Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

The predictive score performed well and could not be improved. This provides opportunities for individualizing patient consent and selection, and treatment and research applications.

ObjectiveThere is emerging evidence that the pancreas may be a target organ of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) and coexistent SARS-CoV-2 infection.DesignA prospective international multicentre cohort study including consecutive patients admitted with AP during the current pandemic was undertaken. Primary outcome measure was severity of AP. Secondary outcome measures were aetiology of AP, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of hospital stay, local complications, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), persistent organ failure and 30-day mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to compare the two groups.Results1777 patients with AP were included during the study period from 1 March to 23 July 2020. 149 patients (8.3%) had concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were older male patients and more likely to develop severe AP and ARDS (p<0.001). Unadjusted analysis showed that SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with AP were more likely to require ICU admission (OR 5.21, p<0.001), local complications (OR 2.91, p<0.001), persistent organ failure (OR 7.32, p<0.001), prolonged hospital stay (OR 1.89, p<0.001) and a higher 30-day mortality (OR 6.56, p<0.001). Adjusted analysis showed length of stay (OR 1.32, p<0.001), persistent organ failure (OR 2.77, p<0.003) and 30-day mortality (OR 2.41, p<0.04) were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 co-infection.ConclusionPatients with AP and coexistent SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of severe AP, worse clinical outcomes, prolonged length of hospital stay and high 30-day mortality.

Background The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP. Methods A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien–Dindo grade IIIa or above). Results A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225–350) versus 240 (195–300) min respectively; P &lt; 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P &lt; 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7–12) versus 7 (6–10) days; P &lt; 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004). Conclusion The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.