Virtual Tumor Board Increases Provider Attendance and Case Presentations.

PURPOSE: Many cancer centers engage in multidisciplinary tumor board meetings to determine the optimal approach to complex cancer care. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions changed the format of these meetings from in-person to virtual. The aim of this study was to determine if the change to a virtual meeting format had an impact on attendance and cases presented. METHODS: Tumor board records were analyzed to obtain attendance and case presentation information at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Twelve-month in-person tumor board data were compared with 12-month virtual tumor board data to assess for difference in attendance and case presentation patterns. RESULTS: Seven separate weekly tumor board meetings at the beginning of the study (breast, GI, gynecology, liver, lung, melanoma, and urology) were expanded to nine meetings on the virtual platform (+endocrine and pancreas). Overall attendance increased by 46% on the virtual platform compared with in-person meetings (4,030 virtual attendances v 2,753 in-person, P < .001). Increased attendance was present across all specialties on the virtual platform. In addition, the number of patient cases discussed increased from 2,127 in in-person meeting to 2,656 on the virtual platform (a 20% increase, P < .001). CONCLUSION: A significant increase was observed in overall tumor board attendance and in case presentations per meeting, requiring the expansion of additional weekly meetings. Furthermore, in a major cancer center with multiple community affiliates, virtual tumor boards may encourage increased participation from remote sites with the benefit of obtaining expert specialist advice as compared with geographically challenging in-person meetings.

Assessing the immediate impact of COVID-19 on surgical oncology practice: Experience from an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the Northeastern United States.

BACKGROUND: The effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical oncology practice are not yet quantified. The aim of this study was to measure the immediate impact of COVID-19 on surgical oncology practice volume. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients treated at an NCI-Comprehensive Cancer Center was performed. "Pre-COVID" era was defined as January-February 2020 and "COVID" as March-April 2020. Primary outcomes were clinic visits and operative volume by surgical oncology subspecialty. RESULTS: Abouyt 907 new patient visits, 3897 follow-up visits, and 644 operations occurred during the study period. All subspecialties experienced significant decreases in new patient visits during COVID, though soft tissue oncology (Mel/Sarc), gynecologic oncology (Gyn/Onc), and endocrine were disproportionately affected. Telehealth visits increased to 11.4% of all visits by April. Mel/Sarc, Gyn/Onc, and Breast experienced significant operative volume decreases during COVID (25.8%, p = 0.012, 43.6% p < 0.001, and 41.9%, p < 0.001, respectively), while endocrine had no change and gastrointestinal oncology had a slight increase (p = 0.823) in the number of cases performed. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are wide-ranging within surgical oncology subspecialties. The addition of telehealth is a viable avenue for cancer patient care and should be considered in surgical oncology practice.

Role of Adjuvant Multimodality Therapy After Curative-Intent Resection of Ampullary Carcinoma.

Importance: Ampullary adenocarcinoma is a rare malignant neoplasm that arises within the duodenal ampullary complex. The role of adjuvant therapy (AT) in the treatment of ampullary adenocarcinoma has not been clearly defined. Objective: To determine if long-term survival after curative-intent resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma may be improved by selection of patients for AT directed by histologic subtype. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational, retrospective cohort study was conducted at 12 institutions from April 1, 2000, to July 31, 2017, among 357 patients with resected, nonmetastatic ampullary adenocarcinoma receiving surgery alone or AT. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify covariates associated with overall survival. The surgery alone and AT cohorts were matched 1:1 by propensity scores based on the likelihood of receiving AT or by survival hazard from Cox modeling. Overall survival was compared with Kaplan-Meier estimates. Exposures: Adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil- or gemcitabine-based) with or without radiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival. Results: A total of 357 patients (156 women and 201 men; median age, 65.8 years [interquartile range, 58-74 years]) underwent curative-intent resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma. Patients with intestinal subtype had a longer median overall survival compared with those with pancreatobiliary subtype (77 vs 54 months; P = .05). Histologic subtype was not associated with AT administration (intestinal, 52.9% [101 of 191]; and pancreatobiliary, 59.5% [78 of 131]; P = .24). Patients with pancreatobiliary histologic subtype most commonly received gemcitabine-based regimens (71.0% [22 of 31]) or combinations of gemcitabine and fluorouracil (12.9% [4 of 31]), whereas treatment of those with intestinal histologic subtype was more varied (fluorouracil, 50.0% [17 of 34]; gemcitabine, 44.1% [15 of 34]; P = .01). In the propensity score-matched cohort, AT was not associated with a survival benefit for either histologic subtype (intestinal: hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.67-2.16; P = .53; pancreatobiliary: hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.66-2.76; P = .41). Conclusions and Relevance: Adjuvant therapy was more frequently used in patients with poor prognostic factors but was not associated with demonstrable improvements in survival, regardless of tumor histologic subtype. The value of a multimodality regimen remains poorly defined.

NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0822: A Phase 2 Study of Preoperative Chemoradiation Therapy Using Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Combination With Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin for Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the rate of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of neoadjuvant chemoradiation with capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in cT3-4 rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with localized, nonmetastatic T3 or T4 rectal cancer <12 cm from the anal verge were enrolled in a prospective, multi-institutional, single-arm study of preoperative chemoradiation. Patients received 45 Gy with IMRT in 25 fractions, followed by a 3-dimensional conformal boost of 5.4 Gy in 3 fractions with concurrent capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX). Surgery was performed 4 to 8 weeks after the completion of therapy. Patients were recommended to receive FOLFOX chemotherapy after surgery. The primary endpoint of the study was acute grade 2 to 5 GI toxicity. Seventy-one patients provided 80% probability to detect at least a 12% reduction in the specified GI toxicity with the treatment of CAPOX and IMRT, at a significance level of .10 (1-sided). RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were accrued, of whom 68 were evaluable. Sixty-one patients (89.7%) had cT3 disease, and 37 (54.4%) had cN (+) disease. Postoperative chemotherapy was given to 42 of 68 patients. Fifty-eight patients had target contours drawn per protocol, 5 patients with acceptable variation, and 5 patients with unacceptable variations. Thirty-five patients (51.5%) experienced grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity, 12 patients (17.6%) experienced grade 3 or 4 diarrhea, and pCR was achieved in 10 patients (14.7%). With a median follow-up time of 3.98 years, the 4-year rate of locoregional failure was 7.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0%-13.7%). The 4-year rates of OS and DFS were 82.9% (95% CI: 70.1%-90.6%) and 60.6% (95% CI: 47.5%-71.4%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of IMRT in neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer did not reduce the rate of GI toxicity.

The influence of prognostic factors and adjuvant chemoradiation on survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for ampullary carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The prognosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for ampullary carcinoma (AC) is superior to that of pancreatic cancer. Decisions regarding adjuvant therapy are influenced by factors such as nodal status, stage, and grade, but the influence of these individual variables on survival is unclear. METHODS: A prospective tumor registry database was queried to identify patients who underwent PD for AC at Thomas Jefferson University between Jan 1997 and Apr 2009. The study was conducted with the approval of the institutional review board. Data were collected through review of hospital and departmental charts. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. The proportional hazard assumption was verified for the overall model and individual covariates. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients underwent PD for AC at our institution. There were five perioperative deaths (8.2%). Mean age was 70 years (62% male). Median survival time (MST) was 50 months for all patients. Only primary tumor stage, T1/T2 versus T3/T4 (American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging, version 6), was associated with OS in univariate analyses (p = 0.003). The association of nodal status with OS was borderline-significant (p = 0.08), with the MST being 84 months for node-negative and 17 months for node-positive patients. The remaining covariates were not predictors of OS. In the multivariate analysis, only primary tumor stage (HR, 5.1; p < 0.001) and age (HR, 1.04; p = 0.06), but not nodal status or adjuvant therapy, were associated with overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced primary tumor stage and age were associated with inferior OS after PD for AC. Adjuvant therapy did not impact survival. Patients with advanced tumor stage should be considered for clinical trials of adjuvant therapy after PD with novel compounds and optimized radiation therapy strategies.