Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Assessing the Optimal Timing for Early Salvage Radiation Therapy in Patients with Prostate-specific Antigen Rise After Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Early salvage radiation therapy (eSRT) represents a treatment option for patients who experience a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise after radical prostatectomy (RP); however, the optimal PSA level for eSRT administration is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of PSA level on cancer control after eSRT according to pathologic tumour characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 716 node-negative patients with undetectable postoperative PSA who experienced a PSA rise after RP. All patients received eSRT, defined as local radiation to the prostate and seminal vesicle bed, delivered at PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/ml. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after eSRT was defined as two consecutive PSA values ≥ 0.2 ng/ml. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable Cox regression analysis tested the association between pre-eSRT PSA level and BCR after eSRT. Covariates consisted of pathologic stage (pT2 vs pT3a vs pT3b or higher), pathologic Gleason score (≤ 6, 7, or ≥ 8), and surgical margin status (negative vs positive). We tested an interaction with PSA level and baseline pathologic risk for the hypothesis that BCR-free survival differed by pre-eSRT PSA level. Three pathologic risk factors were identified: pathologic stage pT3b or higher, pathologic Gleason score ≥ 8, and negative surgical margins. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up among patients who did not experience BCR after eSRT was 57 mo (interquartile range: 27-105). At 5 yr after eSRT, BCR-free survival rate was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78-85). At multivariable Cox regression analysis, pre-eSRT PSA level was significantly associated with BCR after eSRT (hazard ratio: 4.89; 95% CI, 1.40-22.9; p < 0.0001). When patients were stratified according to the number of risk factors at final pathology, patients with at least two pathologic risk factors showed an increased risk of 5-yr BCR as high as 10% per 0.1 ng/ml of PSA level compared with only 1.5% in patients with one or no pathologic risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, cancer control after eSRT greatly depended on pretreatment PSA. The absolute PSA level had a different prognostic value depending on the pathologic characteristics of the tumour. In patients with more adverse pathologic features, eSRT conferred better cancer control when administered at the very first sign of PSA rise. Conversely, the benefit of eSRT was less evident in men with favourable disease at RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this retrospective study, cancer control after early salvage radiation therapy (eSRT) was influenced by pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. This effect was highest in men with at least two of the following pathologic features: pT3b/pT4 disease, pathologic Gleason score ≥ 8, and negative surgical margins. In these patients, eSRT conferred better cancer control when administered at the very first sign of PSA ris

Long-term Impact of Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage Radiation Therapy in pT3N0 Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy: Results from a Multi-institutional Series.

BACKGROUND: Three prospective randomised trials reported discordant findings regarding the impact of adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT) versus observation for metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients with pT3N0 prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). None of these trials systematically included patients who underwent early salvage radiation therapy (esRT). OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that aRT was associated with better cancer control and survival compared with observation followed by esRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a multi-institutional cohort from seven tertiary referral centres, we retrospectively identified 510 pT3pN0 patients with undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after RP between 1996 and 2009. Patients were stratified into two groups: aRT (group 1) versus observation followed by esRT in case of PSA relapse (group 2). Specifically, esRT was administered at a PSA level ≤0.5ng/ml. INTERVENTION: We compared aRT versus observation followed by esRT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The evaluated outcomes were MFS and OS. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the association between groups (aRT vs observation followed by esRT) and oncologic outcomes. Covariates consisted of pathologic stage (pT3a vs pT3b or higher), pathologic Gleason score (≤6, 7, or ≥8), surgical margin status (negative vs positive), and year of surgery. An interaction with groups and baseline patient risk was tested for the hypothesis that the impact of aRT versus observation followed by esRT was different by pathologic characteristics. The nonparametric curve fitting method was used to explore graphically the relationship between MFS and OS at 8 yr and baseline patient risk (derived from the multivariable analysis). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 243 patients (48%) underwent aRT, and 267 (52%) underwent initial observation. Within the latter group, 141 patients experienced PSA relapse and received esRT. Median follow-up after RP was 94 mo (interquartile range [IQR]: 53-126) and 92 mo (IQR: 70-136), respectively (p=0.2). MFS (92% vs 91%; p=0.9) and OS (89% vs 92%; p=0.9) at 8 yr after surgery were not significantly different between the two groups. These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis, in which observation followed by esRT was not associated with a significantly higher risk of distant metastasis (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35; p=0.4) and overall mortality (HR: 1.39; p=0.4) compared with aRT. Using the nonparametric curve fitting method, a comparable proportion of MFS and OS at 8 yr among groups was observed regardless of pathologic cancer features (p=0.9 and p=0.7, respectively). Limitations consisted of the retrospective nature of the study and the relatively small size of the patient population. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, no significant differences between aRT and esRT were observed for MFS and OS. Our study, although based on retrospective data, suggests that esRT does not compromise cancer control and potentially reduces overtreatment associated with aRT. PATIENT SUMMARY: At long-term follow-up, no significant differences in terms of distant metastasis and mortality were observed between immediate postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT) and initial observation followed by early salvage radiation therapy (esRT) in case of prostate-specific antigen relapse. Our study suggests that esRT does not compromise cancer control and potentially reduces overtreatment associated with aRT