Search

Background The Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown in India caused disruptions in cancer treatment due to the restriction on movement of patients. We aimed to maintain continuity in cancer treatment during the lockdown through teleconsultations. We tried to reach out to our patients using telephonic consultations by establishing a Teleconsult Centre facility run by a team of doctors and patient navigators. Methods We telephonically contacted all patients who had outpatient appointments from 23 March to 30 April 2020 at our centre through the Teleconsult Centre to understand their current circumstances, feasibility of follow-up, local resources and offered best possible alternatives to continue cancer treatment, if required. Results Of the 2686 patients scheduled for follow-up during this period, we could contact 1783 patients in 9 working days. Through teleconsultations, we could defer follow-ups of 1034 patients (57.99%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 55.6%–60.3%), thus reducing the need for patients to travel to the hospital. Change in systemic therapy was made in 75 patients (4.2%, 95% CI 3.3%–5.2%) as per the requirements and available resources. Symptoms suggestive of disease progression were picked up in 12 patients (0.67%, 95% CI 0.35%–1.17%), who were advised to meet local physicians. Conclusion Our study suggests that the majority of patients on follow-up can be managed with teleconsultation in times of crisis. Teleconsultation has the potential of being one of the standard methods of patient follow-up even during periods of normalcy.

The data on outcomes and toxicity in adult Ewing sarcoma (ES) patients, particularly those aged ≥40 years, is exceedingly scarce around the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and mandates research.The study involved histologically ascertained ES patients aged ≥40 years who registered at our institute from 2013 to 2018. Prospectively collected data were analysed for overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS) and chemotherapy-related toxicities.There were 66 patients, of which 34 were non-metastatic, and 32 were denovo metastatic, recurrent or had doubtful metastasis. At presentation, median age was 46 years, and 42 (63.6%) had extra-skeletal primary and 24 (36.3%) had extremity tumours. Curative treatment was offered to 40 (60.6%) patients. Significant grade 3/4 toxicities in non-metastatic and metastatic cohort, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (61.3%, 37.5%), anaemia (58.1%, 37.5%), thrombocytopenia (45.2%, 25.0%), peripheral neuropathy (25.8%, 12.5%) and dyselectrolytemia (25.8%, 6.25%). Chemotherapy-related toxicity led to death in three patients in the metastatic cohort, versus none in the non-metastatic patients. The 5 year EFS and OS for non-metastatic cohort were 53.8% and 67.8%, while the same for metastatic cohort were 20.7% and 27.5%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-performance status2 and metastasis at presentation predicted poorer EFS and OS. Additionally, raised lactate dehydrogenase, larger tumours (8 cm) and palliative intent treatment predicted worse EFS, while extra-skeletal primary and female gender were indicators of worse OS.Older adult ES patients benefit from aggressive multimodality treatment even in LMIC infrastructure. However, careful patient selection, close monitoring and pertinent dose modifications is imperative due to higher propensity for potential toxicities.