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.

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy and the second cause of cancer-specific death in women from high-income countries. Recently, gut microbiota dysbiosis emerged as a key player that may directly and/or indirectly influence development, treatment, and prognosis of BC through diverse biological processes: host cell proliferation and death, immune system function, chronic inflammation, oncogenic signalling, hormonal and detoxification pathways. Gut colonisation occurs during the prenatal period and is later diversified over distinct phases throughout life. In newly diagnosed postmenopausal BC patients, an altered faecal microbiota composition has been observed compared with healthy controls. Particularly, β-glucuronidase bacteria seem to modulate the enterohepatic circulation of oestrogens and their resorption, increasing the risk of hormone-dependent BC. Moreover, active phytoestrogens, short-chain fatty acids, lithocholic acid, and cadaverine have been identified as bacterial metabolites influencing the risk and prognosis of BC. As in gut, links are also being made with local microbiota of tumoural and healthy breast tissues. In breast microbiota, different microbial signatures have been reported, with distinct patterns per stage and biological subtype. Total bacterial DNA load was lower in tumour tissue and advanced-stage BC when compared with healthy tissue and early stage BC, respectively. Hypothetically, these findings reflect local dysbiosis, potentially creating an environment that favours breast tumour carcinogenesis (oncogenic trigger), or the natural selection of microorganisms adapted to a specific microenvironment. In this review, we discuss the origin, composition, and dynamic evolution of human microbiota, the links between gut/breast microbiota and BC, and explore the potential implications of metabolomics and pharmacomicrobiomics that might impact BC development and treatment choices toward a more personalised medicine. Finally, we put in perspective the potential limitations and biases regarding the current microbiota research and provide new horizons for stronger accurate translational and clinical studies that are needed to better elucidate the complex network of interactions between host, microorganisms, and drugs in the field of BC.

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.

Introduction Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short‐term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally. Methods A pre‐planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Results Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02–2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10–7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non‐transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed‐effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77–1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79–5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55–4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52–3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%. Conclusion This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.

Ethical issues that arise during the care of a pregnant woman with cancer are challenging to physicians, policymakers, lawyers, and the bioethics community. The main purpose of this scoping review is to summarize existing literature regarding the bioethical dilemmas when a conflict arises in the maternal-fetus dyad, like the one related to cancer and pregnancy outcomes. Moreover, we illustrate the decision-making process of real-life case reports. Published data were searched through the PubMed and Google Scholar databases, as well as in grey literature, using appropriate controlled keywords in English and Portuguese. After identification, screening, eligibility and data extraction from the articles, a total of 50 was selected. There are several established ethical frameworks for conflict resolution and decision-making. Pragmatic theoretical approaches include case-based analysis, the ethics of care, feminist theory, and traditional ethical principlism that scrutinizes the framework of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. In addition, society and practitioner values could mediate this complex ethical interplay. The physician must balance autonomy and beneficence-based obligations to the pregnant woman with cancer, along with beneficence-based obligations to the fetus. Ethical challenges have received less attention in the literature, particularly before the third trimester of pregnancy. Best, unbiased and balanced information must be granted both to the patient and to the family, regarding the benefits and harms for the woman herself as well as for the fetal outcome. Based on a previously validated method for analyzing and working up clinical ethical problems, we suggest an adaptation of an algorithm for biomedical decision-making in cancer during pregnancy, including recommendations that can facilitate counseling and help reduce the suffering of the patient and her family.

Introduction The mainstay of management for locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection. Following chemoradiotherapy, a complete response may be detected clinically and radiologically (cCR) prior to surgery or pathologically after surgery (pCR). We aim to report the overall complete pathological response (pCR) rate and the reliability of detecting a cCR by conventional pre‐operative imaging. Methods A pre‐planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients treated by elective rectal resection were included. A pCR was defined as a ypT0 N0 EMVI negative primary tumour; a partial response represented any regression from baseline staging following chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the pCR rate. The secondary endpoint was agreement between post‐treatment MRI restaging (yMRI) and final pathological staging. Results Of 2572 patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 277 participating centres across 44 countries, 673 (26.2%) underwent chemoradiotherapy and surgery. The pCR rate was 10.3% (67/649), with a partial response in 35.9% (233/649) patients. Comparison of AJCC stage determined by post‐treatment yMRI with final pathology showed understaging in 13% (55/429) and overstaging in 34% (148/429). Agreement between yMRI and final pathology for T‐stage, N‐stage, or AJCC status were each graded as ‘fair’ only (n = 429, Kappa 0.25, 0.26 and 0.35 respectively). Conclusion The reported pCR rate of 10% highlights the potential for non‐operative management in selected cases. The limited strength of agreement between basic conventional post‐chemoradiotherapy imaging assessment techniques and pathology suggest alternative markers of response should be considered, in the context of controlled clinical trials.

Background Laparoscopy has now been implemented as a standard of care for elective colonic resection around the world. During the adoption period, studies showed that conversion may be detrimental to patients, with poorer outcomes than both laparoscopic completed or planned open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic conversion was associated with a higher major complication rate than planned open surgery in contemporary, international practice. Methods Combined analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 and 2015 audits. Patients were included if they underwent elective resection of a colonic segment from the caecum to the rectosigmoid junction with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome measure was the 30‐day major complication rate, defined as Clavien‐Dindo grade III‐V. Results Of 3980 patients, 64% (2561/3980) underwent laparoscopic surgery and a laparoscopic conversion rate of 14% (359/2561). The major complication rate was highest after open surgery (laparoscopic 7.4%, converted 9.7%, open 11.6%, P < 0.001). After case mix adjustment in a multilevel model, only planned open (and not laparoscopic converted) surgery was associated with increased major complications in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (OR 1.64, 1.27–2.11, P < 0.001). Conclusions Appropriate laparoscopic conversion should not be considered a treatment failure in modern practice. Conversion does not appear to place patients at increased risk of complications vs planned open surgery, supporting broadening of selection criteria for attempted laparoscopy in elective colonic resection.

Introduction Cancer care providers have faced many challenges in delivering safe care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-sectional survey-based study investigated the impact of the pandemic on clinical practices of Portuguese medical oncologists caring for patients with breast cancer. Methods An anonymous online survey comprising 42 questions gathered information regarding COVID-19 testing, treatment in (neo)adjuvant and metastatic settings, and other aspects of breast cancer management. Practices before and during the pandemic were compared, and potential differences in outcomes according to respondents’ regions, case volumes, and practice type were explored. Results Of 129 respondents, 108 worked in the public health system, giving a representative national picture of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer management. Seventy-one percent of respondents reported a reduction in visits for new cases of breast cancer, and there was a shift towards increased use of telemedicine. Clinical decision-making was largely unaffected in the most aggressive indications (i.e., triple-negative, HER2-positive, visceral crisis). The use of neoadjuvant therapy increased when access to surgery was difficult, whereas dose-dense regimens decreased, and cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor treatment decreased for less aggressive disease and increased for more aggressive disease. The use of oral formulations and metronomic chemotherapy regimens increased, and clinical trial participation decreased. Some differences by respondents’ region and case volume were noted. Conclusion Medical oncologists in Portugal implemented many changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, most of which were logical and reasonable responses to the current healthcare emergency; however, the true impact on patient outcomes remains unknown. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40487-022-00191-7.