CovidNeuroOnc: A UK multicenter, prospective cohort study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the neuro-oncology service

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected cancer services. Our objective was to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on decision making and the resulting outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent intracranial tumors.MethodsWe performed a multicenter prospective study of all adult patients discussed in weekly neuro-oncology and skull base multidisciplinary team meetings who had a newly diagnosed or recurrent intracranial (excluding pituitary) tumor between 01 April and 31 May 2020. All patients had at least 30-day follow-up data. Descriptive statistical reporting was used.ResultsThere were 1357 referrals for newly diagnosed or recurrent intracranial tumors across 15 neuro-oncology centers. Of centers with all intracranial tumors, a change in initial management was reported in 8.6% of cases (n = 104/1210). Decisions to change the management plan reduced over time from a peak of 19% referrals at the start of the study to 0% by the end of the study period. Changes in management were reported in 16% (n = 75/466) of cases previously recommended for surgery and 28% of cases previously recommended for chemotherapy (n = 20/72). The reported SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was similar in surgical and non-surgical patients (2.6% vs. 2.4%, P > .9).ConclusionsDisruption to neuro-oncology services in the UK caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was most marked in the first month, affecting all diagnoses. Patients considered for chemotherapy were most affected. In those recommended surgical treatment this was successfully completed. Longer-term outcome data will evaluate oncological treatments received by these patients and overall survival

CSF Rhinorrhea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) — Part 2:Impact of COVID-19

Background During the pandemic, there has been a concern about the increased risk of perioperative mortality for patients with COVID-19, and the transmission risk to healthcare workers, particularly during endonasal neurosurgical operations. The Pituitary Society produced recommendations to guide management during this era. We sought to assess contemporary neurosurgical practice and the impact of COVID-19. Methods A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study was conducted at twelve tertiary neurosurgical units (UK and Ireland). Data were collected from March 23rd-July 31st, 2020 inclusive. Data points collected were patient demographics, pre-operative COVID-19 testing, intra-operative operative modifications, and 30-day COVID infection rates. Results 124 patients were included. 116 patients (n=116/124, 94%) underwent COVID-19 testing pre-operatively (TSA: 97/105, 92%; EEA: 19/19, 100%). One patient (n=1/115, 1%) tested positively for COVID-19 pre-operatively, requiring a delay of operation until the infection was confirmed as resolved. Asides from transient diabetes insipidus; no other complications were reported for this case. All theatre staff wore at least level 2 PPE. Adaptations to surgical techniques included minimising drilling, draping modifications, and using nasal iodine wash. At 30 days postoperatively, there was no evidence of COVID infection (symptoms or on formal testing) in our cohort, and no mortality. Conclusions Preoperative screening protocols and operative modifications have facilitated endonasal neurosurgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Pituitary Society guidelines followed for the majority of these operations. There was no evidence of COVID infection in our cohort, and no mortality, supporting the use of risk mitigation strategies to continue endonasal neurosurgery in subsequent pandemic waves

CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) - Part 1: Multicenter Pilot Study

Background: CRANIAL (CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base) is a prospective, multicentre observational study seeking to determine: (1) the scope of skull base repair methods used; and (2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in endonasal transsphenoidal (TSA) expanded endonasal approaches (EEA) for skull base tumours. We sought to pilot the project - assessing the feasibility and acceptability by gathering preliminary data. / Methods: A prospective, observational cohort pilot study was carried out at twelve tertiary UK neurosurgical units. Feedback regarding project positives and challenges were qualitatively analysed. / Results: 187 cases were included, 159 TSA (85%) and 28 EEA (15%). The most common pathologies included: pituitary adenomas (n=141/187), craniopharyngiomas (n=13/187) and skull-base meningiomas (n=4/187). The most common skull base repair techniques used were tissue glues (n=132/187, most commonly Tisseel®), grafts (n=94/187, most commonly fat autograft or Spongostan™) and vascularised flaps (n=51/187, most commonly nasoseptal). These repairs were most frequently supported by nasal packs (n=125/187) and lumbar drains (n=22/187). Biochemically-confirmed CSF rhinorrhoea occurred in 6/159 (3.8%) TSA and 2/28 (7.1%) EEA. Four TSA (3%) and two EEA (7%) cases required operative management for CSF rhinorrhoea (CSF diversion or direct repair). Qualitative feedback was largely positive (themes included: user-friendly and efficient data collection, strong support from senior team members) demonstrating acceptability. / Conclusions: Our pilot experience highlights the acceptability and feasibility of CRANIAL. There is a precedent for multicentre dissemination of this project, in order to establish a benchmark of contemporary skull base neurosurgery practice, particularly with respect to EEA cases

Reproductive Flexibility: Genetic Variation, Genetic Costs and Long-Term Evolution in a Collembola

In a variable yet predictable world, organisms may use environmental cues to make adaptive adjustments to their phenotype. Such phenotypic flexibility is expected commonly to evolve in life history traits, which are closely tied to Darwinian fitness. Yet adaptive life history flexibility remains poorly documented. Here we introduce the collembolan Folsomia candida, a soil-dweller, parthenogenetic (all-female) microarthropod, as a model organism to study the phenotypic expression, genetic variation, fitness consequences and long-term evolution of life history flexibility. We demonstrate that collembola have a remarkable adaptive ability for adjusting their reproductive phenotype: when transferred from harsh to good conditions (in terms of food ration and crowding), a mother can fine-tune the number and the size of her eggs from one clutch to the next. The comparative analysis of eleven clonal populations of worldwide origins reveals (i) genetic variation in mean egg size under both good and bad conditions; (ii) no genetic variation in egg size flexibility, consistent with convergent evolution to a common physiological limit; (iii) genetic variation of both mean reproductive investment and reproductive investment flexibility, associated with a reversal of the genetic correlation between egg size and clutch size between environmental conditions ; (iv) a negative genetic correlation between reproductive investment flexibility and adult lifespan. Phylogenetic reconstruction shows that two life history strategies, called HIFLEX and LOFLEX, evolved early in evolutionary history. HIFLEX includes six of our 11 clones, and is characterized by large mean egg size and reproductive investment, high reproductive investment flexibility, and low adult survival. LOFLEX (the other five clones) has small mean egg size and low reproductive investment, low reproductive investment flexibility, and high adult survival. The divergence of HIFLEX and LOFLEX could represent different adaptations to environments differing in mean quality and variability, or indicate that a genetic polymorphism of reproductive investment reaction norms has evolved under a physiological tradeoff between reproductive investment flexibility and adult lifespan

CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) - Part 1:Multicenter Pilot Study

Background CRANIAL (CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base) is a prospective, multicentre observational study seeking to determine: (1) the scope of skull base repair methods used; and (2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in endonasal transsphenoidal (TSA) expanded endonasal approaches (EEA) for skull base tumours. We sought to pilot the project - assessing the feasibility and acceptability by gathering preliminary data. Methods A prospective, observational cohort pilot study was carried out at twelve tertiary UK neurosurgical units. Feedback regarding project positives and challenges were qualitatively analysed. Results 187 cases were included, 159 TSA (85%) and 28 EEA (15%). The most common pathologies included: pituitary adenomas (n=141/187), craniopharyngiomas (n=13/187) and skull-base meningiomas (n=4/187). The most common skull base repair techniques used were tissue glues (n=132/187, most commonly Tisseel®), grafts (n=94/187, most commonly fat autograft or Spongostan™) and vascularised flaps (n=51/187, most commonly nasoseptal). These repairs were most frequently supported by nasal packs (n=125/187) and lumbar drains (n=22/187). Biochemically-confirmed CSF rhinorrhoea occurred in 6/159 (3.8%) TSA and 2/28 (7.1%) EEA. Four TSA (3%) and two EEA (7%) cases required operative management for CSF rhinorrhoea (CSF diversion or direct repair). Qualitative feedback was largely positive (themes included: user-friendly and efficient data collection, strong support from senior team members) demonstrating acceptability. Conclusions Our pilot experience highlights the acceptability and feasibility of CRANIAL. There is a precedent for multicentre dissemination of this project, in order to establish a benchmark of contemporary skull base neurosurgery practice, particularly with respect to EEA cases. Keywords Cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoeaCSFCerebrospinal fluid leakskull base surgeryendoscopic endonasalEE

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

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks