Background Cancer patients are thought to have an increased risk of developing severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and of dying from the disease. In this work, predictive factors for COVID-19 severity and mortality in cancer patients were investigated. Patients and Methods In this large nationwide retro-prospective cohort study, we collected data on patients with solid tumours and COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1 and June 11, 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and COVID-19 severity, defined as admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or mechanical ventilation and/or death, was one of the secondary endpoints. Results From April 4 to June 11, 2020, 1289 patients were analysed. The most frequent cancers were digestive and thoracic. Altogether, 424 (33%) patients had a severe form of COVID-19 and 370 (29%) patients died. In multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with death were male sex (odds ratio 1.73, 95%CI: 1.18-2.52), ECOG PS ≥ 2 (OR 3.23, 95%CI: 2.27-4.61), updated Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.16) and admission to ICU (OR 3.62, 95%CI 2.14-6.11). The same factors, age along with corticosteroids before COVID-19 diagnosis, and thoracic primary tumour site were independently associated with COVID-19 severity. None of the anticancer treatments administered within the previous 3 months had any effect on mortality or COVID-19 severity, except cytotoxic chemotherapy in the subgroup of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR, which was associated with a slight increase of the risk of death (OR 1.53; 95%CI: 1.00-2.34; p = 0.05). A total of 431 (39%) patients had their systemic anticancer treatment interrupted or stopped following diagnosis of COVID-19. Conclusions Mortality and COVID-19 severity in cancer patients are high and are associated with general characteristics of patients. We found no deleterious effects of recent anticancer treatments, except for cytotoxic chemotherapy in the RT-PCR-confirmed subgroup of patients. In almost 40% of patients, the systemic anticancer therapy was interrupted or stopped after COVID-19 diagnosis.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Early stage Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive primary skin cancer. The standard of care for MCC is broad excision and adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). However, for some patients, anesthesia is contraindicated, while others run the risk of serious aesthetic sequelae. In such cases, exclusive radiotherapy is an interesting alternative to surgery. Though limited data is available, this study evaluates exclusive radiotherapy for MCC, using data from the largest retrospective study to date. Methods All patients who were followed in our center between 1989 and 2019 for histologically proven early stage MCC were included in the study. They were treated either by surgery with a 2-cm clear margin followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or by exclusive RT. Survival rates with adjuvant and exclusive EBRT were analyzed using Cox model and Fine and Gray model depending on the type of survival. p value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results Eighty-four patients treated for MCC were included. Fifty-three of them (63.1%) were treated by exclusive RT, and 31 (36.9%) had surgical excision followed by adjuvant RT. Local relapse rate was 13.7% (95% CI 8.0–43.7) in the RT monotherapy group (group A) and 25.8% (95% CI 10.3–56.2) in the surgery + RT group (group B) (p = 0.42). No statistical difference was found for nodal relapse (p = 0.81), metastatic relapse (p = 0.10), disease free survival (p = 0.83) or overall survival (p = 0.98). Conclusion Our study suggests that exclusive radiotherapy for early Merkel cell carcinoma leads to a similar oncological outcome as combined treatment, with fewer aesthetic sequelae. The approach is interesting for elderly patients with comorbidities or patients for whom surgery would cause significant functional or aesthetic sequelae.

We treated by splenic irradiation eight patients with chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP, seven cases) or secondary autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura (one case) who had contra-indications to splenectomy. A total dose of 15 Gy was delivered to the spleen, with left kidney protection. One patient had a good durable response (> 1 year); two patients had a good transient response (of 3 months duration) but they responded again to a second course of irradiation; two patients had only partial response, but have required no other treatments for 2 years; the three remaining patients had no response. Side-effects were minor. Therefore splenic irradiation appears to be a therapeutic option in patients with chronic ITP who have contra-indications to splenectomy.

ORCID: 0000–0001-6019–7309. In the treatment of breast cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reportedly reduces the high-dose irradiation of at-risk organs and decreases the frequency of adverse events (AEs). Comparisons with conventional radiotherapy have shown that IMRT is associated with lower frequencies of acute and late-onset AEs. Here, we extended a prospective, observational, single-center study of the safety of IMRT to a second investigating center. Patients scheduled for adjuvant IMRT after partial or total mastectomy were given a dose of 50 Gy (25 fractions of 2 Gy over 5 weeks), with a simultaneous integrated boost in patients having undergone conservative surgery. 300 patients were included in the study, and 288 were analyzed. The median follow-up period was 2.1 years. The 2-year disease-free survival rate [95% CI] was 93.4% [89.2–96.0%]. Most AEs were mild. The most common AEs were skin-related—mainly radiodermatitis [in 266 patients (92.4%)] and hyperpigmentation (in 178 (61.8%)). 35% and 6% of the patients presented with grade 2 acute skin and esophageal toxicity, respectively. Only 4 patients presented with a grade 3 event (radiodermatitis). Smoking (odds ratio) [95% CI] = 2.10 [1.14–3.87]; p = 0.017), no prior chemotherapy (0.52 [0.27–0.98]; p = 0.044), and D98% for subclavicular skin (1.030 [1.001–1.061]; p = 0.045) were associated with grade ≥ 2 acute AEs. In a univariate analysis, the mean dose, (p < 0.0001), D2% (p < 0.0001), D50% (p = 0.037), D95% (p = 0.0005), D98% (p = 0.0007), V30Gy (p < 0.0001), and V45Gy (p = 0.0001) were significantly associated with grade ≥ 1 acute esophageal AEs. In a multivariate analysis, D95% for the skin (p < 0.001), D98% for the subclavicular skin and low D95% for the internal mammary lymph nodes were associated with grade ≥ 1 medium-term AEs. The safety profile of adjuvant IMRT after partial or total mastectomy is influenced by dosimetric parameters.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02281149.

BackgroundInter-observer delineation variation has been detailed for many years in almost every tumor location. Inadequate delineation can impair the chance of cure and/or increase toxicity. The aim of our original work was to prospectively improve the homogeneity of delineation among all of the senior radiation oncologists in the Nord-Pas de Calais region, irrespective of the conditions of practice.MethodsAll 11 centers were involved. The first studied cancer was prostate cancer. Three clinical cases were studied: a low-risk prostate cancer case (case 1), a high-risk prostate cancer case (pelvic nodes, case 2) and a case of post-operative biochemical elevated PSA (case 3). All of the involved physicians delineated characteristically the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk. The volumes were compared using validated indexes: the volume ratio (VR), common and additional volumes (CV and AV), volume overlap (VO) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). A second delineation of the same three cases was performed after discussion of the slice results and the choice of shared guidelines to evaluate homogenization. A comparative analysis of the indexes before and after discussion was conducted using the Wilcoxon test for paired samples. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.ResultsThe indexes were not improved in case 1, for which the inter-observer agreement was considered good after the first comparison (DSC = 0.83±0.06). In case 2, the second comparison showed homogenization of the CTV delineation with a significant improvement in CV (81.4±11.7 vs. 88.6±10.26, respectively, p = 0.048), VO (0.41±0.09 vs. 0.47±0.07, respectively; p = 0.009) and DSC (0.58±0.09 vs. 0.63±0.07, respectively; p = 0.0098). In case 3, VR and AV were significantly improved: VR: 1.71(±0.6) vs. 1.34(±0.46), respectively, p = 0.0034; AV: 46.58(±14.50) vs. 38.08(±15.10), respectively, p = 0.0024. DSC was not improved, but it was already superior to 0.6 in the first comparison.ConclusionOur prospective work showed that a collaborative discussion about clinical cases and the choice of shared guidelines within an established framework improved the homogeneity of CTV delineation among the senior radiation oncologists in our region.

No abstract