Universal preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing can facilitate safe surgical treatment during local COVID-19 surges

Automated, High-Throughput Platform to Generate a High-Reliability, Comprehensive Rectal Cancer Database

PURPOSE

Dynamic operations platforms allow for cross-platform data extraction, integration, and analysis, although application of these platforms to large-scale oncology enterprises has not been described. This study presents a pipeline for automated, high-fidelity extraction, integration, and validation of cross-platform oncology data in patients undergoing treatment for rectal cancer at a single, high-volume institution.

METHODS

A dynamic operations platform was used to identify patients with rectal cancer treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2016 and 2022 who had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging and preoperative treatment details available in the electronic health record (EHR). Demographic, clinicopathologic, tumor mutation, radiographic, and treatment data were extracted from the EHR using a methodology adaptable to any disease site. Data accuracy was assessed by manual review. Accuracy before and after implementation of synoptic reporting was determined for MRI data.

RESULTS

A total of 516 patients with localized rectal cancer were included. In the era after institutional adoption of synoptic reports, the dynamic operations platform extracted T (tumor) category data from the EHR with 95% accuracy compared with 87% before the use of synoptic reports, and N (lymph node) category with 88% compared with 58%. Correct extraction of pelvic sidewall adenopathy was 94% compared with 78%, and extramural vascular invasion accuracy was 99% compared with 89%. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation data were 99% accurate for patients who had synoptic data sources.

CONCLUSION

Using dynamic operations platforms enables automated cross-platform integration of multiparameter oncology data with high fidelity in patients undergoing multimodality treatment for rectal cancer. These pipelines can be adapted to other solid tumors and, together with standardized reporting, can increase efficiency in clinical research and the translation of actionable findings toward optimizing patient outcomes.

Serum Tumor Markers and Outcomes in Patients With Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma

Importance

Serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers; however, there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

Objective

To assess the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes and pathologic and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 52 (21-101) months. Software was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least 1 tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between March 2016 and May 2023. Data were analyzed from January to December 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Association of serum tumor markers with survival in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were also performed to assess associations between clinical factors (serum tumor marker levels, demographics, and patient and disease characteristics) and patient outcomes (overall survival).

Results

A total of 1338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median (range) age at diagnosis of 56.5 (22.3-89.6) years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (1080 patients [80.7%]). CEA was elevated in 742 of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 381 patients (34%) and 312 patients (27%), respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; elevated vs normal was 81% vs 95% for CEA (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% CI, 2.9-5.6), 84% vs 92% for CA19-9 (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4), and 69% vs 93% for CA125 (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.7-7.8) (P < .001 for all). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers was associated with outcomes. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 had markedly worse survival, with 5-year survival rates of 59% for CEA (HR, 9.8; 95% CI, 5.3-18.0), 64% for CA19-9 (HR, 6.0; 95% CI, 3.0-11.7), and 57% for CA125 (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 3.5-16.5) (P < .001 for all). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease, elevated CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR for CEA, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.8; P < .001; HR for CA19-9, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7; P = .002; and HR for CA125, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.4-6.4; P < .001). Interestingly, tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high-grade tumors relative to low-grade tumors (mean value, 18.3 vs 15.0; difference, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.9-3.7; P < .001). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with an 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all 3 tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Somatic mutations in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this retrospective study of serum tumor markers in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma, CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 were associated with overall survival in appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their value, all 3 biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

The Clinical Significance of CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in Management of Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma

Importance

Serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, & CA125 have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers, however there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

Objective

Assessing the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes, pathologic, and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

Design

This is a retrospective study with results reported in 2023. The median follow-up time was 43 months.

Setting

Single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center.

Participants

Under an approved Institutional Review Board protocol, the Palantir Foundry software system was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least one tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between 2016 and 2023.

Results

A total of 1,338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median age of 56.5 years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (80.7%). CEA was elevated in more than half of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 34% and 27%, respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; 82% vs 95%, 84% vs 92%, and 69% vs 93% elevated vs normal for CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 respectively (all p<0.0001). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers increased prognostic ability. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 had markedly worse survival with 5-year survival rates of 59%, 64%, and 57%, respectively (HR vs. normal : 9.8, 6.0, 7.6, all p<0.0001). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease elevated CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR vs. normal : 3.4, 1.8, 3.9, p<0.0001 for CEA and CA125, p=0.0019 for CA19-9). Interestingly tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high relative to low-grade tumors (18.3 vs. 15.0, p=0.0009). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with a 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all three tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Mutation in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9.

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate the utility of measuring CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in the management of appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their prognostic value, all three biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients diagnosed with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

Adoption of Telemedicine for Postoperative Follow-Up After Inpatient Cancer-Related Surgery

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant changes in health care delivery, including the rapid adoption of telemedicine across multiple specialties and practice environments. This includes postoperative visits (POV), despite limited data on outcomes following these telemedicine POV. We sought to determine whether these types of visits successfully identify and address postoperative complications when compared with in-person POV.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective inpatient cancer-related surgery from March 2020 through December 2020. The exposure variable was type of POV (telemedicine v in-person). The primary outcome was unplanned hospital readmission within 90 days, and secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission, length of stay of first readmission, and mortality.

RESULTS

Five-hundred thirty-five patients underwent elective inpatient operations and met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 98 (18.5%) had an initial telemedicine POV. There was no difference in 90-day readmission on the basis of POV type (16.3% telemedicine v 16.5% in-person, P = .99). Reasons for readmission did not differ between patients who underwent a telemedicine POV compared with in-person POV (all P > .05). After adjustment for patients' demographic and clinical factors, telemedicine POV was not associated with 90-day readmission (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.70; P = .77).

CONCLUSION

Telemedicine POV use adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic did not increase risk of readmission when compared with in-person visits following inpatient oncologic surgery. These data can help inform policy on the continued use and application of telemedicine after the pandemic.

Surgical outcomes inchildren with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis

Objective

To understand whether perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases risk of pulmonary complications in children.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of children who underwent surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection at a children's hospital from March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. Uninfected, age-matched control patients who underwent the same procedure as infected patients over the past ten years were included in the study in a 3:1 ratio to infected patients. Primary outcomes were 7- and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were development of pulmonary complications, readmission, length of hospital or ICU stay, and oxygen administration in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU).

Results

Our study included 73 patients who underwent surgery with perioperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, and 218 control patient undergoing similar procedures. One total mortality event was observed within 7 days in an uninfected control patient, and none occurred in infected patients. Perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risk for pulmonary complications in univariate analysis. Infection was not associated with any of our other secondary outcomes. Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and timing of diagnosis was not associated with development of pulmonary complications among infected patients.

Conclusions

Children with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection may be at increased risk for development of pulmonary complications. Larger studies should be performed to confirm our results.

COVID-19 and liver surgery in France, Italy, Japan, and the United States: A report of a single topic conference of Eastern and Western Association for Liver Tumors (EWALT) 2021

The Eastern and Western Association for Liver Tumors (EWALT) is an international association for clinical and basic scientists dedicated to worldwide study on hepatocellular carcinoma. A single topic conference of EWALT on "COVID-19 and Liver Surgery" was held online on April 23th, 2021. The presenters from France, Italy, Japan, and the United States, reported the current situation of COVID-19 in each country and the influence on the clinical practice and education in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery. Here we would like to summarize the core of this single topic conference.

Universal preprocedural SARS-CoV-2 testing protocol within a large healthcare system

This research letter details the safety of a universal asymptomatic preprocedural SARS-CoV-2 testing protocol implemented within a large, integrated healthcare system. Among over 145 000 tests administered, fewer than 1 in 1000 patients had subsequent positive tests within 10 days of an initial negative SARS-CoV-2 test. Despite the infrequency of positive tests after negative screening tests, patient-to-provider transmission was documented in five instances.

Surgical Outcomes in Cancer Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery After Recovering from Mild-to-Moderate SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Background

An increasing number of patients with cancer diagnoses and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection will require surgical treatment. The objective of this study was to determine whether a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of adverse postoperative events following surgery in patients with cancer.

Methods

This was a propensity-matched cohort study from April 6, 2020 to October 31, 2020 at the UT MD Anderson Cancer Center. Cancer patients were identified who underwent elective surgery after recovering from SARS-CoV-2 infection and matched to controls based on patient, disease, and surgical factors. Primary study outcome was a composite of the following adverse postoperative events that occurred within 30 days of surgery: death, unplanned readmission, pneumonia, cardiac injury, or thromboembolic event.

Results

A total of 5682 patients were included for study, and 114 (2.0%) had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The average time from infection to surgery was 52 (range 20–202) days. Compared with matched controls, there was no difference in the rate of adverse postoperative outcome (14.3% vs. 13.4%, p = 1.0). Patients with a SARS-CoV-2-related inpatient admission before surgery had increased odds of postoperative complication (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.4 [1.6–34.3], p = 0.01).

Conclusions

A minimal wait time of 20 days after recovering from minimally symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to be safe for cancer patients undergoing low-risk elective surgery. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections requiring inpatient treatment were at increased risk for adverse events after surgery. Additional wait time may be required in those with more severe infections.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10291-9.