Oncological Surgical Activity Research Articles

How Does the COVID-19 Pandemic Influence Histopathological Outcomes for Urologic Cancers?

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted all routine health care services and resulted in a significant reconfiguration of urologic cancer services and care pathways across the globe. This study aimed to retrospectively determine the pandemic’s impact on the urologic oncological surgery outcomes at a high-volume referral center.Materials and methods: We compared the number and histopathological outcomes of urologic oncological procedures in a referral center coded during the pandemic and data of the period before the pandemic as control. Data were extracted from patient files and hospital records. The pathological examination included a complete histopathological staging according to TNM stage.Results: A total of 683 patients were included in the study, 424 (62%) of which were operated in the pre-pandemic period. There was a 39% decline in urologic oncological surgical activity in the pandemic, mostly in renal and prostate cancer. The mean tumor size was larger in renal cancer patients who underwent surgery during the pandemic (5.6 cm vs 4.5 cm, p=0.002). During the pandemic, more lymph node involvement was seen after radical cystectomy and prostatectomy (50% vs 27.8%, p=0.024 and 12.5% vs 4.5%, p=0.026, respectively). No differences in terms of main pathologic features were observed in patients undergoing radical orchiectomy.Conclusion: COVID-19 appeared to adversely effect oncologic outcomes in patiens undergone surgery for prostate and bladder cancer. Tumor development induced by a delay in diagnosis may cause severe consequences for patients. Reprioritizion of non-deferrable urologic oncological seems crucial.

Surgical oncology of the head and neck district during COVID-19 pandemic.

PurposeA new member of the Coronaviridae family caused a worldwide pandemic emergency called Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Health care workers who come into contact with the upper aero-digestive tract during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as otolaryngologists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and head and neck surgeons, may undergo profound changes in their activities and are particularly at risk. We analysed the impact of COVID-19 on our oncological surgical activity.MethodsTo address the emergency and guarantee safety of patients referred to our Unit, reproducible guidelines were followed. Surgical activity data during COVID-19 were compared to previous years (2018 and 2019).ResultsFrom 21st February to 25th of May 113 surgical procedures were performed. The average of the two selected years (2018–2019) is 84.5, showing an increase of 34.5% of our activities (statistically significant, p = 0.0011). No patient showed perioperative or postoperative contagion.ConclusionDue to the conversion of regular Hospitals into COVID Centers, Cancer Centers may encounter an increased demand for procedures. Following strict guidelines, it seems possible to face surgical activity on cancer patients and respect standard procedures aimed at containing the spread of COVID-19 infection.

Impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on oncological surgical activity: Analysis of the surgical pathology caseload of a tertiary referral hospital in Northwestern Italy.

Italy was severely affected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Our Institution, Piedmont's largest tertiary referral center, was designated as a non-COVID-19 hospital and activities were reorganized to prioritize critical services like oncological care. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy in preserving the oncological surgical practice at our Institution during the most critical months of the COVID-19 epidemic by analyzing the surgical pathology activity. The number of oncological surgical resections submitted to histopathological examination from 9th March 2020 to 8th May 2020 were collected as well staging/grading data and compared with the previous three pre-COVID-19 years (2017-2019). Overall, no decrease was observed for most tumor sites (5/9) while breast resections showed the largest drop (109 vs. 160; -31.9%), although a full recovery was already noticed during the second half of the period. Conversely, the selected control benchmarks showed a sharp decrease (-80.4%). Distribution of pathological TNM stages (or tumor grades for central nervous system tumors) showed no significant differences during the lockdown compared with previous years (p > .05). The present data suggest the possibility of preserving this cornerstone oncological activity during an evolving public health emergency thanks to a prompt workflow reorganization.

A Snapshot of Elective Oncological Surgery in Italy During COVID-19 Emergency: Pearls, Pitfalls, and Perspectives.

Objective:To analyze the impact of COVID-19 emergency on elective oncological surgical activity in Italy.Summary of Background Data:COVID-19 emergency shocked national health systems, subtracting resources from treatment of other diseases. Its impact on surgical oncology is still to elucidate.Methods:A 56-question survey regarding the oncological surgical activity in Italy during the COVID-19 emergency was sent to referral centers for hepato-bilio-pancreatic, colorectal, esophago-gastric, and sarcoma/soft-tissue tumors. The survey portrays the situation 5 weeks after the first case of secondary transmission in Italy.Results:In total, 54 surgical Units in 36 Hospitals completed the survey (95%). After COVID-19 emergency, 70% of Units had reduction of hospital beds (median −50%) and 76% of surgical activity (median −50%). The number of surgical procedures decreased: 3.8 (interquartile range 2.7–5.4) per week before the emergency versus 2.6 (22–4.4) after (P = 0.036). In Lombardy, the most involved district, the number decreased from 3.9 to 2 procedures per week. The time interval between multidisciplinary discussion and surgery more than doubled: 7 (6–10) versus 3 (3–4) weeks (P < 0.001). Two-third (n = 34) of departments had repeated multidisciplinary discussion of patients. The commonest criteria to prioritize surgery were tumor biology (80%), time interval from neoadjuvant therapy (61%), risk of becoming unresectable (57%), and tumor-related symptoms (52%). Oncological hub-and-spoke program was planned in 29 departments, but was active only in 10 (19%).Conclusions:This survey showed how surgical oncology suffered remarkable reduction of the activity resulting in doubled waiting-list. The oncological hub-and-spoke program did not work adequately. The reassessment of healthcare systems to better protect the oncological path seems a priority.