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway using 2-week-wait age-specific and stage-specific breakdowns. From these numbers, we estimated the aggregate number of lives and life-years lost in England for per-patient delays of 1–6 months in presentation, diagnosis, or cancer treatment, or a combination of these. We assessed three scenarios of a 3-month period of lockdown during which 25%, 50%, and 75% of the normal monthly volumes of symptomatic patients delayed their presentation until after lockdown. Using referral-to-diagnosis conversion rates and COVID-19 case-fatality rates, we also estimated the survival increment per patient referred. Findings Across England in 2013–16, an average of 6281 patients with stage I–III cancer were diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway per month, of whom 1691 (27%) would be predicted to die within 10 years from their disease. Delays in presentation via the 2-week-wait pathway over a 3-month lockdown period (with an average presentational delay of 2 months per patient) would result in 181 additional lives and 3316 life-years lost as a result of a backlog of referrals of 25%, 361 additional lives and 6632 life-years lost for a 50% backlog of referrals, and 542 additional lives and 9948 life-years lost for a 75% backlog in referrals. Compared with all diagnostics for the backlog being done in month 1 after lockdown, additional capacity across months 1–3 would result in 90 additional lives and 1662 live-years lost due to diagnostic delays for the 25% backlog scenario, 183 additional lives and 3362 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 276 additional lives and 5075 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. However, a delay in additional diagnostic capacity with provision spread across months 3–8 after lockdown would result in 401 additional lives and 7332 life-years lost due to diagnostic delays under the 25% backlog scenario, 811 additional lives and 14 873 life-years l...

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) prioritisation to mitigate the impact of delays in the colorectal cancer (CRC) urgent diagnostic (2-week-wait (2WW)) pathway consequent from the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignWe modelled the reduction in CRC survival and life years lost resultant from per-patient delays of 2–6 months in the 2WW pathway. We stratified by age group, individual-level benefit in CRC survival versus age-specific nosocomial COVID-19–related fatality per referred patient undergoing colonoscopy. We modelled mitigation strategies using thresholds of FIT triage of 2, 10 and 150 µg Hb/g to prioritise 2WW referrals for colonoscopy. To construct the underlying models, we employed 10-year net CRC survival for England 2008–2017, 2WW pathway CRC case and referral volumes and per-day-delay HRs generated from observational studies of diagnosis-to-treatment interval.ResultsDelay of 2/4/6 months across all 11 266 patients with CRC diagnosed per typical year via the 2WW pathway were estimated to result in 653/1419/2250 attributable deaths and loss of 9214/20 315/32 799 life years. Risk–benefit from urgent investigatory referral is particularly sensitive to nosocomial COVID-19 rates for patients aged >60. Prioritisation out of delay for the 18% of symptomatic referrals with FIT >10 µg Hb/g would avoid 89% of these deaths attributable to presentational/diagnostic delay while reducing immediate requirement for colonoscopy by >80%.ConclusionsDelays in the pathway to CRC diagnosis and treatment have potential to cause significant mortality and loss of life years. FIT triage of symptomatic patients in primary care could streamline access to colonoscopy, reduce delays for true-positive CRC cases and reduce nosocomial COVID-19 mortality in older true-negative 2WW referrals. However, this strategy offers benefit only in short-term rationalisation of limited endoscopy services: the appreciable false-negative rate of FIT in symptomatic patients means most colonoscopies will still be required.

Purpose Where multiple in silico tools are concordant, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) framework affords supporting evidence toward pathogenicity or benignity, equivalent to a likelihood ratio of ~2. However, limited availability of “clinical truth sets” and prior use in tool training limits their utility for evaluation of tool performance. Methods We created a truth set of 9,436 missense variants classified as deleterious or tolerated in clinically validated high-throughput functional assays for BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH2, PTEN, and TP53 to evaluate predictive performance for 44 recommended/commonly used in silico tools. Results Over two-thirds of the tool–threshold combinations examined had specificity of <50%, thus substantially overcalling deleteriousness. REVEL scores of 0.8–1.0 had a Positive Likelihood Ratio (PLR) of 6.74 (5.24–8.82) compared to scores <0.7 and scores of 0–0.4 had a Negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR) of 34.3 (31.5–37.3) compared to scores of >0.7. For Meta-SNP, the equivalent PLR = 42.9 (14.4–406) and NLR = 19.4 (15.6–24.9). Conclusion Against these clinically validated “functional truth sets," there was wide variation in the predictive performance of commonly used in silico tools. Overall, REVEL and Meta-SNP had best balanced accuracy and might potentially be used at stronger evidence weighting than current ACMG/AMP prescription, in particular for predictions of benignity.

Accurate classification of variants in cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) is key for correct estimation of cancer risk and management of patients. Consistency in the weighting assigned to individual elements of evidence has been much improved by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) 2015 framework for variant classification, UK Association for Clinical Genomic Science (UK-ACGS) Best Practice Guidelines and subsequent Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK (CanVIG-UK) consensus specification for CSGs. However, considerable inconsistency persists regarding practice in the combination of evidence elements. CanVIG-UK is a national subspecialist multidisciplinary network for cancer susceptibility genomic variant interpretation, comprising clinical scientist and clinical geneticist representation from each of the 25 diagnostic laboratories/clinical genetic units across the UK and Republic of Ireland. Here, we summarise the aggregated evidence elements and combinations possible within different variant classification schemata currently employed for CSGs (ACMG, UK-ACGS, CanVIG-UK and ClinGen gene-specific guidance for PTEN, TP53 and CDH1). We present consensus recommendations from CanVIG-UK regarding (1) consistent scoring for combinations of evidence elements using a validated numerical ‘exponent score’ (2) new combinations of evidence elements constituting likely pathogenic’ and ‘pathogenic’ classification categories, (3) which evidence elements can and cannot be used in combination for specific variant types and (4) classification of variants for which there are evidence elements for both pathogenicity and benignity.

No abstract

Germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in the cancer predisposition genesBRCA1,BRCA2,MLH1,MSH2,MSH6,BRIP1,PALB2,RAD51DandRAD51Care identified in approximately 15% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC). While there are clear guidelines around clinical management of cancer risk in patients with GPV inBRCA1,BRCA2,MLH1,MSH2andMSH6, there are few guidelines on how to manage the more moderate OC risk in patients with GPV inBRIP1,PALB2,RAD51DandRAD51C, with clinical questions about appropriateness and timing of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, while recognition ofRAD51Cand RAD51Das OC predisposition genes has been established for several years, an association with breast cancer (BC) has only more recently been described and clinical management of this risk has been unclear. With expansion of genetic testing of these genes to all patients with non-mucinous OC, new data on BC risk and improved estimates of OC risk, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and CanGene-CanVar project convened a 2-day meeting to reach a national consensus on clinical management ofBRIP1,PALB2,RAD51DandRAD51Ccarriers in clinical practice. In this paper, we present a summary of the processes used to reach and agree on a consensus, as well as the key recommendations from the meeting.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruption across cancer pathways for diagnosis and treatment. In England, 32% of colorectal cancer (CRC) is diagnosed via urgent symptomatic referral from primary care, the "2-week-wait" (2WW) pathway. Access to routine endoscopy is likely to be a critical bottleneck causing delays in CRC management due to chronic limitation in capacity, acute competition for physician time, and safety concerns. Methods: We used age-specific, stage-specific 10 year CRC survival for England 2007-2017 and 2WW CRC cases volumes. We used per-day hazard ratios of CRC survival generated from observational studies of CRC diagnosis-to-treatment interval to model the effect of different durations of per-patient delay. We utilised data from a large London observational study of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in symptomatic patients to model FIT-triage to mitigate delay to colonoscopy. Findings: Modest delays result in significant reduction in survival from CRC with a 4-month delay resulting across age groups in ≥20% reduction in survival in Stage 3 disease and in total over a year, 1,419 attributable deaths across the 11,266 CRC patients diagnosed via the 2WW pathway. FIT triage of >10 ug Hb/g would salvage 1,292/1,419 of the attributable deaths and reduce colonoscopy requirements by >80%. Diagnostic colonoscopy offers net survival in all age groups, providing nosocomial COVID-19 infection rates are kept low (<2.5%). Interpretation To avoid significant numbers of avoidable deaths from CRC, normal diagnostic and surgical throughput must be maintained. An accrued backlog of cases will present to primary care following release of lockdown, supranormal endoscopy capacity will be required to manage this without undue delays. FIT-triage of symptomatic cases provides a rational approach by which to avoid patient delay and mitigate pressure on capacity in endoscopy. This would also reduce exposure to nosocomial COVID-19 infection, relevant in particular to older patient groups. Funding: Breast Cancer Now, Cancer Research UK, Bobby Moore Fund for Cancer Research, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).