Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, and it is estimated that over 18·1 million new cases are diagnosed annually. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted almost every aspect of the provision and management of cancer care worldwide. The time-critical nature of COVID-19 diagnosis and the large number of patients requiring hospitalisation necessitated the rerouting of already limited resources available for cancer services and programmes to the care of COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, the stringent social distancing, restricted in-hospital visits and lockdown measures instituted by various governments resulted in the disruption of the oncologic continuum including screening, diagnostic and prevention programmes, treatments and follow-up services as well as research and clinical trial programmes.

We searched several databases from October 2020 to January 2021 for relevant studies published in English between 2020 and 2021 and reporting on the impact of COVID-19 on the cancer care continuum. This narrative review paper describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cancer patient care continuum from screening and prevention to treatments and ongoing management of patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted cancer care and the management of cancer services and patients. Nevertheless, the oncology healthcare communities worldwide have done phenomenal work with joint and collaborative efforts, utilising best available evidence-based guidelines to continue to give safe and effective treatments for cancer patients while maintaining the safety of patients, healthcare professionals and the general population. Nevertheless, several healthcare centres are now faced with significant challenges with the management of the backlog of screening, diagnosis and treatment cases. It is imperative that governments, leaders of healthcare centres and healthcare professionals take all necessary actions and policies focused on minimising further system-level delays to cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment initiation and clearing of all backlogs cases from the COVID-19 pandemic in order to mitigate the negative impact on cancer outcomes.

Centrally located early-stage non-small cell lung cancer in patients who are unfit for surgery are treated with fractionated radiotherapy. We present the outcomes of a moderately hypofractionated accelerated dose regimen of 50 Gy in 15 fractions from a single centre in the UK.

Electronic case notes and radiotherapy records of lung cancer patients treated between January 2014 and December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 score was used to evaluate comorbidities. Mean lung doses and percentage of lung receiving more than 20 Gy were calculated for all patients. Survival outcomes were estimated using Kaplan–Meier curves.

Fifty-three patients were included in the study; the median follow-up was 20.2 months. 87% of patients had stage I disease. There was no 30-day post-treatment mortality. Ninety-day mortality rate after radiotherapy was 3.8%. Grade 2 pneumonitis was seen in five patients while no grade 3 or 4 pneumonitis was observed. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 18.5 months and 28.2 months, respectively. The estimated 1 and 2 years PFS were 62.3% and 41.3%, respectively, and OS were 77.4% and 56.6%, respectively. Worsening performance status was associated with worse survival on cox regression analysis. Disease relapsed in 36% of patients. 7.5% of patients with relapsed disease had infield recurrence.

50 Gy in 15 fractions radiotherapy for central early-stage lung cancer is a feasible choice that requires further randomised trials.

To study the effect of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) on Fast-Forward trial for left-sided breast radiotherapy dosimetrically using tangential field-in-field (FiF), flattening filtered volumetric-modulated arc therapy (FF-VMAT) and flattening filter free volumetric-modulated arc therapy (FFF-VMAT) in comparison with free breathing (FB).

Computed tomography images were acquired on 15 patients with carcinoma of left breast in FB and DIBH. Planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk were contoured on both image sets. Dose of 26 Gy in five daily fractions was prescribed to PTV. FiF, FF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT plans were created in treatment planning system on both FB and DIBH. PTV V95%, V107%, D0·1 cc, CI and HI, heart V1·5 Gy, V7 Gy, lung left V8 Gy, monitor units (MU) and beam ON time were used for evaluation. Different technique analysis in same breathing condition and FB versus DIBH for same planning technique were performed.

Mean of all 15 patients was reported as mean ± 1 standard deviation. PTV V95% was 97·55 ± 0·10 (FiF), 95·75 ± 0·66 (FF-VMAT) and 96·15 ± 0·46 (FFF-VMAT) in FB while 97·34 ± 0·50 (FiF), 96·03 ± 0·71 (FF-VMAT) and 95·86 ± 0·63 (FFF-VMAT) in DIBH. Heart V7 Gy was 8·53 ± 4·26 (FiF), 8·86 ± 2·20 (FF-VMAT) and 9·27 ± 2·46 (FFF-VMAT) in FB while 6·30 ± 2·98 (FiF), 5·23 ± 2·20 (FF-VMAT) and 4·68 ± 2·01 (FFF-VMAT) in DIBH. p-value of heart V7 Gy between FB and DIBH was 0·278 (FiF), 0·009 (FF-VMAT) and 0·003 (FFF-VMAT). Beam ON time for FFF-VMAT was reduced by 65% (FF-VMAT) and 11% (FiF).

Conformal dose to PTV was achieved better with VMAT plans. FFF-VMAT was delivered in less time compared to FF-VMAT and FiF for 26 Gy in five fractions. Heart dose can be significantly minimised with DIBH for VMAT plans.

Variation in delineation of target volumes/organs at risk (OARs) is well recognised in radiotherapy and may be reduced by several methods including teaching. We evaluated the impact of teaching on contouring variation for thoracic/pelvic stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) during a virtual contouring workshop.

Target volume/OAR contours produced by workshop participants for three cases were evaluated against reference contours using DICE similarity coefficient (DSC) and line domain error (LDE) metrics. Pre- and post-workshop DSC results were compared using Wilcoxon signed ranks test to determine the impact of teaching during the workshop.

Of 50 workshop participants, paired pre- and post-workshop contours were available for 21 (42%), 20 (40%) and 22 (44%) participants for primary lung cancer, pelvic bone metastasis and pelvic node metastasis cases, respectively. Statistically significant improvements post-workshop in median DSC and LDE results were observed for 6 (50%) and 7 (58%) of 12 structures, respectively, although the magnitude of DSC/LDE improvement was modest in most cases. An increase in median DSC post-workshop ≥0·05 was only observed for GTVbone, IGTVlung and SacralPlex, and reduction in median LDE > 1 mm was only observed for GTVbone, CTVbone and SacralPlex. Post-workshop, median DSC values were >0·7 for 75% of structures. For 92% of the structures, post-workshop contours were considered to be acceptable or within acceptable variation following review by the workshop faculty.

This study has demonstrated that virtual SABR contouring training is feasible and was associated with some improvements in contouring variation for multiple target volumes/OARs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the introduction of alternative on-treatment and post-treatment radiographer-led review clinics in an attempt to protect patients, staff and the public. Pre-COVID, patient reviews were routinely undertaken face-to-face, led by therapeutic review radiographers with advanced practice qualifications and skills in radiotherapy symptom management, triage, referral and support services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an alternative option has been to follow-up in the form of telephone reviews to reduce face-to-face exposure whilst continuing to manage patient radiotherapy treatment-related toxicities. The aim of the narrative review is to explore the subject of telephone reviews and how therapeutic review radiographers might need to adapt communication skills so that they can continue to effectively assess and manage radiotherapy patient treatment reactions remotely.

A narrative review was conducted using the SCOPUS database and 28 publications were included from 2013 to 2021. The review highlights a paucity of literature exploring specific telephone training for radiographers and other allied healthcare professionals. Experiences within medical and nursing programmes demonstrate that development and integration of training in this area is critical in preparing for patient interaction via telephone.

Multiple teaching modalities including simulation are ideal for teaching telephone-specific skills and content, demonstrating improvement in student knowledge, competence and confidence. Less is known regarding whether this knowledge translates to an improved patient experience. Enhancements in education and training, guided by the Health and Care Professions Council, may be warranted to ensure that patients continue to receive the optimal quality of care in a world where remote reviews are likely to become commonplace. Patient-reported outcome measures might be utilized for future training evaluations to ensure that effective patient care is being maintained.

Identifying the patients at higher risk for poor outcomes after radiotherapy (RT) during coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) era is an unmet clinical need.

The Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, PubMed and Wiley-Blackwell Cochrane Library databases were searched. Eligible studies were required to address the outcomes of cancer patients who underwent RT during the COVID-19 era. The primary outcome was early mortality, while secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and use of mechanical ventilation. Pooled event rates were calculated, and meta-regression and ‘leave-one-out’ sensitivity analyses were performed.

Twelve eligible studies were included out of 928. The prevalence of early mortality after COVID-19 infection was 21·0%. The prevalence of hospital admission, ICU admission and mechanical ventilation was 78·1, 15·4 and 20·0%, respectively. Meta-regression showed that older age was significantly and positively associated with early mortality (β = 0·0765 ± 0·0349, p = 0·0284), while breast cancer was negatively associated with early mortality (β = −1·2754 ± 0·6373, p = 0·0454).

Older age adversely impacts the early mortality rate in cancer patients during COVID-19 era. The risks of interruption/delay of cancer treatment should be weighed against the risk of increased morbidity and mortality from the infection. A global registry is needed to establish international oncologic guidelines during the COVID-19 era.

During the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust Oncology Department incorporated the ultrahypofractionated regime of 26Gy/5 fractions alongside the moderate hypofractionated regime of 40Gy/15 fractions as part of local adjuvant breast radiotherapy treatment (RT) for eligible patients. We conducted a local study to assess the real-life experience of patients undergoing ultrahypofractionated schedule to compare feasibility and toxicity to the fast-forward trial during the COVID − 19 pandemic.

A single institution, retrospective, qualitative study. Patients included had early-stage breast cancer and received adjuvant radiotherapy between 23 March 2020 and 31 May 2020, a total of 211 patients. Inclusion was irrespective of any other neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatments. Data were collected retrospectively for treatment dose, boost dose and toxicity.

Of the total 211 patients, 85 were treated with 26Gy in 5# and 19 patients received a boost as per the fast-forward protocol. Of these 85 patients, 15·9% did not report any skin toxicity post-treatment. 63·5% of patients reported RTOG Grade 1, 15·9% had RTOG Grade 2, and 1·6% reported RTOG Grade 3 skin toxicity. 3·2% of the patients could not be contacted for follow-up. Of the 19 patients who received a breast boost, 10·53% reported no skin changes. 78·9% reported Grade 1 skin toxicity. Both Grades 2a and 2b skin toxicity were reported by 5·26% each. The patient demographics and tumour characteristics in our study cohort were comparable to those within the fast-forward trial. In terms of post-RT skin toxicity, fewer patients reported any toxicity in the UHB patient cohort versus those in the trial, and the number of Grade 2/3 toxicities reported was also low. A delay in toxicity reporting from 2 weeks for 40Gy/15 to 3 weeks for 26Gy/5 was observed.

Our study concluded that offering ultrahypofractionation was convenient for patients; reducing the number of hospital visits during the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic appeared safe in terms of acute post-RT-related skin toxicity. The reduced hospital visits limited exposure of patients and staff to the SARS-CoV-2 virus while also ensuring efficient use of Radiotherapy Department resources. Local follow-up protocols have been amended to ensure review at 3 weeks for the 26Gy/5 schedule to acknowledge the delay in acute toxicity development. To date, there is only 5-year toxicity and relapse data available from the fast-forward trial; therefore, hypofractionation schedules should be offered to patients as long as they fulfil the criteria and understand the limitations of the study as well as accelerated peer review processes in the face of the pandemic.

The impact of COVID-19 social restrictions on mental wellbeing of health professional students during placement is largely unknown. Conventional survey methods do not capture emotional fluctuations. Increasing use of smartphones suggests short message service (SMS) functionality could provide easy, rapid data. This project tested the feasibility and validity of gathering data on Therapeutic Radiography student mental wellbeing during clinical placement via emoji and SMS.

Participants provided anonymous daily emoji responses via WhatsApp to a dedicated mobile phone. Additional weekly prompts sought textual responses indicating factors impacting on wellbeing. A short anonymous online survey validated responses and provided feedback on the method.

Participants (n = 15) provided 254 daily responses using 108 different emoji; these triangulated with weekly textual responses. Feedback concerning the method was positive. ‘Happy’ emoji were used most frequently; social interaction and fatigue were important wellbeing factors. Anonymity and opportunity to feedback via SMS were received positively; ease and rapidity of response engendered engagement throughout the 3-week study.

The use of emoji for rapid assessment of cohort mental wellbeing is valid and potentially useful alongside more formal evaluation and support strategies. Capturing simple wellbeing responses from a cohort may facilitate the organisation of timely support interventions.

Patients presenting for radiation therapy (RT) at a single institution were analysed regarding treatment delays and disparities during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

The study was conducted at an urban multidisciplinary cancer centre. In April 2020, the institution’s radiation oncology department implemented universal COVID-19 screening protocols prior to RT initiation. COVID-19 testing information on cancer patients planned for RT from 04/2020 to 01/2021 was reviewed. Trends of other lifetime COVID-19 testing and overall care delays were also studied.

Two hundred and fifty-four consecutive cancer patients received RT. Median age was 63 years (range 24–94) and 57·9% (n = 147) were Black. Most (n = 107, 42·1%) patients were insured through Medicare. 42·9% (n = 109) presented with stage IV disease. One (0·4%) asymptomatic patient tested positive for COVID-19 pre-RT. The cohort received 975 lifetime COVID-19 tests (median 3 per patient, range 1–18) resulting in 29 positive test results across 21 patients. Sixteen patients had RT delays. Identifying as Hispanic/Latino was associated with testing positive for COVID-19 (p = 0·015) and RT delay (p = 0·029).

Most patients with cancer planned for RT tested negative for COVID-19 and proceeded to RT without delay. However, increased testing burden, delays in diagnostic workup and testing positive for COVID-19 may intensify disparities affecting this urban patient population.

The researcher’s centre was in a unique position of merging with another established radiotherapy centre to create a Satellite Site. It was noted that the Satellite Site delivered more fractions per linac within the same working day profile as the Main Site. Subtle differences in the workflows allowed for an appraisal of the processes within a fraction of radiotherapy and how this can be refined to improve efficiency.

Retrospective fraction timings were collected using the Oncology Information System for 98 breast and prostate treatments at both sites. A literature review was also conducted to further explore factors that impact fraction timings in other departments internationally.

Breast and prostate treatments took 2·1 and 2·93 minutes, respectively, longer to deliver at the Main Site. Set-up to the isocentre and verification image assessment took significantly longer in all cases at the Main Site. Literature surrounding efficiency is scarce but suggests methods used for online management of verification imaging significantly impacts appointment times.

Implementation of a paperless workflow and process improvements for image assessment such as introducing a traffic light protocol may reduce the time to deliver a fraction of radiotherapy and maximise service efficiency.

Direct observation in the radiotherapy clinic remains the primary method for the assessment of procedural skills. But with increasing automation and reductions in clinical placement time during the recent pandemic, the role of summative, simulation-based assessment is being revisited. The aim of this article is to share early experiences of using Virtual Environment for Radiotherapy Training (VERT) in the assessment of a palliative, parallel pair, external beam treatment delivery technique in a new pre-registration undergraduate programme.

Eight first-year students completed a campus-based individual virtual assessment using virtual patient plans representing metastatic disease in the brain and pelvis and late-stage primary lung tumours. Performance was logged on a 25-item checklist for pre and post-procedure checks and treatment delivery tasks.

All eight students participated in the assessment with seven students (87·5%) achieving a pass grade at first attempt. The course team observed that participants demonstrated a range of skills and abilities and were able to compare and contrast individual approaches to patient positioning. Specific feed-forward action points were also highlighted as areas for students’ to focus on during their second placement. The project also identified logistical benefits for assessment teams.

While these experiences are a single snapshot, a VERT simulation-based summative assessment is feasible and identified benefits included controlled observation and structured feedback on individual performance and scheduling pressure reductions for clinical teams. However, more work is needed to determine the psychometric qualities and predictability of performance in more complex techniques.

This study aims to look at the trends in our head and neck cancer patient population over the past 5 years with an emphasis on the past 2 years to evaluate how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted our disparities and availability of care for patients, especially those living in rural areas. An additional aim is to identify existing disparities at our institution in the treatment of head and neck patients and determine solutions to improve patient care.

A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who were consulted and subsequently treated with at least one fraction of radiation therapy at our institution with palliative or curative intent. Patient demographic information was collected including hometown, distance from the cancer centre based on zip-codes and insurance information and type of appointment (in-person or telehealth). Rural–urban continuum codes were used to determine rurality.

A total of 490 head and neck cancer patients (n = 490) were treated from 2017 to 2021. When broken down by year, there were no significant trends in patient population regarding travel distance or rurality. Roughly 20–30% of our patients live in rural areas and about 30% have a commute > 50 miles for radiation treatment. A majority of our patients rely on public insurance (68%) with a small percentage of those uninsured (4%). Telehealth visits were rare prior to 2019 and rose to 5 and 2 visits in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

Head and neck cancer patients, despite rurality or distance from a cancer centre, may present with alarmingly enough symptoms despite limitations and difficulties with seeking medical attention even during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, providers must be aware of these potential disparities that exist in the rural population and seek to address these.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is bound to put tremendous pressure on the existing healthcare system. This aim of this technical note is to help in triaging patients with brain tumours who are sent for radiotherapy during this pandemic and to provide safe and evidence-based care.

Published data for this review were identified by systematically searching PubMed database from November 2007 onwards with the following Medical Subject Heading (Mesh) terms ‘Brain tumours’, ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus’, ‘SARS-nCoV-2’, ‘Radiotherapy’, ‘Guidelines’ ‘hypofractionation’ using Boolean search algorithm. Articles in English language were reviewed.

We tried to apply the as low as reasonable achievable (ALARA) principle in triaging and management of patients for radiotherapy. We identified protocols which have hypofractionated regimens (reducing patient visits to hospital, time spent in treatment console) with similar outcomes when compared to conventional fractionated regimens and not overburdening the healthcare facility. We also identified the tumours for which we could safely avoid or delay the initiation of radiotherapy.

Treatment decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic rely on the safety first/do no harm principle and evidence-based prioritisation of cases for triage. This article is a tool to aid in triaging and prioritising brain tumour patient management. This is for consideration during the pandemic only and certainly not as a strategy for permanent practice change.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading rapidly throughout the world. Lung is the primary organ which the COVID-19 virus affects and leads to pneumonia, an acute respiratory distress syndrome. COVID-19 infects the lower respiratory system, and the lung’s response to this infection is recruiting macrophages and monocytes leading to inflammation, this response causes widespread damage to the lung’s airways.

The purpose of this study is to review studies of using low-dose radiation as a treatment for the inflammation of the tissue and pneumonia resulting from COVID-19. These studies were compared with the risk of developing lung cancer during performed dose for the treatment of COVID-19 in radiation therapy.

Our study focused on in vitro, in vivo and clinical reports of using low-dose radiation for the treatment of inflammation, pneumonia and COVID-19. The risk of lung cancer resulting from suggested dose in these studies was also evaluated.

From the review of articles, we have found that low-dose radiation can lead to improvement in inflammation in different line cells and animals; in addition, it has been effective in treating inflammation and pneumonia caused by COVID-19 in human up to 80%. Since suggested doses do not remarkably increase the lung cancer risk, low-dose radiation can be an adjuvant treatment for COVID-19 patients.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has significantly challenged the access to cancer care and follow-up for a patient with cancer.

Based on published literature and our experiences, it is reasonable to presume that clinical examination and follow-up visits have been significantly curtailed worldwide in order to adhere to the new norms during the pandemic. Although telephonic and telemedicine consultations may help bridge a few gaps, completely dispensing with in-person consultation has its challenges, especially in low middle-income countries. Telephonic consultations could facilitate triaging of ambulatory cancer patients and allocation of face-to-face consultations for high priority patients.

We propose a telephonic consultation-based triaging approach for ambulatory cancer patients in order to identify those needing in-hospital consultations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required a rapid and evolving response in order to enable the continued delivery of radiotherapy, whilst effectively managing the risk of infection to patients and staff. In early March 2020, we were presented with the challenge of achieving safe delivery of care in clinical practice for a group of patients that are already at higher risk of morbidity from COVID-19 with only limited guidance.

This article outlines the adjustments made at The Christie at Oldham satellite centre in order to promote optimal care to our patients receiving radiotherapy, and to mitigate infection risk at the department for both patients and staff.

We share insight into some of the evolving processes that our team have developed since March 2020 in promoting optimal care to patients receiving radiotherapy at The Christie at Oldham satellite centre. These include changes to the department floor, paper flow, supportive care and staffing.

As we continue to progress through this pandemic, we accept that there will be an ongoing journey of learning with adjustments to practice and evolving ‘new norm’, thereby ensuring we keep our patients and team safe and well. We also hoped that our experience would support radiotherapy-related practices in surges of the pandemic in other parts of the world or in case of the second wave.

Malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC) is a serious condition requiring urgent palliative radiotherapy to alleviate symptoms and avoid permanent paralysis. This audit compares the number of patients treated for MSCC before and during Covid-19, their treatment regimes and 30-day mortality rates to assess if the pandemic affected the treatment and the number of patients referred for palliative radiotherapy.

A retrospective audit was performed (July–December 2019) and 101 patients were treated for MSCC, an average of 17 patients per month. A further audit was undertaken during Covid-19 (March–May 2020) and 36 patients were treated for MSCC, an average of 12 patients per month in this shorter cohort.

The results have demonstrated fewer patients presenting during the pandemic and this may be due to patients not wishing to utilise the National Health Service (NHS) during this time. It also highlighted the need to reduce the treatment duration to minimise hospital attendance and lessen the potential for exposure to Covid-19.

Educating patients at risk of MSCC is essential and all cancer patients should be counselled on symptoms and what to do if they occur. Ensuring clinicians know the warning signs and the referral pathway for MSCC is also key to ensure early presentation and early referral for treatment.