Next Article in Journal
Reliability and Validity Analysis of the Korean Version of the Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale
Next Article in Special Issue
Healthcare Service Quality Evaluation in a Community-Oriented Primary Care Center, Italy
Previous Article in Journal
COVID-19 Social Restrictions’ Impact on the Health-Related Physical Fitness of the Police Cadets
Previous Article in Special Issue
Resilience of Gynecological and Obstetric Inpatient Care in Central Germany in Times of Repetitive Socioeconomic Shocks—An Epidemiological Study Assessing Standardized Health Services Indicators and Economic Status According to the aG-DRG Catalog
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

KIT 1 (Keep in Touch) Project—Televisits for Cancer Patients during Italian Lockdown for COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real-World Experience of Establishing a Telemedicine System

by
Calogero Casà
1,
Barbara Corvari
2,
Francesco Cellini
2,
Patrizia Cornacchione
2,*,
Andrea D’Aviero
3,
Sara Reina
4,
Silvia Di Franco
4,
Alessandra Salvati
4,
Giuseppe Ferdinando Colloca
2,
Alfredo Cesario
2,
Stefano Patarnello
2,
Mario Balducci
2,
Alessio Giuseppe Morganti
5,6,
Vincenzo Valentini
2,4,
Maria Antonietta Gambacorta
2,4 and
Luca Tagliaferri
2
1
Fatebenefratelli Isola Tiberina-Gemelli Isola, Via di Ponte Quattro Capi 39, 00186 Rome, Italy
2
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy
3
Mater Olbia Hospital, SS 125 Orientale Sarda, 07026 Olbia, Italy
4
Dipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche ed Ematologiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy
5
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Via Zamboni 33, 40126 Bologna, Italy
6
IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Via Giuseppe Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(13), 1950; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11131950
Submission received: 22 March 2023 / Revised: 9 June 2023 / Accepted: 30 June 2023 / Published: 6 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Primary Healthcare Services and Innovative Models during COVID-19)

Abstract

:
To evaluate the adoption of an integrated eHealth platform for televisit/monitoring/consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: During the lockdown imposed by the Italian government during the COVID19 pandemic spread, a dedicated multi-professional working group was set up in the Radiation Oncology Department with the primary aim of reducing patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by adopting de-centralized/remote consultation methodologies. Each patient’s clinical history was screened before the visit to assess if a traditional clinical visit would be recommended or if a remote evaluation was to be preferred. Real world data (RWD) in the form of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and patient reported experiences (PREMs) were collected from patients who underwent televisit/teleconsultation through the eHealth platform. Results: During the lockdown period (from 8 March to 4 May 2020) a total of 1956 visits were managed. A total of 983 (50.26%) of these visits were performed via email (to apply for and to upload of documents) and phone call management; 31 visits (1.58%) were performed using the eHealth system. Substantially, all patients found the eHealth platform useful and user-friendly, consistently indicating that this type of service would also be useful after the pandemic. Conclusions: The rapid implementation of an eHealth system was feasible and well-accepted by the patients during the pandemic. However, we believe that further evidence is to be generated to further support large-scale adoption.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic had, and it is having, a significant and heavy impact on everyday life, economies on a global scale and, of course, the global health system [1,2]. At the beginning of the pandemic, the statistics were so serious that the hospital system had to reorganize radically and promptly in order to improve the safety of patients and staff while continuing to provide essential services [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10].
Recently and in a short amount of time, national and international oncological scientific societies provided guidelines or suggestions to deal with the need to both treat cancer patients affected by malignancies and to limit unnecessary contact to reduce the risk of contagion [11,12,13,14,15,16].
In that unexplored clinical scenario, digital health technology played a role on several levels [17], from big data and artificial intelligence (AI) applications [18,19,20] to the development of dedicated tool for contact tracing and for COVID-19 testing and tracking [18,21,22].
In particular, eHealth protocols were suggested to facilitate communication between patients and health professionals; access to health resources; and the organization, interpretation, and dissemination of health data [23].
The last subset of the eHealth revolution is mobile health care (mHealth), which permits mobile-based platforms and mobile applications to deliver health information through the internet [24]. Such applications can be accompanied by internet of things (IoT) devices such as wearable devices that, possessing vital parameter detectors, can help provide quantitative information about the patient that until now had not been fully considered in our clinical activities.
One of the widely explored areas of digital health and mainly implemented in clinical practice during the pandemic spread was telemedicine [25,26,27,28,29], especially for patients more vulnerable to exposure to infections (e.g., patients with a previous diagnosis of cancer and patients who have undergone immunosuppressive treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy). For this reason, a particular interest quickly grew in the possibility of replacing outpatient follow-up with visits based on telemedicine.
The proposed use of digital technologies to support cancer patients’ care pathway is not, per se, an issue born out of the pandemic. The World Health Organization (WHO), for the 2019–2023 triennium, has encouraged the use of digital technologies to enable people to access the information and services they need to improve their resources throughout their lives [30]. However, as the study experiences of Basch et al. document [31,32,33], the use of electronic tools to monitor cancer patients during treatment has also been shown in randomized clinical trials to be a determining factor in a reduction of emergency room admissions, regardless of the patient’s computer experience [31]. A subsequent analysis of the same study also reported an advantage in terms of overall survival [32]. In another randomized clinical trial, the same research group demonstrated an advantage in terms of function, symptom control, and quality of life in the group randomized to the use of digital monitoring [33]. In this context of scientific knowledge related to digital monitoring of cancer patients, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a major event not only leading to higher mortality and morbidity in cancer patients than in the general population, but also seeing a reduction in the screening and diagnosis of malignancies and a delay in treatment and access to care pathways [34]. Although the overall effects of this delay have not yet been specifically measured and reported, it is estimated that this may contribute to increased mortality from malignancies in the near future [34].
However, it is also acknowledged that COVID-19 has led to a more rapid and widespread introduction of telemedicine tools in the clinical environment that would otherwise not have been so quickly introduced into everyday cancer care pathways [35,36].
In this context, the use of advanced telehealth systems capable of collecting PROMs (patient-reported outcome measurements) and PREMs (patient-reported experience measurements) represents an innovative and valuable opportunity to monitor the patients in their daily life and capture the evolution of their disease early, in addition to establishing a relationship of proximity and the positive perception of taking care [37]. PREMs are defined as a gathering of patients’ views of their experience whilst receiving care and represent an indicator of the quality of patient care.
To make explicit the context in which teleconsultation technology is placed in our center, it is useful to mention that the pandemic allowed professionals to introduce tools that could be applied within specific clinical research protocols and were capable of offering a new model for the monitoring and early diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. In our experience at the Radiotherapy Unit of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, known as “Gemelli ART” (Gemelli Advanced Radiation Therapy), in parallel with the experience of remote visits, an application for mobile devices was developed to collect biometric data which was recorded via innovative tools and then analyzed and integrated with artificial intelligence systems. Those tools were applied during the treatment of patients and the follow-up period via the use of a dedicated mobile application and, in another branch of same protocol, for the remote monitoring of the symptoms of healthcare professionals. Patients and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to communicate their status by answering questionnaires that were offered to them through the mobile application, which could, if necessary, be connected to a wearable device that collected daily real world data (e.g., daily steps, hours of sleep, and heartbeat). The huge amount of real world data collected, which was integrated with health data, would be translated into useful information for medical practices. Specific questionnaires could be provided to the patients through the mobile application, using new questions developed by a clinical team or standardized questions from scientific literature. The technology, designed in response to the state of emergency caused by the pandemic, could also be used in a non-emergency period to manage the daily life of radiotherapy patients and their toxicity levels. Moreover, via this monitoring system, a range of information was collected, such as distance traveled each day, steps walked, and blood oxygen saturation, to evaluate whether those items should be considered valuable in the early detection of possible COVID-19 infection or to predict toxicity or compliance outcomes for radiotherapy patients. All the collected data were stored interactively within the hospital electronic medical records, allowing further analysis to determine eventual association between the collected parameters and radiation treatment-related toxicity during the course of treatment in radiation therapy and in the early follow-up period.
The same health protection modalities during the COVID-19 pandemic were proposed to health care personnel who, caring for a high volume of patients on a daily basis while adopting all kinds of procedures designed to prevent infection, were potentially exposed to infection. This modality enabled the Radiotherapy Service to safely ensure continuity of treatment for ongoing patients.
The value of data accumulated in this way would be unremarkable without technology capable of analyzing it. Therefore, a dedicated facility equipped with adequate computing power and dedicated staff in computer science and data management was established in our center [37]. Within this facility, it is also possible to analyze the data obtained via artificial intelligence algorithms in order to study correlations, to develop predictive models, to identify recurring patterns, and to devise innovative solutions to enable physicians to quickly and effectively access data accumulated via mobile applications or to directly and automatically include such information in hospital databases.
The description of those tools, although they represent a closely related issue both in terms of the needs it aspires to meet and of the technologies adopted as a response to the needs of patients and health care providers, is not the focus of this article.
The aim of this paper is to report on monocentric real-world experiences with the application of a telemedicine system organized by managing a high volume of clinical visits using televisits or phone calls and email on the basis of patient risk category during the Italian lockdown period in a single radiation oncology center.

2. Materials and Methods

A multi-professional working group was tasked with modifying the usual care service in order to reduce patients’ exposure to COVID-19 and take advantage of the best resources available (workforce, facilities, equipment).
Specifically, new procedures were considered for the management of cancer patient visits to the Radiation Oncology Department of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS in order to improve safety as much as possible.
The working group was composed of radiation oncologists, nurses, radiation oncology residents, and radiotherapy technicians (RTT).
In our institution, patients usually meet these professionals during treatments: every day, a nurse greets each patient who is to undergo radiation treatment on a daily basis by recording any clinical updates and reporting them, if necessary, to the referring physician; the RTT staff positions the patient appropriately for proper treatment, performs necessary and preparatory checks for treatment, and—except in cases requiring express medical authorization or unless there is an additional need—treats the patient; periodically, the radiation oncologist, depending on the type of treatment, on the dose achieved, on the established protocol, and on the possible occurrence of toxicity, visits the patient during scheduled therapy. The multi-professional group was established to ensure that each decision was made based on the specific needs of each patient and on specific clinical context. Specifically, it was necessary to focus on efficacy, feasibility, and, at the same time, considering the patient’s age, clinical condition, type of disease in terms of primary sites and stage, and personal needs and values.
Moreover, each choice needed to be clearly documented, especially in cases of deferred visits.
Since these actions were organized within clinical practice in response to pandemic needs and not for research purposes, it was not necessary to evaluate this study within a research protocol for submission to the ethics committee.
The visits scheduled in accordance with this scheme covered the period of the Italian lockdown, from 8 March to 4 May 2020. The new defined procedure allowed all planned visits to be distributed based on an evaluation of each patient, considering type of primary disease, stage, time since diagnosis, treatments performed, and recent follow-up radiological and/or laboratory examinations performed by the patient, according to the following scheme:
1 = visit not deferrable and kept in person (e.g., patients who needed to undergo radiation treatment)
2 = visit postponed
3 = visit performed via email and phone call management (e.g., low-risk follow-up)
4 = visit performed via complete teleconsultation using teleconsultation system
All visits preparatory to the initiation of radiation treatment, thus necessitating a clinical evaluation with physical objectivity possibly accompanied by operations that would have to be performed inside the hospital anyway (e.g., acquisition of a radiation therapy simulation using CT or MRI scans), were considered nondeferrable and therefore held in person. Similarly, all follow-up visits where, because of elements related to the specific pathology (e.g., risk factors), the treatments performed (e.g., particularly high risk of toxicity), or the appropriateness of a key contribution of the in-person physical objective examination was such that it could not be delegated to any family physician colleagues closer to the patient—especially in the case of patients who come from cities and regions other than our center—were held in person.
Visits in which the patient demonstrated negativity at follow-up after a period of time at a considerable distance from the last active treatments performed or in cases of sufficiently low-risk disease based on evaluation by the multidisciplinary task force were recommended for postponement. In such cases, the patient was offered the opportunity to send any laboratory or instrumental tests via email and to carry out a telephone interview with the referring physician.
In the specific situations where such telephone and/or e-mail contact was considered insufficient but, because of the pandemic and given the infection risk, the criteria for unequivocal need for an in-person conducted clinical examination were not met, teleconsultation was offered to the patient.
All patients were given a free choice whether to accept the remote visit or insist on an in-person clinical assessment.
The working group also searched the instrumentation necessary to organize teleconsultation visits. To purchase the teleconsultation material, the support of a patients’ association, “Associazione Attilio Romanini”, was requested. The Association accepted the project and provided for the purchase of the equipment within 10 days, allowing the visits to be rapidly rescheduled with teleconsultation. The project was called KIT (Keep in Touch). The software used for teleconsultation was Microsoft® Teams. All patients who underwent a remote assessment managed via email and telephone call or teleconsultation gave verbal consent by telephone to the visit mode, while all patients who refused this method were visited in person.
At the end of the first month of teleconsultation system usage, all patients managed via the new system were contacted and subjected to a structured telephone interview composed of three questions to evaluate the level of satisfaction with the service and to investigate fears and perceptions. All described phases of the previously described project are summarized in Table 1. The items included in the questionnaire administered to the patients are listed in Table 2. The responses were analyzed quantitatively using the tools of classical descriptive statistics with 5-point Likert scale parameters. The primary outcome of the study is to report the real-world experience related to the establishment of a teleconsultation service in a single center during the COVID-19 pandemic; the secondary outcome is to collect patient-reported outcomes structured as a 5-point Likert scale telephone questionnaire.

3. Results

During the period of Italian lockdown (from 8 March to 4 May 2020) a total of 2027 visits (with 2013 different patients) were planned in the Radiation Oncology Department of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS. Of this amount, 71 visits (3.50%) were cancelled due to patient death or patient decision to pursue radiotherapy nearby in his/her hometown.
From the evaluation of the remaining 1956 visits according to the previous described criteria, 761 (38.91%) were considered not deferrable and were held in person; 181 (9.25%) were postponed; 983 (50.26%) were performed via email management and phone call, while 31 visits (1.58%, with 30 different patients) were conducted using the video-teleconsultation system, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
A total amount of 664 min of video-teleconsultation was performed, with a mean value of 23 min for each one. Among the 30 patients who used the video-teleconsultation service, 29 responded to the telephone interview. The age of the patients was between 34 and 87 years old (median age 63) and 12 patients were >65 years old (41.3%); 17 patients were female (55.2%) while 13 patients were male (44.8%). During the interview, 4 patients (13.8%) declared difficulties in managing the video-teleconsultation and needed to schedule a new date for the televisit or managed the televisit using email and phone call; the other 25 patients (86.2%) declared themselves satisfied or very satisfied with the video-teleconsultation system. Among the 4 patients who reported difficulty in connecting, 2 were over 65 years of age. Thirteen patients (44.8%) declared themselves afraid or very afraid due to the fact that the pandemic may hinder their on-site clinical visit; 10 patients (34.5%) were not or not totally afraid; 6 patients (24.1%) were intermediately afraid. All 29 interviewed patients declared that, for selected patients, a video-teleconsultation service would also be helpful after the pandemic for the management of follow-ups related to their oncologic condition and disease if such a service was considered adequate by the referring healthcare team. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are shown in Figure 3.

4. Discussion

A growing interest in telemedicine has already been reported even in oncology, with encouraging results in both retrospective studies and clinical trials [38,39]. Specific experiences were described especially in radiation oncology regarding treatment planning and for PROMs collection [40,41].
The spread of COVID-19 has catalyzed the sharing of experiences previously established in the field of telemedicine [42] and promoted the proposal of new solutions [43,44,45]. Multiple experiences documented in the literature, in particular, link the emergence and spread of telemedicine technologies and tools to the new and unforeseeable needs created by the pandemic [35,36]. Overall, digital health can offer cancer patients innovative services and assistance tools that were previously unimaginable [46,47,48,49,50]; indeed, the application of modern digital technology in oncology could lead to:
-
Patient stratification and -omics predictive models [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64];
-
Toxicity and objective cosmetic outcomes evaluation after treatments [65,66,67];
-
Data mining [68,69,70,71,72] and process mining [73,74,75,76,77];
-
Digital tools to ensure proximity to the patient [50,78,79,80].
These new tools, progressively introduced into the technological field, were quickly dedicated to managing the challenges of the first pandemic of the contemporary era [17,81]. In parallel, digital devices and software capable of incorporating artificial intelligence algorithms are finding increasing scope in speeding up highly repetitive and time-consuming tasks for physicians. Such software can, for example, assist in the contouring of organs at risk, optimize an already developed treatment plan, or alternatively obtain an automated plan [82].
Moreover, over the past few months, digital technology to include other new artificial intelligence tools, has been embedding itself in every single aspect of the cancer patient care pathway and is also beginning to be used not only as an accessory capable of performing dedicated functions, but also as a potential substitute for processes currently the prerogative of human intelligence: for example, ChatGPT (Open AI, San Francisco, CA, USA) is considered fairly accurate in providing information related to oncology issues [82] and may even write a discharge letter for the patient [83]. Such technology carries with it risks related to personal data management [84]; the need for a quality control system capable of supervising, identifying any errors, and correcting them (safety by design); and the need to educate the personnel who will be working with such technology (safety by education) [85]. In the face of these scenarios of extreme digitization, the centrality of the doctor–patient relationship must be recognized to effectively make technological innovation ancillary to the patient care pathway, acknowledging an additional role not vicarious by technology of providing the human return that the patient demands from the physician and health care personnel with whom he or she interacts [86]. Such human needs also emerge in the contexts of high-tech treatments to the extent that in some cases they determine the need for true multi-professional and multidisciplinary task forces designed to ensure a “humanity assurance protocol” [87,88,89]. In this context, digital technology—used appropriately by patients, doctors, nurses, RTT, and other health care personnel—can also offer synergistic help to the processes of humanization of care [79,80].
In our experience, teleconsultation was also positively received by patients aged >65 years, who accounted for 40% of the scheduled televisits, and, although the sample of the present study is small, it does not appear that age was the factor most associated with difficulties in connecting and participating in the service; this opens up the discussion on the fact that, even in elderly patients, technology can be used, especially in cases of autonomous patients who are already accustomed to its use or caregivers who are particularly present. The main limitation of the study is the low number of patients involved in video-teleconsultation, for a total of 1.58% among all the visits scheduled; other limitations are the mono-institutional setting and the limited period of study. An additional selection bias may be the fact that teleconsultation has been offered in our center to more patients than have actually used it by always ensuring, should the patient request an in-person visit, that they can opt for in-person clinical evaluation. This could lead selected patients to be more predisposed to positively accept the hypothesis of managing the visit through a teleconsultation by obtaining higher appreciative responses than the total number of patients to whom it would have been initially proposed.
Although it seems that telemedicine in oncology will endure longer than the diffusion of COVID-19, in order to borrow for clinical practice the technological and organizational achievements developed due to pandemic needs [90], further attention has to be dedicated to the warnings provided by others’ academic experiences. Using an expressive quote reported by Tobias Finazzi et al. [91], in-person radiation oncology visits are “more than a pat on the back”. In our experience since the end of the lockdown, the number of teleconsultations has not fallen drastically. On the contrary, we assisted in a gradual settling, suggesting that remote assessment modality can become complementary to in-person clinical settings in the care pathway for selected cases and in particular contexts. In the field of teleconsultation, Italian national recommendations were rapidly provided to allow minimal technical requirements and general standards and tools to be defined [92]. However, in order to integrate opportunities for remote digital assessment systematically and safely into the clinical pathways of any pathology, it would also be interesting to collect evidence showing that it is not inferior to a face-to-face visit in certain well-defined clinical scenarios. In this regard, the low number of patients that underwent televisits may reflect, rather than a lack of confidence on the part of patients—who reported a considerable level of satisfaction (86.2%) when involved in teleconsultation evaluations—the absence of consideration of this service in cancer disease management guidelines. This opens up three aspects that need to be explored in the future: (i) the indications to propose a remote teleconsultation instead to an in-person visit to the patient; (ii) a new semeiotic to define areas of appropriateness for each telemedicine feature or component (digital application, webmail communication, video-teleconsultation etc.); (iii) the needs to establish a dedicated training in digital health and telemedicine [85].
The authors consider the results of this experience to be positive. In fact, as shown in Figure 1, after sporadic use of teleconsultation, there was a dramatic increase during the lockdown period, probably due to growing practicality with the instrument and the modality of examination by both practitioners and patients. Therefore, a second phase (called KIT2) of the project has been planned. This phase will manage the shifting of digital remote patient contact systems from emergency to daily life.
In addition to the continuing use of the teleconsultation system during the KIT2 project, we aim to produce three different types of intervention: (i) a remodeling of the official Gemelli ART website, to be configured on the basis of a systematic collection of frequently asked FAQ questions; (ii) design of a chat-bot service to respond to patient needs; (iii) design of a specific mobile app for patient monitoring.
Future developments would have two phases: a first phase to catalyze the digital facilitation of patient communication through the remodeling of the website and the implementation of the chat-bot. In this way we would like to offer digital services that are synergistic with the communication that patients have with doctors, other health professionals, and administrative staff. The second phase will focus on the introduction of mobile applications for non-invasive remote monitoring of the patient’s clinical condition during treatment and the first follow-up period.

5. Conclusions

In our experience, the rapid implementation of a telemedicine system appears feasible even in pandemic emergency settings and well-accepted by patients. Moreover, this study opens up the opportunity for further applications of telemedicine in the field of radiation oncology.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.C., P.C. and L.T.; Methodology, M.B., P.C., B.C. and F.C.; Data curation A.D., S.R. and S.D.F.; Writing original draft C.C. and A.D.; Writing revision A.S., G.F.C., M.B., S.P. and A.C.; Supervision A.G.M., M.A.G., V.V. and L.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was not obtained from all subjects involved in the study because it is a retrospective experience and no personal clinical data were collected.

Data Availability Statement

It is possible to request information on the data by contacting the first or corresponding author in the case of a reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The project KIT 1 has been realized thanks to the support of the Associazione Attilio Romanini and Reale Mutua Fondation which enabled the Radiotherapy Unit to acquire the necessary tools for telehealth and to support the management of the activities. The project KIT 2 has been realized thanks to the support of the Associazione Attilio Romanini, Reale Mutua Fondation and Fondazione Vodafone.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare the following conflict of interest. Vincenzo Valentini: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ferring, Ipsen, Istitutogentili, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Merck, Norgine, Novartis Farma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Servier Italia, Varian, Elekta, Viewray. Luca Tagliaferri: Elekta, Igea Medical, Molipharma, Nanobiotix, Roche, Sanofi, SunPharma.

References

  1. Zanardo, M.; Cornacchione, P.; Marconi, E.; Dinapoli, L.; Fellin, F.; Gerasia, R.; Monti, C.B.; Sardanelli, F.; Tagliaferri, L.; Jereczek-Fossa, B.A.; et al. Occupational burnout among radiation therapy technologists in Italy before and during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Sci. 2021, 53, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Federico, A.; Fragomeni, S.M.; Tagliaferri, L.; Rios, L.S.G.; Lancellotta, V.; Gentileschi, S.; Corrado, G.; Gui, B.; Colloca, G.; Rufini, V.; et al. Clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with vulvar cancer: The Gemelli Vul.Can multidisciplinary team. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2021, 32, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Halpern, S.D.; Truog, R.D.; Miller, F.G. Cognitive Bias and Public Health Policy During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA 2020, 324, 337–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Marconi, E.; Chiesa, S.; Dinapoli, L.; Lepre, E.; Tagliaferri, L.; Balducci, M.; Frascino, V.; Casà, C.; Chieffo, D.P.R.; Gambacorta, M.A.; et al. A radiotherapy staff experience of gratitude during COVID-19 pandemic. Tech. Innov. Patient Support Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 18, 32–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Garganese, G.; Tagliaferri, L.; Fragomeni, S.M.; Lancellotta, V.; Colloca, G.; Corrado, G.; Gentileschi, S.; Macchia, G.; Tamburrini, E.; Gambacorta, M.A.; et al. Personalizing vulvar cancer workflow in COVID-19 era: A proposal from Vul.Can MDT. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 146, 2535–2545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vavassori, A.; Tagliaferri, L.; Vicenzi, L.; D’Aviero, A.; Ciabattoni, A.; Gribaudo, S.; Lapadula, L.; Mattiucci, G.C.; Vinante, L.; De Sanctis, V.; et al. Practical indications for management of patients candidate to Interventional and Intraoperative Radiotherapy (Brachytherapy, IORT) during COVID-19 pandemic—A document endorsed by AIRO (Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology) Interventional Radiotherapy Working Group. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 149, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gentileschi, S.; Caretto, A.A.; Tagliaferri, L.; Salgarello, M.; Peris, K. Skin cancer plastic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 46, 1194–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tagliaferri, L.; Di Stefani, A.; Schinzari, G.; Fionda, B.; Rossi, E.; Del Regno, L.; Gentileschi, S.; Federico, F.; Valentini, V.; Tortora, G.; et al. Skin cancer triage and management during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2020, 34, 1136–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cornacchione, P.; Tagliaferri, L.; D’Aviero, A.; Ciabattoni, A.; Galdieri, C.; De Sanctis, V.; Fellin, F.; Gribaudo, S.; Lambertini, D.; Gambacorta, M.A.; et al. The role of radiation therapy technologist in interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in Italy: Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) and Italian Association of Radiation Therapy and Medical Physics Technologists (AITRO) joint project. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2021, 13, 599–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tagliaferri, L.; Vavassori, A.; Lancellotta, V.; De Sanctis, V.; Barbera, F.; Fusco, V.; Vidali, C.; Fionda, B.; Colloca, G.; Gambacorta, M.; et al. Can brachytherapy be properly considered in the clinical practice? Trilogy project: The vision of the AIRO (Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology) Interventional Radiotherapy study group. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2020, 12, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Thureau, S.; Faivre, J.C.; Assaker, R.; Biver, E.; Confavreux, C.B.; Debiais, F.; Duterque-Coquillaud, M.; Giammarile, F.; Heymann, D.; Lecouvet, F.E.; et al. Adapting palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: GEMO position paper. J. Bone Oncol. 2020, 22, 100291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Braunstein, L.Z.; Gillespie, E.F.; Hong, L.; Xu, A.; Bakhoum, S.F.; Cuaron, J.; Mueller, B.; McCormick, B.; Cahlon, O.; Powell, S.; et al. Breast Radiation Therapy Under COVID-19 Pandemic Resource Constraints—Approaches to Defer or Shorten Treatment From a Comprehensive Cancer Center in the United States. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 5, 582–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Guckenberger, M.; Belka, C.; Bezjak, A.; Bradley, J.; Daly, M.E.; DeRuysscher, D.; Dziadziuszko, R.; Faivre-Finn, C.; Flentje, M.; Gore, E.; et al. Practice recommendations for lung cancer radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ESTRO-ASTRO consensus statement. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 146, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Thomson, D.J.; Palma, D.; Guckenberger, M.; Balermpas, P.; Beitler, J.J.; Blanchard, P.; Brizel, D.; Budach, W.; Caudell, J.; Corry, J.; et al. Practice Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ASTRO-ESTRO Consensus Statement. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 107, 618–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zaorsky, N.G.; Yu, J.B.; McBride, S.M.; Dess, R.T.; Jackson, W.C.; Mahal, B.A.; Chen, R.; Choudhury, A.; Henry, A.; Syndikus, I.; et al. Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 5, 659–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Meattini, I.; Franco, P.; Belgioia, L.; Boldrini, L.; Botticella, A.; De Santis, M.C.; Marvaso, G.; Montesi, G.; Parisi, S.; Triggiani, L.; et al. Radiation therapy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Italy: A view of the nation’s young oncologists. ESMO Open 2020, 5, e000779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Whitelaw, S.; Mamas, M.A.; Topol, E.; Van Spall, H.G. Applications of digital technology in COVID-19 pandemic planning and response. Lancet Digit. Health 2020, 2, e435–e440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, C.J.; Ng, C.; Brook, R.H. Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan. JAMA 2020, 323, 1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Naudé, W. Artificial intelligence vs COVID-19: Limitations, constraints and pitfalls. AI Soc. 2020, 35, 761–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, L.; Qin, L.; Xu, Z.; Yin, Y.; Wang, X.; Kong, B.; Bai, J.; Lu, Y.; Fang, Z.; Song, Q.; et al. Using artificial intelligence to detect COVID-19 and community-acquired pneumonia based on pulmonary CT: Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 2020, 296, E65–E71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ferretti, L.; Wymant, C.; Kendall, M.; Zhao, L.; Nurtay, A.; Abeler-Dörner, L.; Parker, M.; Bonsall, D.G.; Fraser, C. Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests epidemic control with digital contact tracing. Science 2020, 368, eabb6936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Miller, A.C.; Singh, I.; Koehler, E.; Polgreen, P.M. A Smartphone-Driven Thermometer Application for Real-time Population- and Individual-Level Influenza Surveillance. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 67, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Or, C.K.; Liu, K.; So, M.K.P.; Cheung, B.; Yam, L.Y.C.; Tiwari, A.; Lau, Y.F.E.; Lau, T.; Hui, P.S.G.; Cheng, H.C.; et al. Improving Self-Care in Patients With Coexisting Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension by Technological Surrogate Nursing: Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e16769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Hans, P.K.; Gray, C.S.; Gill, A.; Tiessen, J. The provider perspective: Investigating the effect of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile application and portal on primary care provider workflow. Prim. Health Care Res. Dev. 2017, 19, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Dorsey, E.R.; Topol, E.J. State of Telehealth. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Reed, M.E.; Huang, J.; Parikh, R.; Millman, A.; Ballard, D.W.; Barr, I.; Wargon, C. Patient–Provider Video Telemedicine Integrated With Clinical Care: Patient Experiences. Ann. Intern. Med. 2019, 171, 222–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kahn, J.M. Virtual Visits—Confronting the Challenges of Telemedicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 1684–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Steinhubl, S.R.; Muse, E.D.; Topol, E.J. Can Mobile Health Technologies Transform Health Care? JAMA 2013, 310, 2395–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hollander, J.E.; Carr, B.G. Virtually Perfect? Telemedicine for COVID-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1679–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. World Health Organization. Report by the Director-General. World Health Assembly Seventy-First World Health Assembly—Promote Health, Keep the World Safe, Serve the Vulnerable. 2018. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/324775/WHO-PRP-18.1-eng.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2021).
  31. Basch, E.; Deal, A.M.; Kris, M.G.; Scher, H.I.; Hudis, C.A.; Sabbatini, P.; Rogak, L.; Bennett, A.V.; Dueck, A.C.; Atkinson, T.M.; et al. Symptom Monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Basch, E.; Deal, A.M.; Dueck, A.C.; Scher, H.I.; Kris, M.G.; Hudis, C.; Schrag, D. Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment. JAMA 2017, 318, 197–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Basch, E.; Schrag, D.; Henson, S.; Jansen, J.; Ginos, B.; Stover, A.M.; Carr, P.; Spears, P.A.; Jonsson, M.; Deal, A.M.; et al. Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer. JAMA 2022, 327, 2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ali, M.; Wani, S.U.D.; Masoodi, M.H.; Khan, N.A.; Shivakumar, H.; Osmani, R.M.A.; Khan, K.A. Global Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Patients and its Treatment: A Systematic Review. Clin. Complement. Med. Pharmacol. 2022, 2, 100041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Orazem, M.; Oblak, I.; Spanic, T.; Ratosa, I. Telemedicine in Radiation Oncology Post–COVID-19 Pandemic: There Is No Turning Back. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 108, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ma, T.M.; Parikh, N.R.; Philipson, R.G.; van Dams, R.; Chang, E.M.; Hegde, J.V.; Kishan, A.U.; Kaprealian, T.B.; Steinberg, M.L.; Raldow, A.C. Experience of Telemedicine Visits in Radiation Oncology During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A US National Survey and Lessons Learned for Incorporating Telemedicine Post-COVID-19. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 8, 100924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Damiani, A.; Masciocchi, C.; Lenkowicz, J.; Capocchiano, N.D.; Boldrini, L.; Tagliaferri, L.; Cesario, A.; Sergi, P.; Marchetti, A.; Luraschi, A.; et al. Building an Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Based on Real World Data: The Experience of Gemelli Generator. Front. Comput. Sci. 2021, 3, 768266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lizée, T.; Basch, E.; Trémolières, P.; Voog, E.; Domont, J.; Peyraga, G.; Urban, T.; Bennouna, J.; Septans, A.-L.; Balavoine, M.; et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Surveillance in Patients With Lung Cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2019, 14, 1012–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Denis, F.; Lethrosne, C.; Pourel, N.; Molinier, O.; Pointreau, Y.; Domont, J.; Bourgeois, H.; Senellart, H.; Trémolières, P.; Lizée, T.; et al. Randomized Trial Comparing a Web-Mediated Follow-up With Routine Surveillance in Lung Cancer Patients. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017, 109, djx029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Olsen, D.R.; Bruland, S.; Davis, B.J. Telemedicine in radiotherapy treatment planning: Requirements and applications. Radiother. Oncol. 2000, 54, 255–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Hauth, F.; Bizu, V.; App, R.; Lautenbacher, H.; Tenev, A.; Bitzer, M.; Malek, N.P.; Zips, D.; Gani, C. Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Radiation Oncology: Initial Experience After Workflow Implementation. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2019, 7, e12345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Lewis, G.D.; Hatch, S.S.; Wiederhold, L.R.; Swanson, T.A. Long-Term Institutional Experience With Telemedicine Services for Radiation Oncology: A Potential Model for Long-Term Utilization. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 5, 780–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Price, A.; Henke, L.E.; Maraghechi, B.; Kim, T.; Spraker, M.B.; Hugo, G.D.; Robinson, C.G.; Knutson, N.C. Implementation of a Novel Remote Physician Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Coverage Process during the Coronavirus Pandemic. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 5, 690–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Deantonio, L.; Bosetti, D.; Cima, S.; Martucci, F.; Borgonovo, G.; Di Bella, G.; Pesce, G.A.; Valli, M.; Richetti, A. #Stayathome: Smart working for radiation oncologists during the corona pandemic. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2020, 196, 1094–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Caravatta, L.; Rosa, C.; Di Sciascio, M.B.; Scaringi, A.T.; Di Pilla, A.; Ursini, L.A.; Taraborrelli, M.; Vinciguerra, A.; Augurio, A.; Di Tommaso, M.; et al. COVID-19 and radiation oncology: The experience of a two-phase plan within a single institution in central Italy. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 15, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Fallahzadeh, R.; Rokni, S.A.; Ghasemzadeh, H.; Soto-Perez-De-Celis, E.; Shahrokni, A. Digital Health for Geriatric Oncology. JCO Clin. Cancer Informatics 2018, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cesario, A.; D’Oria, M.; Bove, F.; Privitera, G.; Boškoski, I.; Pedicino, D.; Boldrini, L.; Erra, C.; Loreti, C.; Liuzzo, G.; et al. Personalized Clinical Phenotyping through Systems Medicine and Artificial Intelligence. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cesario, A.; D’Oria, M.; Calvani, R.; Picca, A.; Pietragalla, A.; Lorusso, D.; Daniele, G.; Lohmeyer, F.M.; Boldrini, L.; Valentini, V.; et al. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Managing Multimorbidity and Cancer. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cesario, A.; Lohmeyer, F.M.; D’Oria, M.; Manto, A.; Scambia, G. The personalized medicine discourse: Archaeology and genealogy. Med. Health Care Philos. 2021, 24, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Chiloiro, G.; Romano, A.; D’Aviero, A.; Dinapoli, L.; Zane, E.; Tenore, A.; Boldrini, L.; Balducci, M.; Gambacorta, M.A.; Mattiucci, G.C.; et al. Patients’ Satisfaction by SmileInTM Totems in Radiotherapy: A Two-Year Mono-Institutional Experience. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dinapoli, N.; Casà, C.; Barbaro, B.; Chiloiro, G.V.; Damiani, A.; Di Matteo, M.; Farchione, A.; Gambacorta, M.A.; Gatta, R.; Lanzotti, V.; et al. Radiomics for rectal cancer. Transl. Cancer Res. 2016, 5, 424–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dinapoli, N.; Barbaro, B.; Gatta, R.; Chiloiro, G.; Casà, C.; Masciocchi, C.; Damiani, A.; Boldrini, L.; Gambacorta, M.A.; Dezio, M.; et al. Magnetic Resonance, Vendor-independent, Intensity Histogram Analysis Predicting Pathologic Complete Response After Radiochemotherapy of Rectal Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2018, 102, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cusumano, D.; Boldrini, L.; Yadav, P.; Casà, C.; Lee, S.L.; Romano, A.; Piras, A.; Chiloiro, G.; Placidi, L.; Catucci, F.; et al. Delta Radiomics Analysis for Local Control Prediction in Pancreatic Cancer Patients Treated Using Magnetic Resonance Guided Radiotherapy. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Cusumano, D.; Dinapoli, N.; Boldrini, L.; Chiloiro, G.; Gatta, R.; Masciocchi, C.; Lenkowicz, J.; Casà, C.; Damiani, A.; Azario, L.; et al. Fractal-based radiomic approach to predict complete pathological response after chemo-radiotherapy in rectal cancer. Radiol. Med. 2018, 123, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chiloiro, G.; Rodriguez-Carnero, P.; Lenkowicz, J.; Casà, C.; Masciocchi, C.; Boldrini, L.; Cusumano, D.; DiNapoli, N.; Meldolesi, E.; Carano, D.; et al. Delta Radiomics Can Predict Distant Metastasis in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: The Challenge to Personalize the Cure. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 595012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gatta, R.; Vallati, M.; Dinapoli, N.; Masciocchi, C.; Lenkowicz, J.; Cusumano, D.; Casá, C.; Farchione, A.; Damiani, A.; van Soest, J.; et al. Towards a modular decision support system for radiomics: A case study on rectal cancer. Artif. Intell. Med. 2018, 96, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Boldrini, L.; Cusumano, D.; Chiloiro, G.; Casà, C.; Masciocchi, C.; Lenkowicz, J.; Cellini, F.; Dinapoli, N.; Azario, L.; Teodoli, S.; et al. Delta radiomics for rectal cancer response prediction with hybrid 0.35 T magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT): A hypothesis-generating study for an innovative personalized medicine approach. Radiol. Med. 2019, 124, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Casà, C.; Piras, A.; D’Aviero, A.; Preziosi, F.; Mariani, S.; Cusumano, D.; Romano, A.; Boskoski, I.; Lenkowicz, J.; Dinapoli, N.; et al. The impact of radiomics in diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Ther. Adv. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2022, 15, 263177452210815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tagliaferri, L.; Pagliara, M.M.; Masciocchi, C.; Scupola, A.; Azario, L.; Grimaldi, G.; Autorino, R.; Gambacorta, M.A.; Laricchiuta, A.; Boldrini, L.; et al. Nomogram for predicting radiation maculopathy in patients treated with Ruthenium-106 plaque brachytherapy for uveal melanoma. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2017, 9, 540–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Balducci, M.; Fiorentino, A.; de Bonis, P.; Chiesa, S.; Manfrida, S.; D’Agostino, G.R.; Mantini, G.; Frascino, V.; Mattiucci, G.C.; De Bari, B.; et al. Impact of age and co-morbidities in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A pooled data analysis of three prospective mono-institutional phase II studies. Med. Oncol. 2012, 29, 3478–3483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Van Gijn, W.; van Stiphout, R.G.P.M.; van de Velde, C.J.H.; Valentini, V.; Lammering, G.; Gambacorta, M.A.; Påhlman, L.; Bujko, K.; Lambin, P. Nomograms to predict survival and the risk for developing local or distant recurrence in patients with rectal cancer treated with optional short-term radiotherapy. Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 928–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Boldrini, L.; Lenkowicz, J.; Orlandini, L.C.; Yin, G.; Cusumano, D.; Chiloiro, G.; Dinapoli, N.; Peng, Q.; Casà, C.; Gambacorta, M.A.; et al. Applicability of a pathological complete response magnetic resonance-based radiomics model for locally advanced rectal cancer in intercontinental cohort. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 17, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Iezzi, R.; Casà, C.; Posa, A.; Cornacchione, P.; Carchesio, F.; Boldrini, L.; Tanzilli, A.; Cerrito, L.; Fionda, B.; Longo, V.; et al. Project for interventional Oncology LArge-database in liveR Hepatocellular carcinoma—Preliminary CT-based radiomic analysis (POLAR Liver 1.1). Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2022, 26, 2891–2899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Sicilia, R.; Cordelli, E.; Ramella, S.; Fiore, M.; Greco, C.; Molfese, E.; Miele, M.; Vinciguerra, E.; Cornacchione, P.; Ippolito, E.; et al. Exploratory Radiomics for Predicting Adaptive Radiotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 31st International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), Karlstad, Sweden, 18–21 June 2018; pp. 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Soror, T.; Lancellotta, V.; Kovács, G.; Lanzotti, V.; Tagliaferri, L.; Casà, C.; Aristei, C.; Barberini, F.; Mahmoud, M.; Badakhshi, H. kOBCS©: A novel software calculator program of the Objective Breast Cosmesis Scale (OBCS). Breast Cancer 2019, 27, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Tagliaferri, L.; Giarrizzo, I.; Fionda, B.; Rigante, M.; Pagliara, M.M.; Casà, C.; Parrilla, C.; Lancellotta, V.; Placidi, E.; Salvati, A.; et al. ORIFICE (Interventional Radiotherapy for Face Aesthetic Preservation) Study: Results of Interdisciplinary Assessment of Interstitial Interventional Radiotherapy (Brachytherapy) for Periorificial Face Cancer. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lancellotta, V.; Macchia, G.; Dinapoli, N.; Autorino, R.; Campitelli, M.; Nardangeli, A.; Salvati, A.; Fionda, B.; Casà, C.; Cornacchione, P.; et al. EROS 2.0 study: Evaluation of two interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) schedules for endometrial cancer: A comparison of late vaginal toxicity rates. Radiol. Med. 2022, 127, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tagliaferri, L.; Kovács, G.; Autorino, R.; Budrukkar, A.; Guinot, J.L.; Hildebrand, G.; Johansson, B.; Monge, R.M.; Meyer, J.E.; Niehoff, P.; et al. ENT COBRA (Consortium for Brachytherapy Data Analysis): Interdisciplinary standardized data collection system for head and neck patients treated with interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy). J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2016, 8, 336–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Tagliaferri, L.; Budrukkar, A.; Lenkowicz, J.; Cambeiro, M.; Bussu, F.; Guinot, J.L.; Hildebrandt, G.; Johansson, B.; Meyer, J.E.; Niehoff, P.; et al. ENT COBRA ONTOLOGY: The covariates classification system proposed by the Head & Neck and Skin GEC-ESTRO Working Group for interdisciplinary standardized data collection in head and neck patient cohorts treated with interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy). J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2018, 10, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tagliaferri, L.; Ciardo, F.G.; Fionda, B.; Casà, C.; Di Stefani, A.; Lancellotta, V.; Placidi, E.; Macchia, G.; Capocchiano, N.D.; Morganti, A.G.; et al. Non-melanoma Skin Cancer Treated by Contact High-dose-rate Radiotherapy (Brachytherapy): A Mono-institutional Series and Literature Review. Vivo 2021, 35, 2313–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lancellotta, V.; D’Aviero, A.; Fionda, B.; Di Stefani, A.; Casà, C.; Del Regno, L.; Gentileschi, S.; Colloca, G.F.; Rossi, E.; Schinzari, G.; et al. Contact skin radiotherapy (brachytherapy) for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancers during COVID-19 pandemic. Dermatol. Ther. 2021, 35, e15276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lancellotta, V.; Guinot, J.L.; Fionda, B.; Rembielak, A.; Di Stefani, A.; Gentileschi, S.; Federico, F.; Rossi, E.; Guix, B.; Chyrek, A.J.; et al. SKIN-COBRA (Consortium for Brachytherapy data Analysis) ontology: The first step towards interdisciplinary standardized data collection for personalized oncology in skin cancer. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2020, 12, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Gatta, R.; Vallati, M.; Lenkowicz, J.; Casa, C.; Cellini, F.; Damiani, A.; Valentini, V. A Framework for Event Log Generation and Knowledge Representation for Process Mining in Healthcare. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 30th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), Volos, Greece, 5–7 November 2018; pp. 647–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Lenkowicz, J.; Gatta, R.; Masciocchi, C.; Casà, C.; Cellini, F.; Damiani, A.; Dinapoli, N.; Valentini, V. Assessing the conformity to clinical guidelines in oncology: An example for the multidisciplinary management of locally advanced colorectal cancer treatment. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 2172–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Marazzi, F.; Tagliaferri, L.; Masiello, V.; Moschella, F.; Colloca, G.F.; Corvari, B.; Sanchez, A.M.; Capocchiano, N.D.; Pastorino, R.; Iacomini, C.; et al. GENERATOR Breast DataMart—The Novel Breast Cancer Data Discovery System for Research and Monitoring: Preliminary Results and Future Perspectives. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Fionda, B.; Boldrini, L.; D’Aviero, A.; Lancellotta, V.; Gambacorta, M.; Kovács, G.; Patarnello, S.; Valentini, V.; Tagliaferri, L. Artificial intelligence (AI) and interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy): State of art and future perspectives. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2020, 12, 497–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mattiucci, G.C.; Boldrini, L.; Chiloiro, G.; D’Agostino, G.R.; Chiesa, S.; De Rose, F.; Azario, L.; Pasini, D.; Gambacorta, M.A.; Balducci, M.; et al. Automatic delineation for replanning in nasopharynx radiotherapy: What is the agreement among experts to be considered as benchmark? Acta Oncol. 2013, 52, 1417–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Fionda, B.; Piras, A.; D’Aviero, A.; Venuti, V.; Casà, C.; Preziosi, F.; Catucci, F.; Boldrini, L.; Daidone, A.; Tagliaferri, L.; et al. The “PC-WIRED” study: Patient Centred Evolution of Websites of Italian Radiotherapy Departments. Patient Educ. Couns. 2021, 104, 2152–2153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Tagliaferri, L.; Dinapoli, L.; Casà, C.; Colloca, G.F.; Marazzi, F.; Cornacchione, P.; Mazzarella, C.; Masiello, V.; Chiesa, S.; Bartoli, F.B.; et al. Art and digital technologies to support resilience during the oncological journey: The Art4ART project. Tech. Innov. Patient Support Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 24, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Casà, C.; Dinapoli, L.; Marconi, E.; Chiesa, S.; Cornacchione, P.; Bartoli, F.B.; Bracci, S.; Salvati, A.; Scalise, S.; Colloca, G.F.; et al. Integration of art and technology in personalized radiation oncology care: Experiences, evidence, and perspectives. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1056307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Keesara, S.; Jonas, A.; Schulman, K. COVID-19 and Health Care’s Digital Revolution. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cilla, S.; Deodato, F.; Romano, C.; Ianiro, A.; Macchia, G.; Re, A.; Buwenge, M.; Boldrini, L.; Indovina, L.; Valentini, V.; et al. Personalized automation of treatment planning in head-neck cancer: A step forward for quality in radiation therapy? Phys. Medica 2021, 82, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Johnson, S.B.; King, A.J.; Warner, E.L.; Aneja, S.; Kann, B.H.; Bylund, C.L. Using ChatGPT to evaluate cancer myths and misconceptions: Artificial intelligence and cancer information. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2023, 7, pkad015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Patel, S.B.; Lam, K. ChatGPT: The future of discharge summaries? Lancet Digit. Health 2023, 5, e107–e108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Uprety, D.; Zhu, D.; West, H. ChatGPT—A promising generative AI tool and its implications for cancer care. Cancer 2023. early view. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Casà, C.; Marotta, C.; Di Pumpo, M.; Cozzolino, A.; D’Aviero, A.; Frisicale, E.M.; Silenzi, A.; Gabbrielli, F.; Bertinato, L.; Brusaferro, S. COVID-19 and digital competencies among young physicians: Are we (really) ready for the new era? A national survey of the Italian Young Medical Doctors Association. Ann. Ist. Super. Sanita. 2021, 57, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Valentini, V.; Marconi, E.; Dinapoli, L.; Casà, C. Come cambia la percezione della professione medica di fronte alla richiesta di morte. Med. Morale 2022, 71, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lancellotta, V.; De Sanctis, V.; Cornacchione, P.; Barbera, F.; Fusco, V.; Vidali, C.; Scalise, S.; Panza, G.; Tenore, A.; Colloca, G.; et al. HAPPY—Humanity Assurance Protocol in interventional radiotheraPY (brachytherapy)—An AIRO Interventional Radiotherapy Study Group project. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy 2019, 11, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Abbasi, A.N.; Tariq, M.; Karim, M.U.; Casa, C. Emotional Intelligence Training can be Incorporated as an Essential Component of Postgraduate Medical Education: Paving the Way Towards the Development of Multidisciplinary Team Culture. J. Coll. Phys. Surg. Pak. 2023, 33, 362–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pareek, P.; Vishnoi, J.R.; Kombathula, S.H.; Vyas, R.K.; Misra, S. Teleoncology: The Youngest Pillar of Oncology. JCO Glob. Oncol. 2020, 6, 1455–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Finazzi, T.; Papachristofilou, A.; Zimmermann, F. “Connection Failed”: A Word of Caution on Telemedicine in Radiation Oncology. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 108, 435–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gabbrielli, F.; Bertinato, L.; De Filippis, G.; Bonomini, M.; Cipolla, M. Indicazioni ad Interim per Servizi Assistenziali di Telemedicina Durante l’Emergenza Sanitaria COVID-19. Published Online 13 April 2020. Rapporto ISS COVID-19 n. 12/2020. Available online: https://www.iss.it/rapporti-covid-19/-/asset_publisher/btw1J82wtYzH/content/rapporto-iss-covid-19-n.-12-2020-indicazioni-ad-interim-per-servizi-assistenziali-di-telemedicina-durante-l-emergenza-sanitaria-covid-19.-versione-del-13-aprile-2020?_com (accessed on 20 April 2020).
Figure 1. Number of televisits during Italian lockdown period.
Figure 1. Number of televisits during Italian lockdown period.
Healthcare 11 01950 g001
Figure 2. Flow diagram of visits scheduled during the Italian lockdown period (from 8 March to 4 May 2020).
Figure 2. Flow diagram of visits scheduled during the Italian lockdown period (from 8 March to 4 May 2020).
Healthcare 11 01950 g002
Figure 3. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs).
Figure 3. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs).
Healthcare 11 01950 g003
Table 1. Project phases.
Table 1. Project phases.
Project Phases
1Creation of the multi-professional group
2Planning visits with the new scheme:
Value 1 = visit not deferrable and held in person
Value 2 = visit postponed
Value 3 = visit performed via email management and call
Value 4 = visit performed via complete teleconsultation using teleconsultation system
3Identification of the equipment necessary for the teleconsultation
4Request for collaboration with the Patients’ Association for the buying of equipment
5Start of televisit/teleconsultation
6Telephone interviews for patient satisfaction surveys
Table 2. Questionnaire for telephone interview.
Table 2. Questionnaire for telephone interview.
Questionnaire for Telephone Interview
Did you have any difficulties in managing the televisit or teleconsultation? [answers: yes/no]
How much satisfied were you with the video-teleconsultation system? [answers in 5-likert scale]
When you realized that the pandemic could hamper your contact visit with your radiation oncologists, were you afraid your clinical needs would not reach properly your radiation oncologist before the televisit? [answers in 5-likert scale]
Do you think that, once the emergency is over, this type of service could be considered as an alternative of traditional on-site visits for selected patients? [answers in 5-likert scale]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Casà, C.; Corvari, B.; Cellini, F.; Cornacchione, P.; D’Aviero, A.; Reina, S.; Di Franco, S.; Salvati, A.; Colloca, G.F.; Cesario, A.; et al. KIT 1 (Keep in Touch) Project—Televisits for Cancer Patients during Italian Lockdown for COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real-World Experience of Establishing a Telemedicine System. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11131950

AMA Style

Casà C, Corvari B, Cellini F, Cornacchione P, D’Aviero A, Reina S, Di Franco S, Salvati A, Colloca GF, Cesario A, et al. KIT 1 (Keep in Touch) Project—Televisits for Cancer Patients during Italian Lockdown for COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real-World Experience of Establishing a Telemedicine System. Healthcare. 2023; 11(13):1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11131950

Chicago/Turabian Style

Casà, Calogero, Barbara Corvari, Francesco Cellini, Patrizia Cornacchione, Andrea D’Aviero, Sara Reina, Silvia Di Franco, Alessandra Salvati, Giuseppe Ferdinando Colloca, Alfredo Cesario, and et al. 2023. "KIT 1 (Keep in Touch) Project—Televisits for Cancer Patients during Italian Lockdown for COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real-World Experience of Establishing a Telemedicine System" Healthcare 11, no. 13: 1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11131950

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop