No abstract

Introduction The emergence of the novel coronavirus Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the coronavirus disease COVID-19 has impacted enormously on non-COVID-19-related hospital care. Curtailment of intensive care unit (ICU) access threatens complex surgery, particularly impacting on outcomes for time-sensitive cancer surgery. Oesophageal cancer surgery is a good example. This study explored the impact of the pandemic on process and shortterm surgical outcomes, comparing the first wave of the pandemic from April to June in 2020 with the same period in 2019. Methods Data from all four Irish oesophageal cancer centres were reviewed. All patients undergoing resection for oesophageal malignancy from 1 April to 30 June inclusive in 2020 and 2019 were included. Patient, disease, and peri-operative outcomes (including COVID-19 infection) were compared. Results In 2020, 45 patients underwent oesophagectomy, and 53 in the equivalent period in 2019. There were no differences in patient demographics, co-morbidities, or use of neoadjuvant therapy. The median time to surgery from neoadjuvant therapy was 8 weeks in both 2020 and 2019. There were no significant differences in operative interventions between the two time periods. There was no difference in operative morbidity in 2020 and 2019 (28% vs 40%, p = 0.28). There was no in-hospital mortality in either period. No patient contracted COVID-19 in the perioperative period. Conclusions Continuing surgical resection for oesophageal cancer was feasible and safe during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland. The national response to this threat was therefore successful by these criteria in the curative management of oesophageal cancer.

There has been a change in clinical practice since the publication of the Z0011 trial, illustrated by a decrease in the rate of axillary clearance in node-positive breast cancers.

BackgroundThe number of primary care referrals of women with breast symptoms to symptomatic breast units (SBUs) has increased exponentially in the past decade in Ireland. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify women with breast cancer so that a more evidence based approach to referral from primary care to these SBUs can be developed.MethodsWe analysed routine data from a prospective cohort of consecutive women reviewed at a SBU with breast symptoms. The dataset was split into a derivation and validation cohort. Regression analysis was used to derive a CPR from the patient’s history and clinical findings. Validation of the CPR consisted of estimating the number of breast cancers predicted to occur compared with the actual number of observed breast cancers across deciles of risk.ResultsA total of 6,590 patients were included in the derivation study and 4.9% were diagnosed with breast cancer. Independent clinical predictors for breast cancer were: increasing age by year (adjusted odds ratio 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.09); presence of a lump (5.63, 95% CI 4.2-7.56); nipple change (2.77, 95% CI 1.68-4.58) and nipple discharge (2.09, 95% CI 1.1-3.97). Validation of the rule (n = 911) demonstrated that the probability of breast cancer was higher with an increasing number of these independent variables. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit showed no overall significant difference between the expected and the observed numbers of breast cancer (χ2HL: 6.74, p-value: 0.56).ConclusionsThis study derived and validated a CPR for breast cancer in women attending an Irish national SBU. We found that increasing age, presence of a lump, nipple discharge and nipple change are all associated with increased risk of breast cancer. Further validation of the rule is necessary as well as an assessment of its impact on referral practice.

The incidence of breast cancer in patients referred to SBU with mastalgia as an isolated symptom is extremely low. Patients under 35 years of age, with mastalgia as an isolated symptom do not require breast imaging and have a sufficiently low risk of breast cancer that they may be suitable for management in the primary care setting.