Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with cancer in rural settings and distant geographical areas will be affected the most by curfews. Virtual management (telemedicine) has been shown to reduce health costs and improve access to care. Objective: The aim of this survey is to understand oncologists’ awareness of and views on virtual management, challenges, and preferences, as well as their priorities regarding the prescribing of anticancer treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We created a self-administrated electronic survey about the virtual management of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated its clinical sensibility and pilot tested the instrument. We surveyed practicing oncologists in Gulf and Arab countries using snowball sampling via emails and social media networks. Reminders were sent 1 and 2 weeks later using SurveyMonkey. Results: We received 222 responses from validated oncologists from April 2-22, 2020. An awareness of virtual clinics, virtual multidisciplinary teams, and virtual prescriptions was reported by 182 (82%), 175 (79%), and 166 (75%) respondents, respectively. Reported challenges associated with virtual management were the lack of physical exam (n=134, 60%), patients’ awareness and access (n=131, 59%), the lack of physical attendance of patients (n=93, 42%), information technology (IT) support (n=82, 37%), and the safety of virtual management (n=78, 35%). Overall, 111 (50%) and 107 (48%) oncologists did not prefer the virtual prescription of chemotherapy and novel immunotherapy, respectively. However, 188 (85%), 165 (74%), and 127 (57%) oncologists preferred the virtual prescription of hormonal therapy, bone modifying agents, and targeted therapy, respectively. In total, 184 (83%), 183 (83%), and 176 (80%) oncologists preferred to continue neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and perioperative treatments, respectively. Overall, 118 (53%) respondents preferred to continue first-line palliative treatment, in contrast to 68 (30%) and 47 (21%) respondents indicating a preference to interrupt second- and third-line palliative treatment, respectively. For administration of virtual prescriptions, all respondents preferred the oral route and 118 (53%) preferred the subcutaneous route. In contrast, 193 (87%) did not prefer the intravenous route for virtual prescriptions. Overall, 102 (46%) oncologists responded that they would “definitely” prefer to manage patients with cancer virtually. Conclusions: Oncologists have a high level of awareness of virtual management. Although their survey responses indicated that second- and third-line palliative treatments should be interrupted, they stated that neoadjuvant, adjuvant, perioperative, and first-line palliative treatments should continue. Our results confirm that oncologists’ views on the priority of anticancer treatments are consistent with the evolving literature during the COVID-19 pandemic. Challenges to virtual management should be addressed to improve the care of patients with cancer.

Background: Outcomes of relapsed/refractory childhood acute leukemia remain poor. We analyzed the safety/efficacy of fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony stimulating factor, with/without idarubicin (FLAG ± IDA) as salvage therapy compared with recent published results of novel therapies. Methods: This retrospective study included children aged 1 to 15 years with relapsed/refractory acute leukemia who received FLAG ± IDA salvage therapy from January 2000 to December 2014. Patients with infant leukemia, mixed lineage leukemia, Philadelphia-positive acute leukemia, or secondary leukemia were excluded. Result: Fifty patients were identified: 25 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and 25 with acute myeloid leukemia. The median age at initiation of FLAG ± IDA was seven years. Site of relapse was the bone marrow in 29, isolated central nervous system in 11, and combined in 10 patients. FLAG ± IDA was used after first relapse in 68% and after multiple relapses in 32%. Complete remission was achieved in 34 (68%) patients. No variables predictive of complete remission were identified. Grade 3 or greater toxicity was observed in 96% and 6% died from toxicity. Toxicities included hematologic toxicity (96%), infection (52%), and enterocolitis (28%). Twenty-four of 50 (48%) patients achieved a sustained complete remission and survived to bone marrow transplantation. The five-year overall survival was 23.9% ± 6.9%. Patients achieving second complete remission and patients proceeding to bone marrow transplantation following second complete remission demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Despite a 68% complete remission rate using FLAG ± IDA, only 48% of patients survived to bone marrow transplantation. The regimen was associated with 96% toxicity and only one in four patients was alive at five years. This underscores the need to find more effective lower toxicity salvage regimens.