With the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) being declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization, the Indian healthcare sector is at the forefront to deliver optimal care. Patients with cancer especially are at serious risk for increased chances of morbidity and mortality due to their immunocompromised state. Currently there is a paucity of definitive guidelines for the management of sarcomas during the pandemic in a resource-constrained and diverse population setting like India. Health care professionals from various specialties involved in the management of sarcomas have collaborated to discuss various aspects of evidence-based sarcoma management during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article provides structured recommendations for HCP to adapt to the situation, optimize treatment protocols with judicious use of all resources while providing evidence-based treatment for sarcoma patients.

Background Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, management of cancer has been one of the most intensely debated topics across the globe. We conducted an online survey to determine the consistency/or the lack of it, in the management of sarcoma patients between centres and the changes in policies. Methods A twenty-five question online survey was conducted among practicing physicians over a period of 10 days using online portal (surveymonkey.com). It was followed by a critical analysis based on responses to each question. Results Of 194 medical professionals who participated, 80% were surgeons and 53% were working in government institutes. Most respondents (81%) continued their practice with some modifications. In OP majority (67%) relied only on symptom, contact enquiry and temperature recording for screening. COVID-19 testing was done more (43%) in IP patients. Most of institutes (83%) followed rotational policy to reduce the number of staff at risk while 57% offered an alternate accommodation. 52.3% continued chemotherapy for all patients while radiotherapy for all was offered by 45%. In metastatic cases, majority preferred either no treatment or non-surgical intervention (71%).84.5% believed in adapting changes (42%—avoid supra major surgeries, 27%—Operating only emergency cases and 15.5%—High grade sarcomas with curative intent) in surgical management of sarcomas. For benign bone tumors, majority (71%) agreed on adapting changes while 25% agreed on deferring all cases. 69% preferred teleconsultations for follow-up. Complete PPE were being used for all aerosol generating procedures by 44%. Only two thirds agreed with their institutes policy of PPE usage and COVID-19 testing. Conclusion This survey has highlighted disparity on COVID-19 screening and management in various institutes across the country. This will act as a reference point for tracking future trends in bone and soft tissue tumor management guidelines, as the COVID-19 scenario unfolds globally and particularly in India.

Background: Carcinoma penis is more common in India compared to the West. The role of chemotherapy in carcinoma penis is ambiguous. We analyzed the profile and outcomes of patients with carcinoma penis treated with chemotherapy. Methods: We analyzed the details of all patients with carcinoma penis treated at our institute between 2012 and 2015. We collected particulars regarding demography, clinical presentation, treatment details, toxicities, and outcomes of these patients. Event-free and overall (OS) survival were calculated from the time of diagnosis until documentation of disease relapse/progression or death for the patients with advanced carcinoma penis who were eligible for chemotherapy. Results: There were 171 patients with carcinoma penis treated at our institute during the study period including 54 (31.6%) patients with stage I, 49 (28.7%) patients with stage II, 24 (14.0%) patients with stage III, 25 (14.6%) patients with stage IV, and 19 (11.1%) patients with recurrent disease at presentation. The present study included 68 patients with advanced carcinoma penis (stages III and IV) who were eligible for chemotherapy, with a median age of 55 years (range: 27–79 years). Sixteen patients received paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) and 26 patients cisplatin and 5-FluoroUracil (CF). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) was given to four patients with stage III and nine patients with stage IV disease. Of the 13 patients given NACT, we observed a partial response in five (38.5%), stable disease in two (15.4%), and progressive disease in five (38.5%) evaluable patients. Six (46%) patients underwent surgery after NACT. Only 28/54 (52%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 17.2 months, the 2-year OS rates were 95.8, 89, 62.7, 51.9, and 28.6% for stages I, II, III, IV, and recurrent disease, respectively. The 2-year OS of patients who were given chemotherapy versus those who were not given chemotherapy were 52.7 and 63.2%, respectively (P = 0.762). Conclusions: We report the real-world outcomes of two chemotherapeutic regimens used in consecutive patients with advanced carcinoma penis. Both PC and CF seemed effective and safe. However, approximately half of patients with advanced carcinoma penis do not receive the planned/indicated chemotherapy. We need further prospective trials regarding the sequencing, protocols and indications of chemotherapy in this malignancy.

Glomus tumor, arising from glomus bodies (specialized neurovascular structures involved in thermoregulation), commonly occurs in extremities and rarely in viscera. The spectrum of glomus tumors range from benign tumors to tumors with uncertain malignant potential to tumors of the malignant subtype. A vast majority of visceral glomus tumors are benign. Most common visceral tumors arise in the gastrointestinal tract. Glomus tumors of the kidney are a rare entity of which malignant glomus tumors are exceedingly rare. The index patients in the existing case reports were middle-aged males. We report our experience with malignant glomus tumor of the left kidney in a 60-year-old female, with computed tomography (CT) showing involvement of renal vein and inferior vena cava (IVC). Percutaneous biopsy was performed as imaging did not conform to the appearance of a conventional renal tumor and was reported as malignant glomus tumor after immunohistochemistry. After informed decision, the patient and family elected to proceed with surgery. However, intraoperatively, the left renal mass was found to infiltrate the pancreas, duodenum, aorta, and root of the colonic mesentery due to which surgery was aborted. Biopsy obtained intraoperatively again confirmed diagnosis of left renal malignant glomus tumor. She had an uneventful postoperative recovery. Options of treatment were reviewed by a multidisciplinary board. In light of no proven benefit for systemic therapy, she was referred for supportive care. She was under follow-up and she expired after 7 months due to progressive disease. Our literature review focuses on the clinicopathologic features and the current standard of management of malignant renal glomus tumors.

Castleman's disease is a rare lymphoproliferative disorder of poorly understood etiology. It is most commonly located in the mediastinum. Castleman's disease mimicking adrenal neoplasm is a very rare differential diagnosis and unusual presentation. We report a rare suprarenal unicentric hyaline vascular variant of the disease in a 16-year-old boy with atypical symptoms mimicking an adrenal neoplasm.