Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

No abstract

Background Resistance to immune checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy in melanoma patients is currently one of the major clinical challenges. With the approval of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), oncolytic viruses are now in clinical practice for locally advanced or non-resectable melanoma. Here, we describe the usage of T-VEC in stage IVM1b-M1c melanoma patients, who achieved complete remission or stable disease upon systemic treatment but suffered from a locoregional recurrence. To our knowledge, there are no case reports so far describing T-VEC as a means to overcome acquired resistance to immune checkpoint blockade or targeted therapy. Methods All melanoma patients in our department treated with T-VEC in the period of 2016-2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Data on clinicopathological characteristics, treatment response, and toxicity were analyzed. Results Fourteen melanoma patients were treated with T-VEC in our center. Six patients (43%) received T-VEC first-line. In eight patients (57%), T-VEC followed a prior systemic therapy. Three patients with M1b stage and one patient with M1c stage melanoma were treated with T-VEC. These patients suffered from loco-regional progress, whilst distant metastases had regressed during prior systemic treatment. 64% of patients showed a benefit from therapy with T-VEC. The durable response rate was 36%. Conclusion T-VEC represents an effective and tolerable treatment option. This is true not only for loco-regionally advanced melanoma patients, but also for patients with stable or regressive systemic metastases who develop loco-regionally acquired resistance upon treatment with immune checkpoint blockade or targeted therapy. A sensible selection of suitable patients seems to be crucial.

ObjectivesBenign leiomyomas are the most common uterine tumors. In contrast, uterine leiomyosarcomas are malignancies with a poor prognosis due to difficulties in early diagnosis and inappropriate surgical treatment. Most often they are diagnosed incidentally after surgery performed for treatment of leiomyoma. As the appropriate surgical treatment is crucial for survival of the patient, there is a high demand to predict leiomyosarcoma pre-operatively. Available scoring systems to discriminate leiomyoma from leiomyosarcoma are based on retrospective studies with limited numbers of patients and are not implemented in routine clinical practice.MethodsThe aim of our study was to evaluate a recently published score—the pre-operative leiomyosarcoma (pLMS) score—to determine whether it would have been predictive of leiomyosarcoma in 177 patients from the NOGGO-REGSA study, a German register of histologically proven gynecological sarcoma detected during routine clinical investigation.ResultsThe threshold of the pLMS score for ‘leiomyosarcoma not probable’ (< −3) failed for 7.5% of the patients and the threshold ‘indicator for leiomyosarcoma’ (>+1) was true for 39.1% of the patients. 53.4% of the patients were attributed to the group ‘additional investigations are recommended’ (−3 to +1). The most relevant parameters in our analysis were suspicious sonography and rapid growth, but neither have been quantitatively defined.ConclusionIn our validation cohort, the pLMS score seems not to be a reliable tool to predict leiomyosarcoma and therefore we do not recommend its clinical implementation to identify leiomyosarcoma.