PURPOSE The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a global impact, and Singapore has seen 33,000 confirmed cases. Patients with cancer, their caregivers, and health care workers (HCWs) need to balance the challenges associated with COVID-19 while ensuring that cancer care is not compromised. This study aimed to evaluate the psychological effect of COVID-19 on these groups and the prevalence of burnout among HCWs. METHODS A cross-sectional survey of patients, caregivers, and HCWs at the National Cancer Centre Singapore was performed over 17 days during the lockdown. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Maslach Burnout Inventory were used to assess for anxiety and burnout, respectively. Self-reported fears related to COVID-19 were collected. RESULTS A total of 624 patients, 408 caregivers, and 421 HCWs participated in the study, with a response rate of 84%, 88%, and 92% respectively. Sixty-six percent of patients, 72.8% of caregivers, and 41.6% of HCWs reported a high level of fear from COVID-19. The top concern of patients was the wide community spread of COVID-19. Caregivers were primarily worried about patients dying alone. HCWs were most worried about the relatively mild symptoms of COVID-19. The prevalence of anxiety was 19.1%, 22.5%, and 14.0% for patients, caregivers, and HCWs, respectively. Patients who were nongraduates and married, and caregivers who were married were more anxious. The prevalence of burnout in HCWs was 43.5%, with more anxious and fearful HCWs reporting higher burnout rates. CONCLUSION Fears and anxiety related to COVID-19 are high. Burnout among HCWs is similar to rates reported prepandemic. An individualized approach to target the specific fears of each group will be crucial to maintain the well-being of these vulnerable groups and prevent burnout of HCWs.

Background: The impact and consequences of cancer on the patients and their family caregivers (FCs) are closely intertwined. Caregivers' burdens can be increased due to the patients' unmet needs and unresolved problems. Additionally, the caregivers' unmet needs may adversely affect their own well-being and the patients' health outcomes. This study aims to determine the palliative care needs and the factors associated with these needs in patients with advanced solid cancer and their FCs. Methods: In a cross-sectional survey, 599 patients with advanced solid tumours and 599 FCs were recruited from the largest ambulatory cancer centre and the inpatient ward of the largest hospital in Singapore. Determinants of patients' and FCs' needs were assessed by the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool (CNAT) and CNAT-C respectively. Clinical characteristics of patients were obtained from medical records. Results: The FCs (median age 51 years) were younger than the patients (median age 62 years), and were mostly female (62.6%) whereas the gender distribution of patients was quite balanced (49.2% male and 50.8% female). Both patients and FCs had "information" and "practical support" in their top three domains of palliative care needs. The second highest domain of needs was "psychological problems" (16.4 ± 21.5) in patients and "health-care staff" (23.4 ± 26.5) in FCs. The item that had the highest need score in "information" domain for both patients and FCs was "financial support for patients, either from government and/ or private organizations". Under clinical setting, the inpatients (19.2 ± 16.4) and their FCs (26.0 ± 19.0) tend to have higher needs than the outpatients (10.5 ± 12.1) and their FCs (14.7 ± 14.3). In terms of palliative care, higher total CNAT score was observed in both patients (16.6 ± 12.9 versus 13.3 ± 15.2) and their FCs (25.1 ± 18.6 versus 17.7 ± 16.7) who received palliative care. In terms of patients' KPS scores, patients with lower KPS scores tend to have higher needs. Conclusion: Overall, the findings confirm that patients with advanced cancer and their FCs have many palliative care needs irrespective of their clinical settings. Initiatives and interventions for the development of a comprehensive support system for both patients with advanced cancer and their FCs are warranted and can be derived from these findings.

IMPORTANCEThe recently published ADAURA study has posed a significant dilemma for clinicians in selecting patients for adjuvant osimertinib. Risk factors for recurrence in early-stage epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) also remain undefined. OBJECTIVE To determine clinicopathologic characteristics and recurrence patterns of resectedearly-stage EGFR-positive NSCLC, using wildtype EGFR as a comparator cohort, and identify features associated with recurrence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This is a cohort study including patients diagnosed with

Background We hypothesized that spatial heterogeneity exists between recurrent and non-recurrent regions within a tumor. The aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference between radiomics features derived from recurrent versus non recurrent regions within the tumor based on pre-treatment MRI. Methods A total of 14 T4NxM0 NPC patients with histologically proven "in field" recurrence in the post nasal space following curative intent IMRT were included in this study. Pretreatment MRI were co-registered with MRI at the time of recurrence for the delineation of gross tumor volume at diagnosis(GTV) and at recurrence(GTVr). A total of 7 histogram features and 40 texture features were computed from the recurrent(GTVr) and non-recurrent region(GTV-GTVr). Paired ttests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were carried out on the 47 quantified radiomics features. Results A total of 7 features were significantly different between recurrent and non-recurrent regions. Other than the variance from intensity-based histogram, the remaining six significant features were either from the gray-level size zone matrix (GLSZM) or the neighbourhood gray-tone difference matrix (NGTDM). Conclusions The radiomic features extracted from pre-treatment MRI can potentially reflect the difference between recurrent and non-recurrent regions within a tumor and has a potential role in pre-treatment identification of intra-tumoral radio-resistance for selective dose escalation.

Background: The benefit of specialist palliative care for cancer inpatients is established, but the best method to deliver specialist palliative care is unknown. Aim: To compare a consult model versus a co-rounding model; both provide the same content of specialist palliative care to individual patients but differ in the level of integration between palliative care and oncology clinicians. Design: An open-label, cluster-randomized trial with stepped-wedge design. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes were 30-day readmissions and access to specialist palliative care. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03330509. Setting/participants: Cancer patients admitted to the oncology inpatient service of an acute hospital in Singapore. Results: A total of 5681 admissions from December 2017 to July 2019 were included, of which 5295 involved stage 3-4 cancer and 1221 received specialist palliative care review. Admissions in the co-rounding model had a shorter hospital length of stay than those in the consult model by 0.70 days (95%CI −0.04 to 1.45, p = 0.065) for all admissions. In the sub-group of stage 3-4 cancer patients, the length of stay was 0.85 days shorter (95%CI 0.05–1.65, p = 0.038). In the sub-group of admissions that received specialist palliative care review, the length of stay was 2.62 days shorter (95%CI 0.63–4.61, p = 0.010). Hospital readmission within 30 days (OR1.03, 95%CI 0.79–1.35, p = 0.822) and access to specialist palliative care (OR1.19, 95%CI 0.90–1.58, p = 0.215) were similar between the consult and co-rounding models. Conclusions: The co-rounding model was associated with a shorter hospital length of stay. Readmissions within 30 days and access to specialist palliative care were similar.