The addition of chemotherapy with fluorouracil and cisplatin to treatment with external-beam and intracavitary radiation significantly improved survival among women with locally advanced cervical cancer.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents clinicians a unique set of challenges in managing breast cancer (BC) patients. As hospital resources and staff become more limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes critically important to define which BC patients require more urgent care and which patients can wait for treatment until the pandemic is over. In this Special Communication, we use expert opinion of representatives from multiple cancer care organizations to categorize BC patients into priority levels (A, B, C) for urgency of care across all specialties. Additionally, we provide treatment recommendations for each of these patient scenarios. Priority A patients have conditions that are immediately life threatening or symptomatic requiring urgent treatment. Priority B patients have conditions that do not require immediate treatment but should start treatment before the pandemic is over. Priority C patients have conditions that can be safely deferred until the pandemic is over. The implementation of these recommendations for patient triage, which are based on the highest level available evidence, must be adapted to current availability of hospital resources and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in each region of the country. Additionally, the risk of disease progression and worse outcomes for patients need to be weighed against the risk of patient and staff exposure to SARS CoV-2 (virus associated with the COVID-19 pandemic). Physicians should use these recommendations to prioritize care for their BC patients and adapt treatment recommendations to the local context at their hospital.

No abstract

No abstract

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is causing a worldwide pandemic that may lead to a highly morbid and potentially fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is currently no drug that has been proven as an effective therapy for COVID-19. Several candidate drugs are being considered and evaluated for treatment. This includes clinically available drugs, such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir, which are being repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. Novel experimental therapies, such as remdesivir and favipiravir, are also actively being investigated for antiviral efficacy. Clinically available and investigational immunomodulators, such as the interleukin 6 inhibitors tocilizumab and sarilumab and the antiegranulocyte-macrophage colonystimulating factor lenzilumab, are being tested for their anticipated effect in counteracting the proinflammatory cytokine environment that characterizes severe and critical COVID-19. This review article examines the evidence behind the potential use of these leading drug candidates for the treatment of COVID-19. The authors conclude, based on this review, that there is still no high-quality evidence to support any of these proposed drug therapies. The authors, therefore, encourage the enrollment of eligible patients to multiple ongoing clinical trials that assess the efficacy and safety of these candidate therapies. Until the results of controlled trials are available, none of the suggested therapeutics is clinically proven as an effective therapy for COVID-19.

Early experience demonstrates that the electronic brachytherapy system performed as expected. Electronic brachytherapy has similar acute toxicity profiles to other high dose rate approaches for accelerated partial breast irradiation and offers the convenience of having the treatment in an unshielded room.

Multidrug‐resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections often represent a therapeutic challenge requiring utilization of older, more toxic antibiotics, or new agents with limited data. Once susceptibility to β‐lactam and fluoroquinolone antibiotics has been lost, other therapeutic options such as aminoglycoside or polymyxin antibiotics carry significant adverse effects such as nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and ototoxicity. A novel cephalosporin, cefiderocol, lacks gram‐positive and anaerobic activity but offers broad coverage of gram‐negative bacteria, including P. aeruginosa. A unique catechol side chain gives it activity as a siderophore, thereby increasing bacterial uptake and decreasing efflux. Additionally, cefiderocol is stable against a wide array of β‐lactamases. Despite these promising characteristics, there are minimal data currently available in the literature detailing the use of cefiderocol in the treatment of MDR P. aeruginosa infections. We present a case of a 46‐year‐old man who developed an MDR P. aeruginosa intraabdominal infection where serious and life‐threatening toxicities to aminoglycosides and polymyxin antibiotics led to the utilization of cefiderocol on compassionate use approval. The isolate was susceptible to cefiderocol, and the patient was treated for 28 days of therapy. He demonstrated clinical and radiographic resolution of his infection and was discharged to home.

Seasonal influenza imposes an enormous burden on society every year, yet many people refuse to obtain flu shots due to misconceptions of the flu vaccine. We argue that recent research in psychology and behavioral economics may provide the answers to why people hold mistaken beliefs about flu shots, how we can correct these misconceptions, and what policy-makers can do to increase flu vaccination rates.