Outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international, multicenter, prospective CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer study

Background: The CovidSurg-Cancer Consortium aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 in surgical patients and services for solid cancers at the start of the pandemic. The CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer subgroup was particularly concerned about the magnitude of adverse outcomes caused by the disrupted surgical gynecologic cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are currently unclear. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the changes in care and short-term outcomes of surgical patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a delay in surgical cancer care, especially in patients who required more extensive surgery, and such delay had an impact on cancer outcomes. Study Design: This was a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers who were initially planned for nonpalliative surgery, were recruited from the date of first COVID-19-related admission in each participating center for 3 months. The follow-up period was 3 months from the time of the multidisciplinary tumor board decision to operate. The primary outcome of this analysis is the incidence of pandemic-related changes in care. The secondary outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality and morbidity and a composite outcome of unresectable disease or disease progression, emergency surgery, and death. Results: We included 3973 patients (3784 operated and 189 nonoperated) from 227 centers in 52 countries and 7 world regions who were initially planned to have cancer surgery. In 20.7% (823/3973) of the patients, the standard of care was adjusted. A significant delay (>8 weeks) was observed in 11.2% (424/3784) of patients, particularly in those with ovarian cancer (213/1355; 15.7%; P<.0001). This delay was associated with a composite of adverse outcomes, including disease progression and death (95/424; 22.4% vs 601/3360; 17.9%; P=.024) compared with those who had operations within 8 weeks of tumor board decisions. One in 13 (189/2430; 7.9%) did not receive their planned operations, in whom 1 in 20 (5/189; 2.7%) died and 1 in 5 (34/189; 18%) experienced disease progression or death within 3 months of multidisciplinary team board decision for surgery. Only 22 of the 3778 surgical patients (0.6%) acquired perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infections; they had a longer postoperative stay (median 8.5 vs 4 days; P<.0001), higher predefined surgical morbidity (14/22; 63.6% vs 717/3762; 19.1%; P<.0001) and mortality (4/22; 18.2% vs 26/3762; 0.7%; P<.0001) rates than the uninfected cohort. Conclusion: One in 5 surgical patients with gynecologic cancer worldwide experienced management modifications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant adverse outcomes were observed in those with delayed or cancelled operations, and coordinated mitigating strategies are urgently needed

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Treatment Outcome of Carcinoma Vulva Ten-Year Experience from a Tertiary Cancer Centre in South India

Background. Carcinoma vulva is a rare disease accounting for 1.3% of all gynaecological malignancies. The present study is a 10-year retrospective review of our experience of the surgical options, morbidity, failure pattern, and survival for invasive carcinoma vulva. Materials and Methods. Retrospective analysis of case records of 39 patients who underwent surgery for invasive vulval cancer between 2004 and 2013 in the Department of Surgical Oncology at the Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai. Results. The median age was 55 years. Radical vulvectomy was the preferred surgery. 31 patients underwent lymphadenectomy. Seroma formation and groin skin necrosis were the most common postoperative complications. With a median follow-up of 32 months, 8 patients (20.5%) developed recurrence (systemic = 1, regional = 4, and local = 3). The estimated 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 65.4% and the overall survival (OS) was 85.1%. On univariate analysis, stage and lymph node involvement significantly affected OS. Nodal involvement with extracapsular spread (ECS) significantly affected both DFS and OS. Conclusion. The treatment of carcinoma vulva should be individualized with multidisciplinary cooperation. The paucity of data, especially from India, necessitates the need for more studies, preferably multicentric, keeping in mind the low prevalence

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study.

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services

Impact of malnutrition on early outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study

Background: malnutrition represents a key priority for global health policy, yet the impact of nutritional state on cancer surgery worldwide remains poorly described. We aimed to analyse the effect of malnutrition on early postoperative outcomes following elective surgery for colorectal or gastric cancer. Methods: we did an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective surgery for colorectal or gastric cancer between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019. Patients were excluded if the primary pathology was benign, they presented with cancer recurrence, or if they underwent emergency surgery (within 72 h of hospital admission). Malnutrition was defined with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The primary outcome was death or a major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression and a three-way mediation analysis were done to establish the relationship between country income group, nutritional status, and 30-day postoperative outcomes. Findings: this study included 5709 patients (4593 with colorectal cancer and 1116 with gastric cancer) from 381 hospitals in 75 countries. The mean age was 64·8 years (SD 13·5) and 2432 (42·6%) patients were female. Severe malnutrition was present in 1899 (33·3%) of 5709 patients, with a disproportionate burden in upper-middle-income countries (504 [44·4%] of 1135) and low-income and lower-middle-income countries (601 [62·5%] of 962). After adjustment for patient and hospital risk factors, severe malnutrition was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality across all country income groups (high income: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·96 [95% CI 1·14–3·37], p=0·015; upper-middle income: 3·05 [1·45–6·42], p=0·003; low income and lower-middle income: 11·57 [5·87–22·80], p&lt;0·0001). Severe malnutrition mediated an estimated 32% of early deaths in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (aOR 1·41 [95% CI 1·22–1·64]) and an estimated 40% of early deaths in upper-middle-income countries (1·18 [1·08–1·30]). Interpretation: Severe malnutrition is common in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers and is a risk factor for 30-day mortality following elective surgery for colorectal or gastric cancer. There is an urgent need to examine whether perioperative nutritional interventions can improve early outcomes following gastrointestinal cancer surgery worldwide. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.</p

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study

BackgroundSurgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction.MethodsThis international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index &lt;20), moderate lockdowns (20-60), and full lockdowns (&gt;60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926.FindingsOf eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p&lt;0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p&lt;0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p&lt;0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p&lt;0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays.InterpretationCancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Exploring the cost-effectiveness of high versus low perioperative fraction of inspired oxygen in the prevention of surgical site infections among abdominal surgery patients in three low- and middle-income countries

Background: This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of high (80-100%) vs low (21-35%) fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) at preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) after abdominal surgery in Nigeria, India, and South Africa. Methods: Decision-analytic models were constructed using best available evidence sourced from unbundled data of an ongoing pilot trial assessing the effectiveness of high FiO2, published literature, and a cost survey in Nigeria, India, and South Africa. Effectiveness was measured as percentage of SSIs at 30 days after surgery, a healthcare perspective was adopted, and costs were reported in US dollars ($). Results: High FiO2 may be cost-effective (cheaper and effective). In Nigeria, the average cost for high FiO2 was$216 compared with 222 for low FiO2 leading to a -6 (95% confidence interval [CI]:&nbsp;-13 to -1) difference in costs. In India, the average cost for high FiO2 was $184 compared with$195 for low FiO2 leading to a&nbsp;-$11 (95$15 to&nbsp;-$6) difference in costs. In South Africa, the average cost for high FiO2 was$1164 compared with 1257 for low FiO2 leading to a -93 (95% CI:&nbsp;-132 to -65) difference in costs. The high FiO2 arm had few SSIs, 7.33% compared with 8.38% for low FiO2, leading to a&nbsp;-1.05 (95% CI:&nbsp;-1.14 to&nbsp;-0.90) percentage point reduction in SSIs. Conclusion: High FiO2 could be cost-effective at preventing SSIs in the three countries but further data from large clinical trials are required to confirm this