How effective has the Spanish lockdown been to battle COVID-19? A spatial analysis of the coronavirus propagation across provinces

This paper examines the propagation of COVID-19 across the Spanish provinces and assesses the effectiveness of the Spanish lockdown of the population implemented on March 14, 2020 in order to battle this pandemic. To achieve these objectives, a standard spatial econometric model used in economics is adapted to resemble the popular reproduction models employed in the epidemiological literature. In addition, we introduce a counterfactual exercise that allows us to examine the Gross domestic product (GDP) gains of bringing forward the date of the Spanish Lockdown. We find that the number of COVID-19 cases would have been reduced by 70.4% in the absence of spatial propagation between the Spanish provinces. We also determine that the lockdown prevented the propagation of the virus within and between provinces. As such, the Spanish lockdown reduced the number of potential COVID-19 cases by 82.8%. However, the number of coronavirus cases would have been reduced by an additional 11.6% if the lockdown had been brought forward to March 7, 2020. Finally, an earlier lockdown would have saved approximately 26,900,000,000 euros.     

Accuracy of MRI-guided Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Patients Under Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I² = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I² = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.     

Impact of stereotactic body radiation therapy on geriatric assessment and management for older patients with head and neck cancer using G8

PurposeManagement of head and neck cancers (HNC) in older adults is a common but challenging clinical scenario. We assess the impact of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) on survival utilizing the Geriatric-8 (G8) questionnaire.Materials and methods171 HNC patients, deemed medically unfit for definitive treatment, were treated with SBRT ± systemic therapy. G8 questionnaires were collected at baseline, at 4–6 weeks, and at 2–3 months post-treatment. Patients were stratified according to their baseline G8 score: <11 as ‘vulnerable’, 11–14 as ‘intermediate’, and >14 as ‘fit’. Overall survival (OS) was assessed through univariate Kaplan Meier analysis. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if baseline characteristics affected G8 score changes.ResultsMedian follow-up was seventeen months. 60% of patients presented with recurrent HNC, 30% with untreated HNC primaries, and 10% with metastatic non-HNC primaries. Median age was 75 years. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 2. 51% of patients were ‘vulnerable’, 37% were ‘intermediate’, and 12% were ‘fit' at baseline, with median survival of 13.2, 24.3, and 41.0 months, respectively (p = .004). Patients who saw a decrease in their follow-up G8 score (n = 69) had significantly lower survival than patients who had stable or increased follow-up G8 scores (n = 102), with median survival of 8.6 vs 36.0 months (p < .001).ConclusionThe G8 questionnaire may be a useful tool in upfront treatment decision-making to predict prognosis and prevent older patients from receiving inappropriate anti-cancer treatment. Decline in follow-up G8 scores may also predict worse survival and aid in goals of care following treatment.