RESUMEN
PURPOSE: During the first weeks of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in France, it was necessary to clearly define organizational priorities in the radiation therapy (RT) departments. In this report, we focus on the urgent measures taken to reduce risk for both our staff and patients by reducing the number of patients receiving treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the fractionation schemes for all patients in our department, including those receiving treatment and those soon to start treatment. Our goals were to (1) decrease the number of patients coming daily to the hospital for RT, (2) adapt our human resources to continue patients' care in the department, and (3) help to cover understaffed COVID-19 sectors of the hospital. RESULTS: We identified 50 patients who were receiving treatment (n = 6), were going to start radiation after CT scan simulation (n = 41), or for whom the CT scan was pending (n = 3). The majority were women (64%) treated for breast cancer (54%). RT was delayed for 22 (44%) patients. The majority were offered hormone therapy as "waiting therapy." Hypofractionation was considered in 21 (42%) patients mainly with breast cancer (18 of 21, 86%). The number of courses initially planned and replanned as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak during the period of March 15 to May 31, 2020, were 1383 and 683, respectively, which represented a reduction of 50% (including delayed sessions) that allowed our reorganization process. CONCLUSIONS: To conserve resources during the pandemic, we successfully reduced the number of patients receiving treatment in a proactive fashion and adapted our organization to minimize the risk of COVID-19 contamination. Departments across the world may benefit from this same approach.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: After radiation therapy (RT), various radiation-induced toxicities can develop in about one-fourth of patients. An international interest in using morbidity and mortality rates to monitor the quality of care and integrate morbidity and mortality review (MMR) meetings into organizations' governance processes has arisen. We report the first results of patients included in our MMR procedure that included biological assays for individual intrinsic radiosensitivity (IIRS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-three patients were prospectively included in the MMR database. Twenty-two were evaluable for IIRS. Prostate (n=10) and breast (n=8) cancers were the most frequent disease types. The total dose delivered, determined according to the type of disease, ranged from 30 to 74 Gy. Our MMR procedure requires strict criteria: patients with unresolved toxicity of grade 3 or higher with availability of clinical (photographic) data, IIRS results obtained from skin biopsy assays, treatment modalities, and follow-up data. The RT technique and dosimetry were reviewed. RESULTS: Our prospective registration of toxicities showed mainly rectitis, occurring in 7 cases, and skin toxicities, occurring in 9. Of the 7 patients with rectitis, 5 received 66 Gy of post-prostatectomy RT with V50 (rectum volume receiving 50 Gy) ranging from 45% to 75% and a mean maximal dose of 66.5 Gy. For dermatitis and cystitis, the mean maximal doses were in the range of classical constraints without any overdosage or dose heterogeneity. No errors were found in the review of treatment planning and positioning. Conversely, all the patients were considered biologically as radiosensitive with genomic instability and ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated)-dependent DNA double-strand break repair impairments. CONCLUSIONS: The MMR review of files allowed clear answers for patients on the relationship between clinical events and their IIRS. Our procedure has allowed education of all our staff to monitor, identify, and document clinical, physical, and biological aspects of radiation-induced toxicities. Thus we recommend the introduction of the MMR procedure in RT departments.