Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 and Medical Evacuation in Lombardy: Lessons Learned from an Unprecedented Pandemic.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerging infectious disease pandemic developed in Lombardy (northern Italy) during the last week of February 2020 with a progressive increase of patients presenting with serious clinical findings. Despite the efforts of the Central Italian Government, regional resources were rapidly at capacity. The solution was to plan the medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) of 119 critically ill patients (median age 61 years) to in-patient intensive care units in other Italian regions (77) and Germany (42). Once surviving patients were deemed suitable, the repatriation process concluded the assignment. The aim of this report is to underline the importance of a rapid organization and coordination process between different nodes of an effective national and international network during an emerging infectious disease outbreak and draw lessons learned from similar published reports.

Rapid reorganization of the Milan metropolitan public safety answering point operations during the initial phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy.

Objective: To quantify how the first public announcement of confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Italy affected a metropolitan region's emergency medical services (EMS) call volume and how rapid introduction of alternative procedures at the public safety answering point (PSAP) managed system resources. Methods: PSAP processes were modified over several days including (1) referral of non-ill callers to public health information call centers; (2) algorithms for detection, isolation, or hospitalization of suspected COVID-19 patients; and (3) specialized medical teams sent to the PSAP for triage and case management, including ambulance dispatches or alternative dispositions. Call volumes, ambulance dispatches, and response intervals for the 2 weeks after announcement were compared to 2017-2019 data and the week before. Results: For 2 weeks following outbreak announcement, the primary-level PSAP (police/fire/EMS) averaged 56% more daily calls compared to prior years and recorded 9281 (106% increase) on Day 4, averaging ∼400/hour. The secondary-level (EMS) PSAP recorded an analogous 63% increase with 3863 calls (∼161/hour; 264% increase) on Day 3. The COVID-19 response team processed the more complex cases (n = 5361), averaging 432 ± 110 daily (∼one-fifth of EMS calls). Although community COVID-19 cases increased exponentially, ambulance response intervals and dispatches (averaging 1120 ± 46 daily) were successfully contained, particularly compared with the week before (1174 ± 40; P = 0.02). Conclusion: With sudden escalating EMS call volumes, rapid reorganization of dispatch operations using tailored algorithms and specially assigned personnel can protect EMS system resources by optimizing patient dispositions, controlling ambulance allocations and mitigating hospital impact. Prudent population-based disaster planning should strongly consider pre-establishing similar highly coordinated medical taskforce contingencies.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for localized prostate cancer using three different doses - 14 years of single-centre experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC) treated with 3D conformal high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) as monotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From March 2004 to November 2017, 277 men with LPC underwent 3D conformal HDR-BT as monotherapy, with a temporary implant. The dose prescription was: 38 Gy in 4 fractions (149 patients), 27 Gy in 2 fractions (41 patients), and 19-20 Gy in a single fraction (87 patients). Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were calculated. Acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity assessment were performed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. RESULTS: The mean age was 67 (range, 47-81) years. Overall, 145 patients were low-risk, 116 intermediate-risk, and 16 high-risk prostate cancer. After a median follow-up of six years (range, 6-160 months), bPFS, PFS, and CSS were 81%, 96%, and 97%, respectively. Dose prescription, initial prostate specific antigen (iPSA) ≥ 9,5 ng/ml, and high-risk disease resulted in prognostic factors regarding bPFS. Only G2-G3 acute or late GI and GU toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: HDR-BT as monotherapy is a valid and safe treatment modality for localized prostate cancer. After a long follow-up, patients receiving 19-20 Gy in a single fraction had a lower biochemical control rate compared to patients receiving 38 Gy in 4 fractions or 27 Gy in 2 fractions. Randomized prospective trials with a longer follow-up are necessary to confirm our results, and define total doses and dose per fraction for HDR-BT in patients with LPC.

Static and rotational intensity modulated techniques for head-neck cancer radiotherapy: a planning comparison.

PURPOSE: To compare helical Tomotherapy (HT), two volumetric-modulated arc techniques and conventional fixed-field intensity modulated techniques (S-IMRT) for head-neck (HN) cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen HN patients were considered. Four treatment plans were generated for each patient: HT, S-IMRT optimised with Eclipse treatment planning system and two volumetric techniques using Elekta-Oncentra approach (VMAT) and Varian-RapidArc (RA), using two full arcs. All techniques were optimised to simultaneously deliver 66Gy to PTV1 (GTV and enlarged nodes) and 54Gy to PTV2 (subclinical and electively treated nodes). Comparisons were assessed on several dosimetric parameters and, secondarily, on planned MUs and delivery time. RESULTS: Concerning PTV coverage, significantly better results were found for HT and RA. HT significantly improved the target coverage both compared to S-IMRT and VMAT. No significant differences were found between S-IMRT and volumetric techniques in terms of dose homogeneity. For OARs, all the techniques were able to satisfy all hard constraints; significantly better results were found for HT, especially in the intermediate dose range (15-30 Gy). S-IMRT reached a significantly better OARs sparing with respect to VMAT and RA. No significant differences were found for body mean dose, excepting higher values of V5-V10 for HT. A reduction of planned MUs and delivery treatment time was found with volumetric techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The objectives of satisfying target coverage and sparing of critical structures were reached with all techniques. S-IMRT techniques were found more advantageous compared to RA and VMAT for OARs sparing. HT reached the best overall treatment plan quality.