When to Operate, Hesitate and Reintegrate: Society of Gynecologic Oncology Surgical Considerations during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Clinical Remission Rates in Patients With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Before and After the Onset of the COVID 19 Pandemic in an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System

Purpose

Evidence on the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer patients is limited. We compared remission outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer before and during the pandemic.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 01/01/2017 and 06/30/2021 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Pre and post pandemic periods were designated using March 4, 2020, as the cut-off. Stage I-IV patients who completed chemotherapy and/or surgery as first-line treatment were included. Data on remission outcomes (complete and clinical remission) were abstracted by manual chart reviews. Complete remission was defined as no evidence of disease; clinical remission included both complete and partial response to treatment. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association of pandemic and remission. Effect modification by race/ethnicity was evaluated.

Results

Of 748 ovarian cancer patients included, 72.7% and 27.3% patients were diagnosed before and during the pandemic, respectively. Complete remission was observed in 75.7% and 73.5% patients before and during the pandemic, respectively (p = 0.53). No statistically significant association of pandemic period with remission outcomes was observed in the adjusted models. However, race/ethnicity modified the association of pandemic period with complete remission (p-value < 0.01). White patients, but not other racial/ethnic groups, were 13% more likely to achieve complete remission during the pandemic than during the pre-pandemic [adjusted rate ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.13 (1.00-1.28)].

Conclusion

Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer achieved similar complete and clinical remission rates before and during the pandemic. Association of the pandemic period with complete remission varied for White vs non-White patients.

The impact of the COVID-19 public health response on service demand and patient perceptions in a tertiary Australian gynaecology oncology unit

INTRODUCTION

The public health response (PHR) to the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted healthcare services worldwide. Our hospital, a major tertiary centre, is a unique two-state service across Queensland and New South Wales (NSW).

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to describe changes in service demand and delivery in our hospital resulting from the COVID-19 PHR. The secondary objective is to investigate patient perceptions of this impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective interrupted time series analysis and a population-based survey to examine patient perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 PHR. The study periods were demarcated by the initiation of the COVID-19 PHR on 1 March 2020 with the 'pre' and 'during' COVID-19 periods defined as the 12 months before and after this date respectively.

RESULTS

More patients were seen during the COVID-19 PHR period. The number or stage of cancer diagnoses was not different (P > 0.05). There was evidence (P = 0.03) of an increase in overall occasions of service and fewer failed attendances (P = 0.005). Fewer surgeries were performed on NSW patients (P = 0.005). The survey response rate was 19.3% (n = 185) with 48% stating that COVID-19 had negatively affected their emotional wellbeing. More participants from NSW than Queensland identified border closures as the most significant impact of the COVID-19 PHR.

DISCUSSION

The COVID-19 PHR resulted in an unexpected increase in unit service demand and delivery. The necessary implementation of telephone appointments, while less preferred by patients, sustained service requirements. Cross-border tertiary healthcare services should consider the significant impact of border restrictions on patient wellbeing.

Retrospective Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Primary Breast Cancer Care

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed breast cancer care for patients and healthcare providers. Circumstances varied greatly by region and hospital, depending on COVID-19 prevalence, case mix, hospital type, and available resources. These challenges have disrupted screening programs and have been particularly distressing for both women with a breast cancer diagnosis and their providers.

Summary

This review explores the retrospective impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary breast cancer care. It analyzes changes in screening participation, diagnosis rates, treatment modalities, and the delivery of psycho-oncological support during the pandemic. The study found a significant reduction in breast cancer screenings and a subsequent stage shift in diagnoses, with fewer early-stage and more advanced-stage cancers being detected. Additionally, the review discusses the psychosocial challenges faced by patients and the adaptations made in care delivery, such as the increased use of telemedicine. Despite these challenges, the healthcare systems showed resilience, with core treatment services largely maintained and rapid adaptations to new care models.

Key Messages

There was a marked decrease in breast cancer screenings and early diagnoses during the pandemic, with a shift toward more advanced-stage detections. While there was an increased use of neoadjuvant therapies and telemedicine, essential breast cancer treatments were mostly sustained, reflecting the resilience of healthcare systems. The pandemic significantly impacted the mental health of breast cancer patients, exacerbating anxiety and depression and highlighting the need for improved psycho-oncological support. The full impact of these disruptions on long-term breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain, necessitating ongoing monitoring and adaptation of care strategies to mitigate adverse effects.

Patient care and access to clinical trials in gynaecological oncology: global implications of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

Our prospective international survey evaluated the impact of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management gynaecological malignancies from the multidisciplinary physicians' perspective with particular focus on clinical infrastructures and trial participation.

METHODS

Our survey consisted of 53 COVID-related questions. It was sent to healthcare professionals in gynaecological oncology centres across Europe and Pan-Arabian region via the study groups and gynaecological societies from April 2020 to October 2020. All healthcare professionals treating gynaecological cancers were able to participate in our survey.

RESULTS

A total of 255 answers were collected from 30 countries. The majority (73%) of participants were gynaecological oncologists from university hospitals (71%) with at least an Intensive Care Unit with cardiopulmonary support available at their institutions. Most institutions continued to perform elective surgeries only for oncological cases (98%). Patients had to wait on average 2 weeks longer for their surgery appointments compared to previous years (range 0-12 weeks). Most cases that were prioritised for surgical intervention across all gynaecological tumours were early-stage disease (74%), primary situation (61%) and good ECOG status (63%). The radicality of surgery did not change in the majority of cases (78%) across all tumour types. During the pandemic, only 38% of clinicians stated they would start a new clinical trial. Almost half of the participants stated the pandemic negatively impacted the financial structure and support for clinical trials. Approximately 20% of clinicians did not feel well-informed regarding clinical algorithm for COVID-19 patients throughout the pandemic. Thirty percent stated that they are currently having trouble in providing adequate medical care due to staff shortage.

CONCLUSION

Despite well-established guidelines, pandemic clearly affected clinical research and patientcare. Our survey underlines the necessity for building robust emergency algorithms tailored to gynaecological oncology to minimise negative impact in crises and to preserve access to clinical trials.

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in patients diagnosed with epithelial type ovarian cancer

Introduction

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic posed critical challenges in providing care to ovarian cancer (OC) patients, including delays in OC diagnosis and treatment initiation. To accommodate for delays in OC surgery, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) recommended preferential use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy during the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in patients diagnosed with OC.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with stage II-IV ovarian cancer of epithelial subtype between 01/01/2017-06/30/2021 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large integrated healthcare system in the United States. Ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 2017-2020 were identified from KPSC's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-affiliated cancer registry. Patients diagnosed in 2021 were identified from the electronic medical records (EMR) using ICD-10 diagnosis codes, followed by medical chart review to validate diagnosis and extract information on histology and stage at diagnosis. March 4, 2020 was used as the cut-off to define pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between OC diagnosis and treatment completion were excluded. Data on neoadjuvant chemotherapy use were extracted from the cancer registry and EMR, supplemented by chart review. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association of the pandemic with neoadjuvant chemotherapy use.

Results

Of 566 OC patients, 160 (28.3%) were diagnosed in the pandemic period. Patients diagnosed in the pandemic period were slightly younger (mean age 62.7 vs 64.9 years, p=0.07) and had a higher burden of Charlson comorbidities (p=0.05) than patients diagnosed in pre-pandemic period. No differences in time to treatment initiation were observed by pandemic periods. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use was documented in 58.7% patients during the pandemic period compared to 47.3% in pre-pandemic period (p=0.01). After adjusting for covariates, patients diagnosed in the pandemic period were 29% more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy than patients diagnosed in pre-pandemic period [RR(95%CI): 1.29(1.12-1.49)].

Discussions

Ovarian cancer patients diagnosed in the COVID-19 pandemic were more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy than patients diagnosed before the pandemic. Future research on patient outcomes and trends in the post-pandemic period are warranted.

Outcomes in COVID-19 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy/appendectomy in the pre-vaccine era

Background

We hypothesized that COVID-19 positive patients requiring laparoscopic cholecystectomy (lap chole) or appendectomy (lap appy) would have increased inpatient mortality rates compared to all COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Retrospective cohort analysis including COVID-19 patients from 1/1/20 to 9/30/20. 82,574 cases identified. Patients excluded if <18 years old or underwent surgery other than lap chole or lap appy. Control groups were patients without surgery (N = 82,145). Exposure groups underwent lap chole (N = 323) or lap appy (N = 106). Primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and complications such as bacterial pneumonia, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), urinary tract infection (UTI), acute myocardial infarction (MI), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and respiratory failure (RF).

Results

Overall inpatient mortality rate was 32.8% in COVID-19 patients undergoing lap chole (p-value <0.0001), 2.8 % lap appy (p-value 0.93), and 1.2 % in control group. ARDS complication rate was 11.2 % in lap chole (p-value <0.0001), 1.9 % lap appy (p-value 0.71), and 0.2 % in control.

Conclusion

COVID-19 patients during the initial wave of the pandemic who underwent lap chole during hospital admission had significantly higher risk of mortality and ARDS while lap appy did not.

Gynecologic cancer care in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis and initiation of treatment for patients with gynecologic cancer.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with gynecologic cancer in the National Cancer Database during 2017-2020 were included. For the first aim, incidence rate ratios were calculated to compare gynecologic cancer diagnosis in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to the three years prior, and factors associated with a reduction in diagnosis were identified. For the second aim, patients who experienced an 8-week delay in cancer treatment were compared to those who did not. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with treatment delay. Propensity score analysis was utilized to compare the rate of cancer treatment delay in patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 to those who were not.

RESULTS

The incidence rate ratio of being diagnosed with gynecologic cancer in 2020 versus 2017-2019 was 0.90 (95%CI 0.90-0.91). Factors associated with increased risk of missed or delayed diagnosis in 2020 included cervical cancer, earlier cancer stage, younger age, lower levels of medical comorbidity, and lack of health insurance. In 2020, factors associated with treatment delay included COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR 1.50, 95%CI 1.35-1.67), in addition to race and ethnicity, insurance type, comorbidity, cancer stage, and primary site. The risk of treatment delay remained significantly elevated in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 after propensity-score matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Gynecologic cancer diagnosis and timely provision of care were negatively impacted during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, with certain subgroups at elevated risk.

How Efficient Are Isolation Protocols? Outcome of Isolation Protocol in Surgery during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single Institute Experience

Background. The timing of screening for SARS-CoV-2 preoperatively by RT-PCR/CBNAAT, isolation protocols in preoperative wards, operation theatres, and postoperative wards are not well established. Methods. Evaluating the effectiveness of maintaining three pathways of two COVID-19 negative pathways (1) immediate testing pathway (2) isolation, or quarantine for five days and testing prior to surgery pathway, and (3) the tested COVID-19-positive pathway, was the aim of the study. The primary objective was to assess the utility and outcome of the two COVID-19 negative pathways adopted before surgery in terms of infectivity (seroconversion; COVID-19 positivity rate before surgery and symptomatic COVID-19 disease after surgery). The secondary objective was to derive a practical protocol for isolation or quarantine for emergency and elective surgery. Enrolled patients were grouped based on the need for surgery; Group-1 emergency basis, Group-2 urgent basis, and Group-3 COVID-19 positive and the three channels were kept separate with separate dedicated healthcare staff for each channel. Results. There were 199 (4.56%) COVID-19-positive patients, of whom 80 (40%) were operated. COVID-19 positivity rate was low in Group 2 (3% vs. Group 1, 11%). There was no seroconversion from negative to positive in our patients during the peri-operative period. Conclusion. COVID-19 positivity rate in Group-2 was significantly less. None of the COVID-19-negative patients turned symptomatic and the probability of seroconversion from COVID-19-negative was less during the peri-operative period. The isolation protocol of non-COVID-19 positive patients with the separate channel is effective.

Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge following minimally invasive hysterectomy in the morbidly obese patient population

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether morbid obesity should serve as an independent factor in the decision for same day discharge following minimally invasive hysterectomy.

METHODS

Retrospective review was performed of patients with BMI ≥ 40 who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy within a single comprehensive cancer center between January 2018 - August 2020. Demographics, perioperative factors, post-operative monitoring, complications, and readmissions were compared between patients who underwent same day discharge and overnight observation using Fisher's exact tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

RESULTS

374 patients with BMI ≥ 40 were included. Eighty-three (22.2%) patients underwent same day discharge, and 291 (77.8%) patients underwent overnight observation. Factors associated with increased likelihood of same day discharge included younger age (median age 53 vs 58; p = 0.001), lower BMI (median BMI 45 vs 47; p = 0.005), and fewer medical co-morbidities (Charlson Co-Morbidity Index 2 vs 3; p < 0.001). On multivariate regression analysis, frailty (OR 2.16 [1.14-4.11], p = 0.019) and surgical completion time after 12 PM (OR 3.67 [2.16-6.24], p < 0.001) were associated with increased risk of overnight observation. Few patients admitted for routine overnight observation required medical intervention (n = 14, 4.8%); most of these patients were frail (64.3%). The overall hospital readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was 3.2% (n = 12), with no patients discharged on the day of surgery being readmitted.

CONCLUSIONS

Morbid obesity alone should not serve as a contraindication to same day discharge following minimally invasive hysterectomy. Admission for observation was associated with low rates of clinically meaningful intervention, and patients who underwent same day discharge were not at increased risk of adverse outcome.

Evaluation of the medically necessary, time sensitive triage score during and beyond the local COVID-19 pandemic in the Gynaecologic Oncology Unit of a tertiary hospital in South Africa

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the Medically Necessary Time Sensitive (MeNTS) scoring system in triaging gynaecologic oncologic surgery during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study including 209 patients who either had surgery (151) or surgery postponed (58) between the 26th March and 30th September 2020 in an academic hospital in South Africa. The MeNTS score was used to independently score each patient three times by two observers.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 46.6 ± 15 years and the cumulative mean MeNTS score was 51.0 ± 5.1. Over two-thirds of the cases had surgery. There was no significant difference between the first and second observers' cumulative scores, 51.0 vs 51.1 (p 0.77). The cumulative score among those who had surgery was significantly lower than that for those whose surgeries were postponed, 49.8 vs 54.1 (p <0.0001). The intra-observer and inter-observer reliability were 0.78 and 0.74 respectively. After adjusting for confounding variables, those with low cumulative MeNTS scores were about 5 times more likely to have surgery than those with high scores (Adj. OR = 4.67, 95% CI: 1.92-11.4, p <0.001. Patients with malignant diagnosis were also 5 times more likely to be operated than those with benign diagnosis (Adj. OR = 5.03, 95% CI: 1.73-14.6, p <0.001. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.85 suggesting an excellent discriminatory power between those who were operated and those who were postponed.

CONCLUSION

The study provided some insight into the potential usefulness of MeNTS score in prioritizing patients for surgery in gynaecologic oncologic sub-specialty. The score performed well across a range of gynaecologic conditions and procedures with good intra-observer and inter-observer consistency and reliability. This is a prioritization tool that is dynamically adaptable to accommodate changes in resources availability and operating theatre capacity.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Diagnosis and Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted health systems worldwide, particularly cancer care. Because the actual implications of these changes on gynecological oncology healthcare are still unclear, we aim to evaluate the impact of this pandemic on the diagnosis and management of gynecological cancer. Materials and Methods: This is a single-center retrospective observational study, including patients diagnosed with gynecological malignancies between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were included into three groups based on the timing of cancer diagnosis: pre-pandemic (2019), pandemic with high restrictions (2020) and pandemic recovery (2021). Results: Overall, 234 patients were diagnosed with gynecological cancer during the period of study. A decrease in the number of newly diagnosed cervical cancers and other rare tumors (leiomyosarcoma, invasive hydatidiform mole) was apparent in 2020. Some aggressive histological types of endometrial and ovarian cancer were more commonly diagnosed in the pandemic recovery group (p < 0.05), although no differences were demonstrated concerning tumor staging in all gynecological cancers. The median time between the first multidisciplinary team meeting and the treatment initiation was higher after the COVID-19 pandemic in endometrial cancer (23.0 vs. 34.0 vs. 36.0 days, p < 0.05). Patients with ovarian cancer were more frequently proposed for neoadjuvant therapy in 2020 compared to the other periods (33.3% vs. 55.0% vs. 10.0% p < 0.05). A significant reduction in the laparoscopic approach was observed during 2020 in endometrial cancer (32.1% vs. 14.3% vs. 36.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were registered regarding median hospitalization days or intra- and post-operative complications between these periods. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the diagnosis and management of most gynecological malignancies, namely, on time to first treatment, chosen oncological therapies and surgical approaches. These results suggest important clinical and healthcare implications that should be addressed in future prospective studies.

Management of Femur Fractures during COVID-19 Pandemic Period: The Influence of Vaccination and Nosocomial COVID-19 Infection

The COVID-19 pandemic management has led to a significant change in orthopedic surgical activity. During the pandemic, femur fractures in patients over 65 years of age have maintained a constant incidence. Our study will focus on this fragile population, analyzing the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospital stays and the clinical and radiographic orthopedic outcomes. We also evaluated the va\riation of COVID-19 infection after health professionals' vaccinations, and the influence of inter-hospital transfers caused by logistical and organizational aspects of the pandemic. Material and Methods: This is a descriptive and prospective study from 13 October 2020 to 15 March 2021. Participants were patients over 65 years of age with diagnoses of proximal femoral fractures with r surgical treatments indicated. We compared the SARS-CoV-2 infected patients during the stay with non-infected cases. A second evaluation was carried out dividing the patients into those who underwent inter-hospital transfers and a group without transfers. We subdivided the study period into two, according to the percentage of healthcare workers vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. The reported clinical variables included the Parker and Palmer Score, the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score, the Harris Hip Score, mortality, the Rush Score, and evaluation of reduction in radio-lucent lines in prosthetic implants. Results: Ninety-three patients were studied. The whole positive COVID cohort (11.83%) was hospitalized during the period when less than 80% of health workers were vaccinated (p = 0.02). The COVID cohort and the patients transferred before surgery had longer stays in the Emergency Room (p = 0.019; p = 0.00007) and longer lengths of stay compared to the other patients (p = 0.00001; p = 0.001). Mortality was higher both in the infected group and in the patients who underwent a transfer before the surgical procedure (18.18% vs. 1.22 %; p = 0.003. 25% vs. 6.85%; p = 0.02). In terms of orthopedic outcomes measured through the third month of follow-up, we found worse score results in functional and radiographic outcomes in the COVID positive cohort and in the transferred patients' cohort. Conclusions: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients treated for proximal femur fracture was statistically significant. Patients with Coronavirus during hospitalization obtained poor short-term radiographic and functional results and increased peri-operative mortality. The incidence of intra-hospital infection was high during the period in which health professionals were not yet covered by the anti-COVID vaccination cycle. Patients who were transferred between two hospitals due to pandemic-related management issues also achieved reduced outcomes compared to non-transferred cases, with increased mortality.

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.

Recommendations for the safety of hospitalised patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To map the recommendations for hospitalised patient safety in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Scoping review using the method recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

DATA SOURCES

Databases: Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, LILACS, CINAHL and IBECS; grey literature platform: Google Scholar; and 11 official websites of leading healthcare institutions were searched on 27 April 2021 and updated on 11 April 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included documents that present recommendations for the safety of hospitalised patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, published in any language, from 2020 onwards.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was performed in pairs with consensus rounds. A descriptive analysis was carried out to present the main characteristics of the articles. Qualitative data from the extraction of recommendations were analysed through content analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five documents were included. Most papers were identified as expert consensus (n=56, 44.8%). Forty-six recommendations were identified for the safety of hospitalised patients: 17 relating to the reorganisation of health services related to the flow of patients, the management of human and material resources and the reorganisation of the hospital environment; 11 on the approach to the airways and the prevention of the spread of aerosols; 11 related to sanitary and hygiene issues; 4 about proper use of personal protective equipment and 3 for effective communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations mapped in this scoping review present the best practices produced so far and serve as a basis for planning and implementing good practices to ensure safe hospital care, during and after COVID-19. The engagement of everyone involved in the care of hospitalised patients is essential to consolidate the mapped recommendations and provide dignified, safe and quality care.

Population-level uptake of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage IVB endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine population-level trends, characteristics, and outcomes of patients with stage IVB endometrial cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) prior to surgery.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program was retrospectively queried by examining 5505 patients with stage IVB endometrial cancer from 2010 to 2018. Exposure allocation was per treatment: primary surgery followed by chemotherapy (n = 3052, 55.4%), NACT followed by surgery (n = 930, 16.9%), and chemotherapy alone (n = 1523, 27.7%). Main outcomes measured were (i) the trend of utilization of NACT and patient characteristics related to NACT assessed with multinomial regression analysis and (ii) overall survival (OS) assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

The number of patients receiving NACT prior to surgery increased from 11.6% to 21.7% whereas those undergoing primary surgery followed by chemotherapy decreased from 62.7% to 48.3% (P < 0.001). Increasing utilization of NACT remained independent in multivariable analysis (adjusted-odds ratio per one-year increments 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.15). Increasing utilization of NACT was observed in several sub-cohorts including patients aged <65 years, ≥65 years, White, non-White, endometrioid, non-endometrioid, and cases with non-distant organ metastasis (P < 0.05). In a multivariable analysis, NACT followed by surgery and primary surgery followed by chemotherapy had comparable OS (median 25 versus 26 months, adjusted-hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, 95%CI 0.93-1.15). When examined for metastatic extent, NACT followed by surgery was associated with decreased OS compared to primary surgery followed by chemotherapy in the non-distant organ metastasis group (adjusted-HR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05-1.36) whereas it was associated with improved OS in the distant organ metastasis group (adjusted-HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.66-0.95).

CONCLUSION

The treatment of stage IVB endometrial cancer is shifting from primary surgery to NACT in the United States.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on referral to and delivery of gynecologic oncology care

•

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted gynecologic cancer care.

•

Referrals to gynecologic oncology decreased in the early months of the pandemic.

•

Referral time to gynecologic oncology evaluation was not impacted by the pandemic.

•

Time to cancer treatment initiation decreased significantly during the pandemic.

•

Disparities in time to cancer treatment initiation improving during the pandemic.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on referral to and delivery of gynecologic oncology care at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients referred for evaluation by a gynecologic oncologist at Washington University in St. Louis from October 2019 – February 2020 (pre-COVID-19), and April - August 2020 (COVID-19). The primary outcome, time from referral to evaluation by a gynecologic oncologist, was compared between the two time periods. Secondary outcomes included time from initial evaluation to treatment and delays/interruptions in care due to the pandemic. Sub-group analyses were performed on patients with a cancer diagnosis to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on treatment decision making.

Results

884 patients were referred during the study period. Total referrals fell by 32% (526 to 358 patients, p < 0.001) and referrals for cancer fell by 18% (228 to 188 patients, p = 0.049). The pandemic did not impact time from referral to initial gynecologic oncology appointment overall (pre-COVID-19: 19.1 vs. COVID-19: 17.4 days, p = 0.315) or among patients with cancer (14.4 vs. 13.9 days, p = 0.662). Time from initial appointment to cancer treatment decreased by 9 days (34 days to 25 days, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Referrals to gynecologic oncology decreased significantly during the early months of COVID-19. Though time from referral to evaluation was not impacted by the pandemic, time to treatment initiation decreased despite institutional changes related to COVID-19.

Oncological Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effectiveness of Preoperative Screening and Factors Associated with Postoperative SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Background

Routine preoperative screening of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) may reduce in-hospital SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Methods

This was a prospective, observational, cohort study. The endpoints were the incidence of asymptomatic patients with positive preoperative RT-PCR results and the incidence and factors associated with postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer referred for elective surgery. Patients with elective surgery between May and October 2020 were included. RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swabs was performed preoperatively for all patients. Postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection was assessed within 30 postoperative days.

Results

A total of 1636 preoperative screening RT-PCR tests were performed. Of these, 102 (6.2%) cases were positive, and 1,298 surgical procedures were analyzed. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 0.9%. The length of stay (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.11; p < 0.001), surgical time (OR 1.004; 95% CI 1.001–1.008; p = 0.023), intensive care unit admission (OR 7.7; 95% CI 2.03–29.28; p = 0.003), and hospital readmissions (OR 9.56; 95% CI 2.50–36.56; p = 0.001) were associated with postoperative coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression, length of stay (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.04–1.11; p < 0.001), and readmission (OR 9.02; 95% CI 2.30–35.48; p = 0.002) were independent factors of postoperative COVID-19.

Conclusions

Screening patients preoperatively may reduce in-hospital SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Length of stay and readmission were independently correlated with postoperative COVID-19.

Practical Recommendations for the Preoperative Screening and Protective Protocols in Cancer Surgeries During COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Introduction: The new coronavirus (COVID-19) has posed many new challenges to the health care and the timing of surgical care. At the beginning of the pandemic many guidelines recommended postponing elective surgical procedures to reallocate resources. As regards, delay in cancer treatment could be effective on cancer progression. The aim of this systematic review was to outline a guideline for preoperative screening before cancer surgeries and protecting health care workers during the pandemic.

Materials and Methods: This study was conducted through a search in electronic databases up to August 2020. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases were searched without time limitation. The keywords were a combination of preoperative, cancer surgery, COVID-19, and their synonyms.

Results: The most commonly used ways to triage preoperatively were telephone pre-assessment for suspicious symptoms and history of contact or travel, 14-day self-isolation, in- hospital queries at admission, temperature monitoring, and isolation in a single room COVID-free ward or physical distancing. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test 24–72 h before operation was recommended commonly, except in inaccessible centers, but non-contrast chest-CT scan is not routinely advised for elective surgeries to salvage medical resources. Recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) for staffs were wearing N95 mask in addition to gown, gloves, eye protection in aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), and wearing gloves, hats, and disposable surgical masks, practice distancing, and hand hygiene for all staffs. Meanwhile team separation of hospital staffs caring for COVID-19 patients, segregated areas for COVID-19 clean and contact, restriction of visitors and family members, and personal distancing are mostly recommended.

Conclusion: We hope this review would be a guidance for triage, preoperative testing, and summarizing safety principles during COVID-19 pandemic alongside with surgical reintegration.

COVID-19 and Gynecologic Oncology: What Have We Learned?

COVID-19 has transformed the care we provide to gynecologic oncology patients. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with gynecologic cancer, it has affected our patient’s ability to undergo recommended surveillance and has made an impact on every caregiver providing care during this time. Herein we review the current literature on the impact of COVID-19 on gynecologic oncology and highlight new approaches and innovations that have resulted in gynecologic cancer care as a result of the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on the field of gynecologic oncology has been profound. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with cancer, it has also challenged the very ethics with which we practice medicine. The equitable distribution of resources is paramount to upholding the Hippocratic Oath which we all invoke. The COVID-19 pandemic has stripped this oath down to its very core, forcing all medical practitioners to scrutinize who gets what resources and when. As the pandemic continues to unfold, the question remains — in the setting of a strained and overburdened healthcare system, how do we maximize beneficence to one group of patients, while maintaining non-maleficence to others? As gynecologic oncologists, we are responsible for advocating for our patients to ensure that the quality of their cancer care is not compromised, while also not overutilizing resources that are sorely needed for the care of COVID-19 victims, and not making them more likely to succumb to COVID-19 by the very nature of the treatment we provide. The effects of the pandemic are far-reaching and broad, and many of these are yet to be determined. Future studies are needed to analyze how the above-utilized strategies in GYN cancer care during the pandemic will impact the long-term outcomes of our patients.

Collateral damage of COVID-19 pandemic: The impact on a gynecologic surgery department

Objective

This study focuses on changes in gynecologic surgical activity at Hospital Foch, Paris, France during the first French COVID lockdown in 2020. Additional goals include the evaluation the extent of the postponement suffered for each type of surgery and estimate the possible negative impact for patients.

Study design

Single-center, retrospective, chart-review cohort study in the gynecology department of Hospital Foch. Comparison of all patients scheduled, postponed and operated during the first COVID lockdown (March 14, to May 11, 2020) versus the same period in 2019. Postponed surgeries were classified into 4 scheduling interval categories according to the Society of Gynecology Oncology (SGO) recommendations: urgent (without delay), semi-urgent (1–4 weeks), non-urgent (>4–12 weeks) and elective (>3 months) and evaluated to determine whether COVID-19-related delays of surgeries fell within guidelines. The potential “loss of chance” or medical risk associated with postponed surgeries was estimated according to a composite criterion including death, aggravation of expected tumor stages/grades in cancers, increase in surgical complexity compared to that initially planned, need for preoperative transfusions, start of morphine consumption during preoperative treatment for opiate-naive patients, additional hospitalization or consultations in emergency room and delay in treatment when surgery was urgent.

Results

During the 2020 French COVID lockdown, 61 patients had a surgical procedure and 114 were postponed; in the comparator 2019 group, 232 patients underwent surgical procedures, indicating an overall decrease of 65% of activity. Analysis of differences between the two years revealed a reduction of 64% in emergency procedures, 90% of functional pathologies, and 13% of cancers. According to SGO guidelines, the only type of surgical procedures that had excessive delay was the semi-urgent group, where time to surgery was 6.7 weeks [range 5.4–10 weeks] instead of the recommended interval of 1–4 weeks. Among postponed surgeries there were 10 patients (8.7%) with a potential “loss of chance” according to the composite criteria, all included in the semi-urgent group.

Conclusion

The COVID 19 pandemic was responsible for a significant decrease of activity in the surgical department of Hospital Foch. Difficulty of rescheduling surgeries was responsible for an increased delay in semi-urgent operations. In almost 9% of postponed surgeries, there was a potential “loss of chance”, which likely represents only the tip of iceberg of collateral damages due to COVID 19 pandemic in this surgical unit. These data show the importance of continuing to treat pathologies requiring urgent or semi-urgent surgery during pandemics.

The safety of major gynaecologic cancer surgery without routine preoperative COVID-19 testing in the COVID-19 era: a multicentre, retrospective, case-control study

Our goal was to address the safety of major gynaecologic cancer surgery without routine preoperative COVID-19 testing in the COVID-19 era. The databases of seven gynaecologic cancer centres were searched in order to identify all consecutive gynaecologic cancer patients undergoing major surgery between March 11, 2020 and May 15, 2020 for this retrospective, case-control study. The case group consisted of patients with histopathologically confirmed gynaecologic cancers, and each case was matched with two counterparts who had undergone primary surgery before the COVID-19 pandemic. The case and the control groups were compared in terms of length of hospital stay, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), intraoperative and postoperative complications.During the study period, 154 women with gynaecologic cancer undergoing major surgery were identified. Although the case group had more co-morbidities compared to the control group (103/154 vs. 178/308, respectively; p = .04), the median length of hospital stays, the rate of ICU admission, intraoperative complication rates and postoperative complication rates were similar in the two groups. Gynaecologic cancer surgery may be performed safely in the COVID-19 era with similar rates of ICU admission, intraoperative and postoperative complications compared to the patients operated before the COVID-19 pandemic.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Many societies have announced their guidelines about the surgical management of gynaecologic cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, most of them are not evidence-based and mostly on expert opinions.What do the results of this study add? The main findings of this retrospective, case-control study indicate that the short-term (30 day) outcomes of gynaecologic cancer patients undergoing major surgery in the COVID-19 era are similar to those who had been operated before the COVID-19 pandemic. The length of hospital stays, the rates of admission to the ICU, intraoperative and postoperative complications were comparable between women undergoing major gynaecologic cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era and the women who had been operated before the pandemic.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? We can suggest that definitive surgery may be performed for gynaecologic cancer patients in the COVID-19 era if the resources permit and appropriate precautions such as social distancing, isolation and the use of personal protective equipment are taken.

Gynecologic Surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is Universal Screening Mandatory?

This study is aimed at evaluating the results of the universal preoperative screening for COVID-19 in gynecologic cases operated on during its outbreak in a tertiary care hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. A retrospective descriptive study was done on all patients who underwent elective or emergency gynecologic surgeries during the pandemic period in Thailand (April 15 to June 5, 2020). The COVID-19 screening results by symptom-based screening, risk-based screening, and RT-PCR for COVID-19 were collected from the electronic medical records. Among 129 patients who underwent gynecologic surgeries, none had a positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. Symptom-based screening found no patients with positive symptoms for COVID-19. Risk-based screening found 4 patients (3.1%) who were in contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases and 4 patients (3.1%) who were healthcare personnel. In conclusion, routine preoperative RT-PCR for COVID-19 may need to be reconsidered among asymptomatic individuals in a low-prevalence country during the well-controlled COVID-19 situation. Larger studies are required to ascertain the benefit of universal preoperative COVID-19 testing.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Clinical Activities in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A National Survey in China

Objective: Few studies have quantified the influence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on medical providers. This is the first national study to investigate the impact of the pandemic on physicians practicing obstetrics and gynecology in China.

Methods: A two-stage, stratified, cluster sampling method was performed based on the city categories (category 1, fewer than 10,000 beds; category 2, 10,000–30,000; and category 3, more than 30,000) and public hospital levels (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Physicians practicing obstetrics and gynecology reported the relevant changes in their general clinical activities and changes in the management of specific diseases or conditions occurring during the periods that they were most strongly affected. These changes were compared by municipal and hospital characteristics.

Results: Questionnaires were collected from a representative sample of 11,806 physicians actively practicing obstetrics and gynecology in 779 hospitals from 157 cities of 31 provinces. Except emergency visits and online consultations, category 3 cities, tertiary hospitals and general hospitals had greater reductions in overall clinical activities than category 1 cities, primary hospitals and specialized hospitals (all adjusted p < 0.05), respectively. The differences also existed in the management of specific diseases and conditions, especially for less urgent conditions, including cervical cancer screening, instructions regarding contraception and miscarriage, and assisted reproduction (all p < 0.05).

Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the clinical obstetrics and gynecology activities in China markedly decreased, with significant differences across municipal and hospital characteristics.

Trial Registration: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on July 27, 2020 (NCT04491201).

Resumption of the treatment of non-COVID-19 gynecologic patients after lifting lockdown: Triage and infection prevention experiences from Wuhan

Aim

To share our experiences of resuming the treatments for gynecologic patients after lifting the lockdown in a hotspot area for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic.

Methods

The triage process used to resume medical activities for gynecologic patients at the Wuhan Union Hospital after a 76‐day lockdown of the city is described, and its effectiveness in preventing COVID‐19 nosocomial transmission is shown.

Results

Nonemergency patients were pretriaged based on their contact history and body temperature at an outpatient clinic, and negative COVID‐19 screening test results were required for admission to the buffering rooms at the gynecologic department. The buffering lasted at least 3 days for symptom monitoring, and a second round of COVID‐19 testing was required before patients could be transferred to the regular gynecologic wards. For patients who needed emergency surgery, the first screening was completed at the isolation wards after surgery, followed by buffering at the gynecologic department. We received 19 298 outpatient visits, admitted 326 patients, and performed 223 operations in the first 2 months after the lockdown was lifted. No COVID‐19 cases occurred in the hospitalized patients, while the proportion of potentially high‐risk patients with cancer and severe anemia was increased in comparison to that observed during the same period in 2019 and the first 2 months of 2020 before the lockdown.

Conclusions

We provide an effective triage system with buffering at two levels to guarantee safe and timely treatment for non‐COVID‐19 gynecologic patients in the postlockdown phase.

Intraoperative Measures to Reduce the Risk of COVID-19 Transmission During Minimally Invasive Procedures: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Societies' Recommendations

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus 2019 pandemic and the hypothetical risk of virus transmission through aerosolized CO2 or surgical smoke produced during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures have prompted societies to issue recommendations on measures to reduce this risk. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, summarize and critically appraise recommendations from surgical societies on intraoperative measures to reduce the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission to the operative room (OR) staff during MIS.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched using a search strategy or free terms. The search was supplemented with searches of additional relevant records on coronavirus 2019 resource websites from Surgical Associations and Societies. Recommendations published by surgical societies that reported on the intraoperative methods to reduce the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission to the OR staff during MIS were also reviewed for inclusion. Expert opinion articles were excluded. A preliminary synthesis was performed of the extracted data to categorize and itemize the different types of recommendations. The results were then summarized in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirty-three recommendation were included in the study. Most recommendations were targeted to general surgery (13) and gynecology (8). Areas covered by the documents were recommendations on performance of laparoscopic/robotic surgery versus open approach (28 documents), selection of surgical staff (13), management of pneumoperitoneum (33), use of energy devices (20), and management of surgical smoke and pneumoperitoneum desufflation (33) with varying degree of consensus on the specific recommendations among the documents.

CONCLUSIONS

While some of the early recommendations advised against the use of MIS, they were not strictly based on the available scientific evidence. After further consideration of the literature and of the well-known benefits of laparoscopy to the patient, later recommendations shifted to encouraging the use of MIS as long as adequate precautions could be taken to protect the safety of the OR staff. The release and implementation of recommendations should be based on evidence-based practices that allows health care systems to provide safe surgical and medical assistance.

Adoption of faecal immunochemical testing for 2-week-wait colorectal patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study reporting a new service at a regional centre

AIM

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the near-complete loss of routine endoscopy services. We describe a major reorganization of service at a regional referral centre (Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust) to manage the crisis. Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was implemented for triage to make optimum use of limited diagnostic resources. Consultations were switched from face-to-face to telephone. Our aim was to evaluate the impact FIT had on resource allocation and patient diagnoses in the first 3 months of use.

METHOD

All colorectal 2-week-wait patient referrals were posted a pack requesting FIT and notification of telephone consultation. A prepaid envelope was included for return of the samples. At consultation, FIT was incorporated with the presenting symptoms to guide the choice of investigation and triage urgency. FIT ≥10 μg/g was interpreted as positive. Outcome data were collected prospectively and compared with retrospective audit data from prepandemic levels across 3 months.

RESULTS

From 26 March 2020 to 2 July 381 patients were referred who were invited to provide FIT samples and underwent telephone consultations. Three hundred and fifty eight FIT samples were returned (94%). Onward referral for colonoscopy reduced from 62% to 34% (P < 0.001). There were 14 colorectal cancers (CRC) (3.7%) diagnosed, which was not statistically different from the prepandemic level of 3.9% (P = 0.995). Twelve of the 14 patients with a CRC diagnosis had provided samples; all 12 had FIT ≥10 μg/g and were offered fast-track investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of FIT optimized the allocation of limited resources to triage those who required urgent colonic investigation for detecting CRC.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center

OBJECTIVE

To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Gynecologic cancer surveillance in the era of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the management of patients with gynecologic cancers. Many centers have reduced access to routine visits to avoid crowded waiting areas and specially to reduce the infection risk for oncologic patients. The goal of this review is to propose a surveillance algorithm for patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic based on existing evidence and established guidelines. It is time to consider strategies based on telemedicine and to adapt protocols in this new era. We hereby propose a strategy for routine surveillance both during and beyond the pandemic.

Care as Usual: An Acceptable Strategy to Apply During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a French Tertiary Gynecologic Oncology Department

We describe and analyze a “care as usual” strategy of a French Comprehensive Cancer Center during the COVID-19 pandemic to manage surgical patients with gynecological cancer. We conducted a retrospective analysis evaluating the surgical activity in our gynecologic oncology department between January 21 and May 12, 2020. We compared the surgical activity and surgical and oncologic outcomes during the pre-lockdown period and the pandemic period. The main objective was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical activity. The secondary objectives were to analyze the surgical and the oncologic outcomes. We compared the surgical activity during the 8 weeks after the national lockdown (85 procedures) to the surgical activity in the 8 weeks preceding the lockdown (127 procedures). We observed a 33% decrease in activity between the two periods. The clinical and epidemiologic characteristics were similar between the two periods. There were no differences between the surgical approaches (p = 0.592), the surgical complexity (p = 0.323), the length of stay (p = 0.85), and even for the complex procedure (p = 0.96) and the perioperative (p = 0.791) and postoperative complication rates (p = 0.102). We observed a significant decrease in the time of return to intended oncological treatment (RIOT) during the lockdown period with an average of 31.9 days compared to 46.9 days in the pre-lockdown period (p = 0.003). During the COVID-19 pandemic, “care as usual” represents an acceptable strategy without impairing the oncologic outcome in a Comprehensive Cancer Center with a patient-centered clinical pathway for gynecologic oncologic surgical patients.

Managing a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Times of COVID-19 Outbreak: The Foch Hospital Experience

Departments of Gynecology and Obstetrics, as other departments, were faced with a major challenge at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fast restructuring was necessary in order to provide the means for COVID-related care. In this article we share our 1-year experience in reshaping our activities, managing healthcare workers and securing a pathway for pregnant patients, including potential, and confirmed COVID-19 cases. Priorities were set on ensuring patients' and healthcare workers' safety. Key containment measures included facemasks, systematic screening, dedicated spaces for COVID-19 cases with reinforced measures and vaccination campaign.

Advantages of, and Adaptations to, Enhanced Recovery Protocols for Perioperative Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

This review formulates the rationale for using enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) to standardize and optimize perioperative care during this high-risk time to minimize poor outcomes owing to provider, patient, and system vulnerabilities.

DATA SOURCES

n/a METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A literature review using key Medical Subject Headings terms was performed-according to methods described by the Cochrane Collaboration and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines-on studies that described enhanced recovery and coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Modifications to our existing ERPs related to the COVID-19 pandemic should include new accommodations for patient education, preoperative COVID-19 testing, prehabilitation, and intraoperative infection as well as thromboembolism risk reduction.

CONCLUSION

ERPs are evidence-based, best practice guidelines applied across the perioperative continuum to mitigate surgical stress, decrease complications, and accelerate recovery. These benefits are part of the high-value-care equation needed to solve the clinical, operational, and financial challenges of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The factors driving outcomes on ERPs, such as the provision of minimally invasive surgery, warrant careful consideration. Tracking patient outcomes and improving care in response to outcomes data are key to the success of clinical care protocols such as ERPs. Numerous emerging clinical registries and reporting systems have been activated to provide outcomes data on the impact of COVID-19. This will inform and change surgical practice as well as provide opportunity to learn if the advantages that surgeons, patients, and the healthcare system might gain from using ERPs during a pandemic are meaningful.

Strategies for Optimizing the Use of PPE During Surgery in COVID-19 Pandemic: Rapid Scoping Review of Guidelines

Personal protective equipment (PPE) plays a fundamental role in the prevention of spread to Health Care Professionals (HCP) ; especially in a surgical setting. This scoping review of surgery guidelines was performed to appraise the quality of appropriate PPE recommendations and propose a strategy to optimize the PPE usage. This rapid scoping review of guidelines on surgery during COVID-19 was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews protocol. Important databases were searched from January 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020, for relevant studies produced by a national/international academic association/organization, in English literature, using relevant keywords. Quality of evidence was graded according to GRADE guidelines. The searches yielded a total of 1725 studies, out of these 41 guidelines on surgery during COVID-19 matching with pre-defined criteria were evaluated. The level of evidence was uniformly rated "low," as assessed by GRADE guidelines and recommendations provided by them were mostly non-specific covering a narrow range of items. The crucial issue of optimization of PPE was not addressed at all. Economic implications demand optimization of PPE and conservation of resources. A simple decision-making algorithm addressing all the limitations of guidelines can be constructed, which allows HCPs to safeguard themselves and at the same time optimize/ conserving resources.

Perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection among women undergoing major gynecologic cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era: A nationwide, cohort study from Turkey

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the rate of perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection among gynecologic cancer patients undergoing major surgery.

METHODS

The database of the Turkish Ministry of Health was searched in order to identify all consecutive gynecologic cancer patients undergoing major surgery between March 11, 2020 and April 30, 2020 for this retrospective, nationwide, cohort study. The inclusion criteria were strictly founded on a final histopathological diagnosis of a malignant gynecologic tumor. COVID-19 cases were diagnosed by reverse transcriptase- polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2. The rate of perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and the 30-day mortality rate of COVID-19 patients were investigated.

RESULTS

During the study period, 688 women with gynecologic cancer undergoing major surgery were identified nationwide. The median age of the patients was 59 years. Most of the surgeries were open (634/688, 92.2%). There were 410 (59.6%) women with endometrial cancer, 195 (28.3%) with ovarian cancer, 66 (9.6%) with cervical cancer, 14 (2.0%) with vulvar cancer and 3 (0.4%) with uterine sarcoma. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery was 46/688 (6.7%). All but one woman was diagnosed postoperatively (45/46, 97.8%). The rates of intensive care unit admission and invasive mechanical ventilation were 4/46 (8.7%) and 2/46 (4.3%), respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 0%.

CONCLUSION

In the COVID-19 era, gynecologic cancer surgery may be performed with an acceptable rate of perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection if the staff and the patients strictly adhere to the established infection control measures.

TruScreen detection of cervical tissues for high-risk human papillomavirus-infected women during the COVID-19 pandemic

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of TruScreen (TS01) for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) women compared with other methods in reducing colposcopy referral rates in hospitals. Methods: A single-center, prospective, case-control study was conducted from December 2019 to June 2020. Results: Among 139 (46.2%) HR-HPV-positive patients, 58 were CIN1, 52 were CIN2-3 and 29 had cervical cancer (n = 29). The sensitivity and specificity of detecting CIN2+ by TS01, colposcopy and HPV16/18 testing were 96.3% and 46.4%, 85.2% and 40.5% and 59.3% and 74.1%, respectively. The highest sensitivity was 96.3% at HPV16/18 and TS01 (each positive results), and the highest specificity was 83.6% at HPV16/18 and TS01 (both positive) for CIN2+ compared with the other methods. Conclusion: TS01 is a noninvasive screening method and can be used to diagnose cervical lesions quickly. It is especially suitable as triage tool for HR-HPV-positive women facing SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection risks in hospital.

Maintaining surgical care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative cohort study at a tertiary gynecological cancer centre

Background

Surgery is the cornerstone of gynecological cancer management, but inpatient treatment may expose both patients and healthcare staff to COVID-19 infections. Plans to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been implemented widely, but few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these plans in maintaining safe surgical care delivery.

Aim

To evaluate the effects of mitigating plans implemented on the delivery of gynecological cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A comparative cohort study of patients treated in a high-volume tertiary gyneoncological centre in the United Kingdom. Prospectively-recorded consecutive operations performed and early peri-operative outcomes during the same calendar periods (January–August) in 2019 and 2020 were compared.

Results

In total, 585 operations were performed (296 in 2019; 289 in 2020). There was no significant difference in patient demographics. Types of surgery performed were different (p = 0.034), with fewer cytoreductive surgeries for ovarian cancer and laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.002) in 2020. There was no difference in intra-operative complication rates, critical care admission rates or length of stay. One patient had confirmed COVID-19 infection (0.4%). The 30-day post-operative complication rates were significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019 (58 [20.1%] versus 32 [10.8%]; p = 0.002) for both minor and major complications. This increase, primarily from March 2020 onwards, coincided with the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Conclusions

Maintaining surgical throughput with meticulous and timely planning is feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic but this was associated with an increase in post-operative complications due to a multitude of reasons.

Cancer or COVID-19? A Review of Guidelines for Safe Cancer Care in the Wake of the Pandemic

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to reasons beyond control, health care workers have struggled to deliver treatment for the patients with cancer. The concern for otherwise healthy patients with curable cancers that require timely intervention or therapy is the risk of contracting COVID-19 may outweigh the benefits of cancer treatment. Lack of international guidelines leaves health care providers with a case-to-case approach for delivering optimal cancer care in the wake of the pandemic. Transition to telemedicine has somewhat bridged the gap for in-office visits, but there is a continuing challenge of delays in cancer screening or significant decline of new diagnoses of cancers due to the pandemic. We aim to propose a balance in risk from treatment delay versus risks from COVID-19 with emphasis on treatment modality (surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy) as well as supportive care for cancer patients, and therefore have reviewed the publications and recommendations from international societies and study groups available as of October 2020.

Gynecologic oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic at three affiliated New York City hospitals

BACKGROUND

New York City was among the epicenters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oncologists must balance plausible risks of COVID-19 infection with the recognized consequences of delaying cancer treatment, keeping in mind the capacity of the health care system. We sought to investigate treatment patterns in gynecologic cancer care during the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic at three affiliated New York City hospitals located in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens.

METHODS

A prospective registry of patients with active or presumed gynecologic cancers receiving inpatient and/or outpatient care at three affiliated New York City hospitals was maintained between March 1 and April 30, 2020. Clinical and demographic data were abstracted from the electronic medical record with a focus on oncologic treatment. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was explored to evaluate the independent effect of hospital location, race, age, medical comorbidities, cancer status and COVID-19 status on treatment modifications.

RESULTS

Among 302 patients with gynecologic cancer, 117 (38.7%) experienced a COVID-19-related treatment modification (delay, change or cancellation) during the first two months of the pandemic in New York. Sixty-four patients (67.4% of those scheduled for surgery) had a COVID-19-related modification in their surgical plan, 45 (21.5% of those scheduled for systemic treatment) a modification in systemic treatment and 12 (18.8% of those scheduled for radiation) a modification in radiation. Nineteen patients (6.3%) had positive COVID-19 testing. On univariate analysis, hospital location in Queens or Brooklyn, age ≤65 years, treatment for a new cancer diagnosis versus recurrence and COVID-19 positivity were associated with treatment modifications. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, hospital location in Queens and COVID-19 positive testing were independently associated with treatment modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one third of patients with gynecologic cancer at three affiliated New York City hospitals experienced a treatment delay, change or cancellation during the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the three New York City boroughs represented in this study, likelihood of gynecologic oncology treatment modifications correlated with the case burden of COVID-19.

Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for fellowship education during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: Innovating programs to optimize trainee success

In approximately ten months' time, the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has infected over 34 million people and caused over one million deaths worldwide. The impact of this virus on our health, relationships, and careers is difficult to overstate. As the economic realities for academic medical centers come into focus, we must recommit to our core missions of patient care, education, and research. Fellowship education programs in gynecologic oncology have quickly adapted to the “new normal” of social distancing using video conferencing platforms to continue clinical and didactic teaching. United in a time of crisis, we have embraced systemic change by developing and delivering collaborative educational content, overcoming the limitations imposed by institutional silos. Additional innovations are needed in order to overcome the losses in program surgical volume and research opportunities. With the end of the viral pandemic nowhere in sight, program directors can rethink how education is best delivered and potentially overhaul aspects of fellowship curriculum and content. Similarly, restrictions on travel and the need for social distancing has transformed the 2020 fellowship interview season from an in-person to a virtual experience. During this time of unprecedented and rapid change, program directors should be particularly mindful of the needs and health of their trainees and consider tailoring their educational experiences accordingly.

•

The novel coronavirus pandemic has disrupted medical education at all levels.

•

Fellowship programs must adapt to the realities of social distancing, workforce redeployments, and laboratory closures.

•

The integration of teleconferencing into clinical practice and learning provides both challenges and growth opportunities.

•

Program directors should be aware of new stressors our fellows, particularly underrepresented minorities, are facing.

•

Programs should take advantage of the opportunity to rethink fellowship education and the needs of our recent graduates.

COVID-19 and Gynecological Cancers: A Summary of International Recommendations

Morocco and the rest of the world are experiencing a pandemic of a new coronavirus known as COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). On August 24, 2020, the spread of the virus in Morocco had caused more than 52,000 cases and 880 deaths. Cancer patients are more susceptible to develop an infection than people without cancer because of their immunosuppression caused by the disease and treatments (surgery and chemotherapy). Therefore, these patients are at higher risk of infection with COVID-19 and a much higher risk of developing more serious forms. Given this epidemiological context, the establishment of guidelines for patients with gynecological cancers, requiring multidisciplinary management during the global COVID-19 pandemic, is crucial to limit their infection while maintaining their chances for a cure. In this paper, we summarize the international COVID-19 recommendations on the prioritization of surgical cases, the perioperative protective measures, the precautions to be taken in the brachytherapy unit, the COVID-19 screening, and finally the therapeutic indications of gynecological cancers by tumor location.