6061 Background: Treatment (ttm) of cancer patients (pts) was compromised during the first wave of COVID19 pandemic due to collapse of healthcare systems. Standard of care (SOC) for LA-HNSCC pts had to be adapted as operating rooms were temporarily unavailable, and to reduce risk of COVID19 exposure. The IMPACCT study evaluated the outcome of LA-HNSCC pts treated at the Catalan Institute of Oncology during the first semester of 2020 and compared it to a control cohort previously treated in the same institution. Methods: Retrospective single institution analysis of two consecutively-treated cohorts of newly-diagnosed HNSCC pts: from January to June of 2020 (CT20) and same period of 2018 and 2019 (CT18-19). Pt demographics and disease characteristics were obtained from our in-site prospective database. Ttm modifications from SOC as per COVID19-contingency protocol in CT20 for LA-HNSCC were collected. Chi-squared was used to compare variables and ttm response between cohorts. One-year recurrence-free survival (1yRFS) and overall survival (1yOS) of LA-HNSCC pts were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Log-rank test. Results: A total of 306 pts were included: CT20=99; CT18-19=207. Baseline characteristics were balanced between cohorts (Table1). In pts treated with conservative ttm (non-surgical approach), persistence disease was higher in CT20 vs CT18-19 (26 vs. 10% p=0.02). Median follow-up of CT20 and CT18-19 was 6.8 months (IQR 5.1-7.9) and 12.3 (6.7-18.4), respectively. A trend towards lower 1yRFS and 1yOS was observed in CT20 vs CT18-19 (72 vs 83% p=0.06; 80 vs 84% p=0.07), respectively. Within CT20, 37 pts (37%) had one or more ttm modifications: switch from surgery to conservative ttm (n=13); altered radiotherapy fractionation (n=14); reduced cisplatin cumulative dose to 200mg/m2 (n=19); no adjuvant ttm (n=1). Pts who received modified ttm had no differences in 1yRFS vs those who did not (80 vs 66% p=0.31), but higher 1yOS was observed (97 vs 67% p<0.01). When stratified by stage, 1yOS difference remained significant in stage III/IVA (100 vs 61% p<0.01) but not in I/II (100 vs 77% p=0.28) or IVB (67 vs 50% p=0.54). Conclusions: COVID19 pandemic had a negative impact on ttm outcomes and survival in LA-HNSCC pts when compared to our historical cohort. Ttm modifications based on COVID19-contingency protocol did not compromise ttm efficacy in terms of RFS and was associated with better OS in Stage III/IVA.[Table: see text]

Background: The Survey of Challenges in Access to Diagnostics and Treatment for NET Patients (SCAN) measured healthcare delivery to neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients globally.Methods: This analysis focused on the medical care received by NET patients who most often visited a medical oncologist (MO) comparing Europe and North America. Results: 1016 NET patients (43% of global sample, N¼2359) reported a MO as the HCP most often visited for ongoing monitoring. These patients were mostly from two geographic areas: Europe (EU) [40%, 409/1016] and North America (NA) [40%, 410/ 1016]. 55% from EU (223/409) and 61% from NA (252/410) had Stage IV disease at diagnosis e both significantly higher than the percentage reported by patients globally (46%, 1077/2359, p<0.0001). Conventional imaging (EU 79%, 313/395; NA: 83%, 338/407) and Chromogranin A (EU 64%, 252/395, NA 60%, 243/407) were most commonly used for ongoing monitoring. 68 Gallium DOTA-PET CT (EU: 30%, 119/395; NA 37%, 152/407, p<0.0001), other blood tests ( fasting serum glucose, fasting gastrin, glucagon, VIP; EU: 31%, 122/395; NA: 42%, 172/407, p<0.0001) and urine 5-HIAA (EU 29%, 116/395, NA: 35%, 142/407, p<0.0001) were also used, significantly more frequently in NA. MOs were the most often visited specialists for follow-up, although GPs/family doctors (EU, 48%, 197/409; NA: 44%, 181/410) and nurses (EU: 27%, 111/409; NA: 22%, 91/410) were also involved in the follow-up. In case of a third HCP involved, in EU this was most often a nuclear medicine specialist (23%) or a radiologist (20%), while in NA this was a surgeon (25%). Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) were rarely used both in EU (35%, 143/409) and NA (32%, 131/410). This patient sub-group's key recommendation was to have more healthcare professionals knowledgeable in NETs (EU: 58%, 237/409, NA: 71%, 291/410 p<0.0001).Conclusions: MOs are the leading HCPs for ongoing monitoring for almost half of NET patients globally. A global standard for NET monitoring and higher expertise in NETs among HCPs is needed, as data indicate significant differences in therapeutic and follow-up procedures and low usage of the multidisciplinary approach even in the EU and NA, the leading geographic areas for NET medical care.