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.
Background:The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) risk tables and the Spanish Urological Club for Oncological Treatment (CUETO) scoring model are the two best-established predictive tools to help decision making for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The aim of the current study was to assess the performance of these predictive tools in a large multicentre cohort of NMIBC patients.Methods:We performed a retrospective analysis of 4689 patients with NMIBC. To evaluate the discrimination of the models, we created Cox proportional hazard regression models for time to disease recurrence and progression. We incorporated the patients calculated risk score as a predictor into both of these models and then calculated their discrimination (concordance indexes). We compared the concordance index of our models with the concordance index reported for the models.Results:With a median follow-up of 57 months, 2110 patients experienced disease recurrence and 591 patients experienced disease progression. Both tools exhibited a poor discrimination for disease recurrence and progression (0.597 and 0.662, and 0.523 and 0.616, respectively, for the EORTC and CUETO models). The EORTC tables overestimated the risk of disease recurrence and progression in high-risk patients. The discrimination of the EORTC tables was even lower in the subgroup of patients treated with BCG (0.554 and 0.576 for disease recurrence and progression, respectively). Conversely, the discrimination of the CUETO model increased in BCG-treated patients (0.597 and 0.645 for disease recurrence and progression, respectively). However, both models overestimated the risk of disease progression in high-risk patients.Conclusion:The EORTC risk tables and the CUETO scoring system exhibit a poor discrimination for both disease recurrence and progression in NMIBC patients. These models overestimated the risk of disease recurrence and progression in high-risk patients. These overestimations remained in BCG-treated patients, especially for the EORTC tables. These results underline the need for improving our current predictive tools. However, our study is limited by its retrospective and multi-institutional design.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.