METHODS: The two entities organised a combined symposium and post-meeting interactions among representatives of major cancer centres from seventeen Asian countries to outlining major challenges and countermeasures.
RESULTS: Participating stakeholders distilled five big questions. 1) "Will there be an explosion of late-stage cancers after the pandemic?" To address and recover from perceived delayed prevention, screening, treatment and care challenges, collaboration of key stakeholders in the region and alignment in cancer care management, policy intervention and cancer registry initiatives would be of essential value. 2) "Operations and Finance" The pandemic has resulted in significant material and financial casualties. Flagged acute challenges (shortages of supplies, imposition of lockdown) as well as longer-standing reduction of financial revenue, manpower, international collaboration, and training should also be addressed. 3) "Will telemedicine and technological innovations revolutionize cancer care?" Deploying and implementing telemedicine such as teleconsultation and virtual tumour boards were considered invaluable. These innovations could become a new regular practice, leading to expansion of tele-collaboration through collaboration of institutions in the region. 4) "Will virtual conferences continue after the pandemic?" Virtual conferences during the pandemic have opened new doors for knowledge sharing, especially for representatives of low- and middle-income countries in the region, while saving time and costs of travel. 5) "How do we prepare for the next pandemic or international emergency?" Roadmaps for action to improve access to appropriate patient care and research were identified and scrutinised.
CONCLUSION: Through addressing these five big questions, focused collaboration among members and with international organisations such as City Cancer Challenge will allow enhanced preparedness for future international emergencies.
.
METHODS: Patient and tumor characteristics as well as surgical outcomes from 11 international centers were recorded. All tumors were retrospectively assigned an Orbital Resection by Intranasal Technique (ORBIT) class and stratified based on surgical approach as either exclusively endoscopic or combined (endoscopic and open). Outcomes based on approach were compared using chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests. The Cochrane-Armitage test for trend was used to analyze outcomes by class.
RESULTS: Findings from 110 PBOTs from 110 patients (age 49.0 ± 15.0 years, 51.9% female) were included in the analysis. Higher ORBIT class was associated with a lower likelihood of gross total resection (GTR). GTR was more likely to be achieved when an exclusively endoscopic approach was utilized (p