The Impact of Routine Molecular Screening for SARS-CoV-2 in Patients Receiving Anticancer Therapy: An Interim Analysis of the Observational COICA Study

Introduction: Cancer aggravates COVID-19 prognosis. Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly frequent in cancer patients, who need to attend hospitals regularly. Since March 2020, all cancer patients having access to the Oncology Unit at the "Andrea Tortora" Hospital (Pagani, Salerno – referred to as "the Hospital") as inpatients or outpatients receiving intravenous therapy have been screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab. The ongoing COICA (COVID-19 infection in cancer patients) study is an ambispective, multicenter, observational study designed to assess the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. The aim of the study presented here was to explore potential differences in COVID-19-related outcomes among screening-detected versus nonscreening-detected SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Methods: The COICA study enrolled cancer patients who had received any anticancer systemic therapy within 3 months since the day they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. The target accrual is 128 patients, and the study was approved by the competent Ethics Committee. Only the subgroup of patients enrolled at the Hospital was considered in this unplanned interim analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of screening-based versus nonscreening-based diagnosis. Results: Since March 15, 2020, until August 15, 2021, a total of 931 outpatients and 230 inpatients were repeatedly screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab at the Hospital. Among these, 71 asymptomatic patients were positive on routine screening and 5 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 outside the institutional screening. Seven patients died because of COVID-19. At univariate analysis, nonscreening- versus screening-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of O2 therapy (OR = 16.2; 95% CI = 2.2–117.1; p = 0.006), hospital admission (OR = 31.5; 95% CI = 3.1–317.8; p = 0.003), admission to ICU (OR = 23.0; 95% CI = 2.4–223.8; p = 0.007), and death (OR = 8.8; 95% CI = 1.2–65.5; p = 0.034). Conclusion: Routine screening with RT-PCR may represent a feasible and effective strategy in reducing viral circulation and possibly COVID-19 mortality in patients with active cancer having repeated access to hospital facilities

Minimally invasive vs. open segmental resection of the splenic flexure for cancer: a nationwide study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology-Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO-CNN)

Background Evidence on the efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) segmental resection of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) is not available, mostly due to the rarity of this tumor. This study aimed to determine the survival outcomes of MI and open treatment, and to investigate whether MI is noninferior to open procedure regarding short-term outcomes. Methods This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all consecutive SFC segmental resections performed in 30 referral centers between 2006 and 2016. The primary endpoint assessing efficacy was the overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included cancer-specific mortality (CSM), recurrence rate (RR), short-term clinical outcomes (a composite of Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications and 30-day mortality), and pathological outcomes (a composite of lymph nodes removed >= 12, and proximal and distal free resection margins length >= 5 cm). For these composites, a 6% noninferiority margin was chosen based on clinical relevance estimate. Results A total of 606 patients underwent either an open (208, 34.3%) or a MI (398, 65.7%) SFC segmental resection. At univariable analysis, OS and CSM were improved in the MI group (log-rank test p = 0.004 and Gray's tests p = 0.004, respectively), while recurrences were comparable (Gray's tests p = 0.434). Cox multivariable analysis did not support that OS and CSM were better in the MI group (p = 0.109 and p = 0.163, respectively). Successful pathological outcome, observed in 53.2% of open and 58.3% of MI resections, supported noninferiority (difference 5.1%; 1-sided 95%CI - 4.7% to infinity). Successful short-term clinical outcome was documented in 93.3% of Open and 93.0% of MI procedures, and supported noninferiority as well (difference - 0.3%; 1-sided 95%CI - 5.0% to infinity). Conclusions Among patients with SFC, the minimally invasive approach met the criterion for noninferiority for postoperative complications and pathological outcomes, and was found to provide results of OS, CSM, and RR comparable to those of open resection

Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

none65noThe role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred.noneMilone, Marco; Degiuli, Maurizio; Velotti, Nunzio; Manigrasso, Michele; Vertaldi, Sara; D'Ugo, Domenico; De Palma, Giovanni Domenico; Dario Bruzzese, Giuseppe Servillo, Giuseppe De Simone, Katia Di Lauro, Silvia Sofia, Marco Ettore Allaix, Mario Morino, Rossella Reddavid, Carlo Alberto Ammirati, Stefano Scabini, Gabriele Anania, Cristina Bombardini, Andrea Barberis, Roberta Longhin, Andrea Belli, Francesco Bianco, Giampaolo Formisano, Giuseppe Giuliani, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Davide Cavaliere, Leonardo Solaini, Claudio Coco, Gianluca Rizzo, Andrea Coratti, Raffaele De Luca, Michele Simone, Alberto Di Leo, Giovanni De Manzoni, Paola De Nardi, Ugo Elmore, Riccardo Rosati, Andrea Vignali, Paolo Delrio, Ugo Pace, Daniela Rega, Antonio Di Cataldo, Giovanni Li Destri, Annibale Donini, Luigina Graziosi, Andrea Fontana, Michela Mineccia, Sergio Gentilli, Manuela Monni, Mario Guerrieri, Monica Ortenzi, Francesca Pecchini, Micaela Piccoli, Italy. Corrado Pedrazzani, Giulia Turri, Sara Pollesel, Franco Roviello, Marco Rigamonti, Michele Zuolo, Mauro Santarelli, Federica Saraceno, Pierpaolo Sileri Giuseppe Sigismondo Sica, Luigi Siragusa Salvatore Pucciarelli, Matteo ZuinMilone, Marco; Degiuli, Maurizio; Velotti, Nunzio; Manigrasso, Michele; Vertaldi, Sara; D'Ugo, Domenico; De Palma, Giovanni Domenico; Dario Bruzzese, Giuseppe Servillo, Giuseppe De Simone, Katia Di Lauro, Silvia Sofia, Marco Ettore Allaix, Mario Morino, Rossella Reddavid, Carlo Alberto Ammirati, Stefano Scabini, Gabriele Anania, Cristina Bombardini, Andrea Barberis, Roberta Longhin, Andrea Belli, Francesco Bianco, Giampaolo Formisano, Giuseppe Giuliani, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Davide Cavaliere, Leonardo Solaini, Claudio Coco, Gianluca Rizzo, Andrea Coratti, Raffaele De Luca, Michele Simone, Alberto Di Leo, Giovanni De Manzoni, Paola De Nardi, Ugo Elmore, Riccardo Rosati, Andrea Vignali, Paolo Delrio, Ugo Pace, Daniela Rega, Antonio Di Cataldo, Giovanni Li Destri, Annibale Donini, Luigina Graziosi, Andrea Fontana, Michela Mineccia, Sergio Gentilli, Manuela Monni, Mario Guerrieri, Monica Ortenzi, Francesca Pecchini, Micaela Piccoli, Italy. Corrado Pedrazzani, Giulia Turri, Sara Pollesel, Franco Roviello, Marco Rigamonti, Michele Zuolo, Mauro Santarelli, Federica Saraceno, Pierpaolo Sileri Giuseppe Sigismondo Sica, Luigi Siragusa Salvatore Pucciarelli, Matteo Zui

Abdominal drainage after elective colorectal surgery: propensity score-matched retrospective analysis of an Italian cohort

background: In italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. methods: a database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. the primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. the results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. results: a total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). group a versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). a mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. no difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. conclusion: this study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

background current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. this study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. methods a prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. the primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. all the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). results compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). conclusions MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP

2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Peer reviewe

Supplemental Material - The association between conditioned pain modulation and psychological factors in people with chronic spinal pain: A systematic review

Supplemental Material for The association between conditioned pain modulation and psychological factors in people with chronic spinal pain: A systematic review by Michael Mansfield, Gianluca Roviello, Mick Thacker, Matthew Willett, Kirsty Bannister and Toby Smith in British Journal of Pain</p

The association between conditioned pain modulation and psychological factors in people with chronic spinal pain: a systematic review

Chronic spinal pain has negative effects on physical and mental well-being. Psychological factors can influence pain tolerance. However, whether these factors influence descending modulatory control mechanisms measured by conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in people with chronic spinal pain is unclear. This systematic review investigated the association between CPM response and psychological factors in people with chronic spinal pain. Published and unpublished literature databases were searched from inception to 23rd October 2023 included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed. Studies assessing the association between CPM response and psychological factors in people with chronic spinal pain were eligible. Data were pooled through meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the AXIS tool and the certainty of evidence measured through GRADE. From 2172 records, seven studies (n = 598) were eligible. Quality of included studies was moderate. There was very low certainty of evidence that depression (r = 0.01 [95% CI −0.10 to 0.12], I2 = 0%), and anxiety (r = −0.20 [95% CI −0.56 to 0.16], I2 = 84%), fear avoidance (r = −0.10 [95% CI −0.30 to 0.10], I2 = 70%) had no statistical associations with CPM responder status. Higher pain catastrophising was associated with CPM non-responder status (r = −0.19; 95% CI: −0.37 to −0.02; n = 545; I2: 76%) based on a very low certainty of evidence measured by GRADE. There is currently limited available evidence demonstrating an association between CPM response and psychological factors for people with chronic pain. Managing an individual’s chronic pain symptoms irrespective of comorbid psychological distress, should continue until evidence offer insights that more targeted interventions are needed. </p