PURPOSE

To report the technical details and outcomes of a case of cervical cancer in pregnancy treated with reduced standard radiation volume via Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT).

METHODS

A 33-year-old G4P3 (3003) was diagnosed with cervical squamous cell carcinoma at 17 weeks of gestation. She had a 5-year history of intermittent post-coital bleeding and an incidental finding of a cervical mass during prenatal ultrasound. Internal examination revealed a 6-cm mass with no extension to the upper vagina and pliable bilateral parametria, leading to a staging of IB3. A multidisciplinary meeting with a gynecologic oncologist, radiation oncologist, medical ethicist and the patient was held wherein different treatment options were discussed. She consented to definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with concurrent cisplatin and was administered during 19-25 weeks of gestation using IMRT. A prescribed dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions was delivered to the entire cervix with a 1-cm geometric expansion covering the lower uterus, and upper vagina as well as the pelvic lymph nodes, followed by four fractions of brachytherapy.

RESULTS

The patient tolerated treatment with only grade 1 gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse effects. After completion of concurrent chemoradiation, she underwent induction of labor and delivered a nonviable fetus. Three months post-treatment, MRI found no evidence of disease. At 15 months follow-up, she remains asymptomatic with no palpable disease.

CONCLUSION

This report demonstrates that treating only the involved uterus may be considered in cases wherein giving the full radiation dose to the whole uterus may lead to significant toxicities and eventual treatment interruption.

Human ; Female ; Adult: 25-44 Yrs Old ; Pregnancy Trimester, Second ; Radiotherapy ; Radiation ; Pregnancy ; Neoplasms

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global public health emergency. High levels of fear and limited access to cancer treatment may jeopardize the delivery of optimal oncologic care, potentially influencing treatment outcomes. This study aimed to identify patients’ and their caregivers’ perception of safety and accessibility of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of patients and caregivers at the Benavides Cancer Institute, University of Santo Tomas Hospital was performed from August to October 2020 using a 20-item investigator-developed questionnaire. Results: A total of 207 participants answered the survey. Frequency of hospital visits varied from none to more than ten times in the previous month; but having multiple postponements were uncommon. Eighty-two percent, 77%, 62%, and 55% of participants reported being afraid of contracting COVID-19 from other patients, hospital surroundings, hospital staff, and doctors, respectively. Twenty-six percent and 12% had difficulty finding transportation and passing through checkpoints, respectively. Twenty-eight percent strongly expressed financial limitations in prioritizing cancer care. Participants were amenable to the use of telemedicine and stringent protocols to reduce in-hospital transmission risk, but had some reluctance to spend out of their pockets for screening tests. Conclusion The perceived safety of cancer care was influenced by fears of contracting COVID-19; and accessibility was influenced by limited transportation and financial constraints. Despite these, multiple postponements and cancelled hospital visits were uncommon. Institutional approaches targeting these concerns will be crucial to ensure safe and timely delivery of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic and further mitigate its impact on oncologic outcomes.
COVID-19 ; Pandemics ; Safety

Objective: To explore possible associations of a multidisciplinary team approach compared to a non-multidisciplinary team approach on delay and completion of treatment of head and neck cancer patients. Methods: Design: Historical Cohort Study Setting: Tertiary Private Training Hospital Participants: A total of 240 records of head and neck cancer patients from January 2016 and December 2018 were included in the study; 117 underwent a multidisciplinary team approach and 123 underwent a non- multidisciplinary team approach. Results: Only 24.79% of head and neck cancer patients under the multidisciplinary team approach had treatment delays compared to 37.40% under the non-multidisciplinary team approach. The proportion of treatment delays was significantly higher (χ2 = 4.44, p = .035) with the non-multidisciplinary team approach. Comparative treatment completion of 77.78% and 69.11% under the multidisciplinary and non-multidisciplinary team approaches, respectively, were not significantly different (χ2 = 2.31, p = .129). Conclusion The multidisciplinary approach might be associated with decreased delay in treatment among patients with head and neck cancer compared to the non-multidisciplinary team approach. A possible trend toward better treatment completion rate was also observed, but it did not reach statistical significance.
patient care team ; head and neck neoplasms ; time-to-treatment ; appointment and schedules ; neoplasm staging