The COVID-19 pandemic will consume significant health care resources. Given the concerns for rapidly increasing infection rates in the United States, impending staffing shortages, and the potential for resource reallocation, we rapidly reevaluated our rectal cancer practice policies during this public health emergency. Before the pandemic, we commonly used total neoadjuvant therapy with a strong preference for long-course chemoradiation. In the setting of the ongoing pandemic, we now mandate short-course radiation therapy (SCRT). Despite multiple randomized trials demonstrating no difference in locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence, or overall survival between SCRT and long-course chemoradiation, the adaptation of SCRT in the United States has been low given concerns for less tumor downstaging and increased toxicity. In the setting of the ongoing and likely prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, we feel that these concerns must be reevaluated, because SCRT presents a well-validated alternative that will allow us to meet the needs of a greater number of potentially curable patients at a time when resources are severely and acutely constrained.

Purpose During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. Methods and Materials Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. Results Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. Conclusions Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

In a cohort of men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with an increased risk of being diagnosed with Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer independent of black race.