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...

No abstract

Background The COVID‐19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency and affected the resources in both the public and private health sectors significantly. The present study aims to assess the impact of the pandemic on the services by the department in the first 3 months since the first COVID case in the region. Methods The study period was from 16 March to 15 June 2020. We queried the database for data on site of the tumor, diagnosis, stage, tumor board decisions and planning, surgical procedures, adjuvant treatment, and follow‐up details. The change in tumor board decision and actual treatment taken by the patient were all recorded, taking into consideration the COVID‐19 pandemic. Results Among the 1567 patient contacts, 1306 were out‐patient visits and 261 teleconsultations. Fifty‐four patients underwent surgery from the 87 admitted to the hospital. Ten preoperative patients and two postoperative patients were tested for COVID and reported to be negative. Conclusions The dilemma of providing cancer surgery services to the patients in this pandemic has been global. Strict measures and guidelines can help to overcome the COVID pandemic time, keeping in mind the locoregional logistics.

PURPOSE A common definition of a clear margin (≥5 mm) in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) for all stages is a subject of controversy. Studies have shown that even 1- and 2-mm margins are adequate, and few studies have identified dynamic resection margin as a criterion. We aimed to study the margin to depth of invasion ratio (MDR), margin to tumor thickness ratio (MTR), and margin to tumor size ratio (MSR) as prognostic markers for survival. Notably, to our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the role of MDR in OSCC. METHODS A prospectively maintained head and neck cancer database was analyzed from January 2017 to February 2023. The MDR, MTR, and MSR were calculated for each patient. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Cox proportional model and the Kaplan-Meier method. Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to compare different ratio models. X-tiles software was used to identify the optimal cutoff value of MDR. RESULTS Two hundred eighty patients in the database were assessed, of which 123 eligible patients were enrolled in the study. MDR was an independent predictor of disease-free survival (DFS) on multivariate analysis. The MDR model had the lowest values on AIC and BIC analyses. A cutoff value of 0.5 for MDR showed a significant correlation with DFS and overall survival. CONCLUSION MDR was the best predictor of recurrence of all the three ratios studied. The minimum safe surgical margin can be calculated by multiplying the depth of invasion by 0.5. This study signifies the role of dynamic resection margin criteria on the basis of MDR in defining clear margins.

No abstract