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...

Background and Purpose: We aimed to investigate the rate of hospital admissions for cerebrovascular events and of revascularization treatments for acute ischemic stroke in Italy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Methods: The Italian Stroke Organization performed a multicenter study involving 93 Italian Stroke Units. We collected information on hospital admissions for cerebrovascular events from March 1 to March 31, 2020 (study period), and from March 1 to March 31, 2019 (control period). Results: Ischemic strokes decreased from 2399 in 2019 to 1810 in 2020, with a corresponding hospitalization rate ratio (RR) of 0.75 ([95% CI, 0.71–0.80] P <0.001); intracerebral hemorrhages decreased from 400 to 322 (hospitalization RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69–0.93]; P =0.004), and transient ischemic attacks decreased from 322 to 196 (hospitalization RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.51–0.73]; P <0.001). Hospitalizations decreased in Northern, Central, and Southern Italy. Intravenous thrombolyses decreased from 531 (22.1%) in 2019 to 345 in 2020 (19.1%; RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75–0.99]; P =0.032), while primary endovascular procedures increased in Northern Italy (RR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.13–2.32]; P =0.008). We found no correlation ( P =0.517) between the hospitalization RRs for all strokes or transient ischemic attack and COVID-19 incidence in the different areas. Conclusions: Hospitalizations for stroke or transient ischemic attacks across Italy were reduced during the worst period of the COVID-19 outbreak. Intravenous thrombolytic treatments also decreased, while endovascular treatments remained unchanged and even increased in the area of maximum expression of the outbreak. Limited hospitalization of the less severe patients and delays in hospital admission, due to overcharge of the emergency system by COVID-19 patients, may explain these data.

Benzene was measured in blood and alveolar air of 168 men, aged 20-58 years, subdivided into four groups: blood donors, hospital staff, chemical workers occupationally exposed to benzene, and chemical workers not occupationally exposed to benzene. The group of exposed workers was employed in work places with a mean environmental exposure to benzene of 1.62 mg/M3 (8 hr TWA). Non-exposed workers were employed elsewhere in the same plant, with an environmental exposure to benzene lower than 0.1 mg/M3. Blood and alveolar air samples were collected in the morning, before the start of the work shift for the chemical workers. The group of exposed workers was found to be significantly different from the other three groups, both for blood and alveolar benzene concentrations. The mean blood benzene concentration was 789 ng/l in the exposed workers, 307 ng/l in the non-exposed workers, 332 ng/l in the hospital staff, and 196 ng/l in the blood donors. Apart from the exposed workers, blood benzene concentration was significantly higher in smokers than in non-smokers. The mean alveolar benzene concentration was 92 ng/l in the exposed workers, 42 ng/l in the non-exposed workers, 22 ng/l in the hospital staff, and 11 ng/l in the blood donors. Alveolar benzene concentration was significantly higher in smokers than in non-smokers in the groups of the hospital staff and non-exposed workers, but not in the blood donors and exposed workers. In the three groups without occupational exposure considered altogether, the alveolar benzene concentration correlated significantly with environmental benzene concentration measured at the moment of the individual examinations, both in the smokers (r = .636; p less than .001) and non-smokers (r = .628; p less than .001). In the same three groups and in the exposed workers, alveolar benzene concentration showed a significant correlation with the blood benzene concentration.

1,3-Butadiene and benzene, as ubiquitous pollutants, are detectable and quantifiable in human alveolar air, blood and urine. 2,5-Dimethylfuran, which is not a usual environmental pollutant, is almost always detectable in biological media, but only in smokers.

No abstract