COVID-19 free oncologic surgical hub: The experience of reallocation of a gynecologic oncology unit during pandemic outbreak

Systematic review and meta-analysis determining the effect of implemented COVID-19 guidelines on surgical oncology volumes and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

To provide for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) healthcare capacity, (surgical oncology) guidelines were established, forcing to alter the timing of performing surgical procedures. It is essential to determine whether these guidelines have led to disease progression. This study aims to give an insight into the number of surgical oncology procedures performed during the pandemic and provide information on short-term clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed on all COVID-19 articles including operated patients, published before March 21, 2022. Meta-analysis was performed to visualize the number of performed surgical oncology procedures during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period. Random effects models were used for evaluating short-term clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies containing 6762 patients who underwent a surgical oncology procedure during the pandemic were included. The number of performed surgical procedures for an oncological pathology decreased (-26.4%) during the pandemic. The number of performed surgical procedures for breast cancer remained stable (+0.3%). Moreover, no difference was identified in the number of ≥T2 (OR 1.00, P = 0.989), ≥T3 (OR 0.95, P = 0.778), ≥N1 (OR 1.01, P = 0.964) and major postoperative complications (OR 1.55, P = 0.134) during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The number of performed surgical oncology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic decreased. In addition, the number of performed surgical breast cancer procedures remained stable. Oncological staging and major postoperative complications showed no significant difference compared to pre-pandemic practice. During future pandemics, the performed surgical oncology practice during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic seems appropriate for short-term results.

Interactions between COVID-19 and Lung Cancer: Lessons Learned during the Pandemic

Simple Summary

COVID-19 is a respiratory infectious disease caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Lung cancer is the leading cause of all cancer-related deaths worldwide. As both SARS-CoV-2 and lung cancer affect the lungs, the aim of this narrative review is to provide a consolidation of lessons learned throughout the pandemic regarding lung cancer and COVID-19. Risk factors found in lung cancer patients, such as advanced cancers, smoking, male, etc., have been associated with severe COVID-19. The cancer treatments hormonal therapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy have shown no association with severe COVID-19 disease, but chemotherapy and radiation therapy have shown conflicting results. Logistical changes and modifications in treatment plans were instituted during the pandemic to minimize SARS-CoV-2 exposure while maintaining life-saving cancer care. Finally, medications have been developed to treat early COVID-19, which can be highly beneficial in vulnerable cancer patients, with paxlovid being the most efficacious drug currently available.

Abstract

Cancer patients, specifically lung cancer patients, show heightened vulnerability to severe COVID-19 outcomes. The immunological and inflammatory pathophysiological similarities between lung cancer and COVID-19-related ARDS might explain the predisposition of cancer patients to severe COVID-19, while multiple risk factors in lung cancer patients have been associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, including smoking status, older age, etc. Recent cancer treatments have also been urgently evaluated during the pandemic as potential risk factors for severe COVID-19, with conflicting findings regarding systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy, while other therapies were not associated with altered outcomes. Given this vulnerability of lung cancer patients for severe COVID-19, the delivery of cancer care was significantly modified during the pandemic to both proceed with cancer care and minimize SARS-CoV-2 infection risk. However, COVID-19-related delays and patients’ aversion to clinical settings have led to increased diagnosis of more advanced tumors, with an expected increase in cancer mortality. Waning immunity and vaccine breakthroughs related to novel variants of concern threaten to further impede the delivery of cancer services. Cancer patients have a high risk of severe COVID-19, despite being fully vaccinated. Numerous treatments for early COVID-19 have been developed to prevent disease progression and are crucial for infected cancer patients to minimize severe COVID-19 outcomes and resume cancer care. In this literature review, we will explore the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to specifically mitigate COVID-19 treatment decisions and the clinical management of lung cancer patients.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Delivery of Gynecology and Obstetrics Services at a Maximum Care University Hospital in Germany

Einleitung Die COVID-19-Pandemie bedeutet einschneidende Maßnahmen für das nationale Gesundheitssystem. Dies bot den Anlass, die klinischen und ökonomischen Leistungsindikatoren der gynäkologischen und geburtshilflichen Versorgung des Universitätsklinikums Marburg als regionaler universitärer Maximalversorger zu analysieren. Hierzu wurden die Auswirkungen auf die monatlichen stationären und ambulanten Fallzahlvolumina sowie die entsprechenden ICD- und DRG-Kodierungen ausgewertet, um etwaige Versorgungsdefizite aufzudecken.

Material und Methoden Die Studie basiert auf einer retrospektiven Datenanalyse therapierter stationären und ambulanten Fälle der Jahre 2016 bis 2020. Hierzu wurden über das klinikinterne Leistungscontrolling-Programm QlikView die Daten von 9487 Fällen der Klinik für Gynäkologie und 19597 Fällen der Klinik für Geburtshilfe ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse Es bildet sich eine der nationalen Pandemiedynamik folgende Abnahme der gynäkologischen stationären Fallzahlen um –6% ab, während das geburtshilfliche Fallzahlvolumen um +11% im Jahr 2020 steigt. Insgesamt fallen die Effekte für die ambulante Versorgung geringer aus. Zudem lässt sich eine standortbezogene Abnahme der C50 „Bösartige Neubildungen der Brustdrüse“ und C56 „Bösartige Ovarialtumoren“ Diagnosen um –7,4% bzw. –14% feststellen. Eine Rückkehr zu dem Leistungsniveau des Vorjahres konnte im ambulanten in 3 und im stationären Sektor in 5 Monaten erreicht werden.

Schlussfolgerung Die negativen Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie treffen vorwiegend die Klinik für Gynäkologie. Durch das Vertrauen in die Sicherheit der universitären Versorgung und das Serviceangebot, werdende Väter nach Schnelltestung am Geburtsprozess teilhaben zu lassen, konnte eine Fallzunahme in der Geburtshilfe erreicht werden. Die Rückkehr zu präpandemischen Leistungsniveaus gestaltet sich weiterhin schleppend, während sich der ohnehin weniger betroffene ambulante Sektor zügiger erholt. Der standortbezogene Rückgang der Diagnosen C50 und C56 ist besorgniserregend und bedarf epidemiologischer Aufarbeitung. Die fallzahlbezogenen Auswirkungen der Pandemie bilden sich gleichsam in den ökonomischen Leistungskennzahlen ab.

ANMCO POSITION PAPER: cardio-oncology in the COVID era (CO and CO)

The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease have confirmed the particular vulnerability of these populations. Indeed, not only a higher risk of contracting the infection has been reported but also an increased occurrence of a more severe course and unfavourable outcome. Beyond the direct consequences of COVID-19 infection, the pandemic has an enormous impact on global health systems. Screening programmes and non-urgent tests have been postponed; clinical trials have suffered a setback. Similarly, in the area of cardiology care, a significant decline in STEMI accesses and an increase in cases of late presenting heart attacks with increased mortality and complication rates have been reported. Health care systems must therefore get ready to tackle the 'rebound effect' that will likely show a relative increase in the short- and medium-term incidence of diseases such as heart failure, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, and cardio- and cerebrovascular complications. Scientific societies are taking action to provide general guidance and recommendations aimed at mitigating the unfavourable outcomes of this pandemic emergency. Cardio-oncology, as an emerging discipline, is more flexible in modulating care pathways and represents a beacon of innovation in the development of multi-specialty patient management. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, cardio-oncology has rapidly modified its clinical care pathways and implemented flexible monitoring protocols that include targeted use of cardiac imaging, increased use of biomarkers, and telemedicine systems. The goal of these strategic adjustments is to minimize the risk of infection for providers and patients while maintaining standards of care for the treatment of oncologic and cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this document is to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the management of cardio-oncologic patients with the-state-of-the-art knowledge about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in order to optimize medical strategies during and after the pandemic.

Feasibility of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in ovarian cancer during COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions on patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for ovarian cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated ovarian cancer patients who underwent HIPEC following complete cytoreductive surgery performed during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in three different centers specializing in gynecological oncology. All patients who underwent cytoreduction plus HIPEC for a primary, interval, and recurrent surgery were evaluated. Primary outcomes was postoperative 30-day morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcome was infection of patient and/or related staff with COVID-19 during the perioperative or early postoperative period.

RESULTS

We performed a total of 35 HIPEC procedures during the pandemic: 15 (42.9%) patients underwent primary/interval surgery, while 20 (57.1%) patients had recurrent disease. Grade 3-4 complications occurred in one patient (2.9%) (chronic renal failure), while mortality did not occur in any patient. Neither the patients nor related staff were infected with the coronavirus during the perioperative or early postoperative period. One patient, who was diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia on postoperative day 80 died from the infection. Another patient died on postoperative day 85 due to progressive ovarian cancer, a disorder in vital functions, and organ failure.

CONCLUSION

HIPEC during the COVID-19 pandemic seems a safe and feasible procedure, with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates. Careful selection of patients is important and precautions should be taken before the procedure.

Continuity of Cancer Care: The Surgical Experience of Two Large Cancer Hubs in London and Milan

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a large effect on the management of cancer patients. This study reports on the approach and outcomes of cancer patients receiving radical surgery with curative intent between March and September 2020 (in comparison to 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal pathway where patients were required to self-isolate prior to admission and were swabbed for COVID-19 within 72 h of surgery. Positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. At IEO, radical surgeries declined by 6% as compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 1477 vs. 1560, respectively). Readmissions were required for 3% (n = 41), and <1% (n = 9) developed COVID-19, of which only one had severe disease and died. At SELCA, radical surgeries declined by 34% (n = 1553 vs. 2336). Readmissions were required for 11% (n = 36), <1% (n = 7) developed COVID-19, and none died from it. Whilst a decline in number of surgeries was observed in both centres, the implemented COVID-19 minimal pathways have shown to be safe for cancer patients requiring radical treatment, with limited complications and almost no COVID-19 infections.