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

Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

A noninvasive breath test has the potential to improve survival from esophagogastric cancer by facilitating earlier detection. This study aimed to investigate the production of target volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in esophagogastric cancer through analysis of the ex vivo headspace above underivatized tissues and in vivo analysis within defined anatomical compartments, including analysis of mixed breath, isolated bronchial breath, and gastricendoluminal air. VFAs were measured by PTR-ToF-MS and GC-MS. Levels of VFAs (acetic, butyric, pentanoic, and hexanoic acids) and acetone were elevated in ex vivo experiments in the headspace above esophagogastric cancer compared with the levels in samples from control subjects with morphologically normal and benign conditions of the upper gastrointestinal tract. In 25 patients with esophagogastric cancer and 20 control subjects, receiver-operating-characteristic analysis for the cancer-specific VFAs butyric acid (P < 0.001) and pentatonic acid (P = 0.005) within in vivo gastric-endoluminal air gave an area under the curve of 0.80 (95% confidence interval of 0.65 to 0.93, P = 0.01). Compared with mixed-and bronchial-breath samples, all examined VFAs were found in highest concentrations within esophagogastric-endoluminal air. In addition, VFAs were higher in all samples derived from cancer patients compared with in the controls. Equivalence of VFA levels within the mixed and bronchial breath of cancer patients suggests that their origin within breath is principally derived from the lungs and, by inference, from the systemic circulation as opposed to direct passage from the upper gastrointestinal tract. These findings highlight the potential to utilize VFAs for endoluminal-gas biopsies and noninvasive mixed-exhaled-breath testing for esophagogastric-cancer detection.

No abstract

Perioperative blood transfusion has been linked to poorer long-term survival in patients undergoing esophagectomy, presumably due to its potential immunomodulatory effects. This review aims to summarize existing evidence relating to the influence of blood transfusion on long-term survival following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. A systematic literature search (up to February 2017) was conducted for studies reporting the effects of perioperative blood transfusion on survival following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Meta-analysis was used to summate survival outcomes. Twenty observational studies met the criteria for inclusion. Eighteen of these studies compared the outcomes of patients who received allogenic blood transfusion to patients who did not receive this intervention. Meta-analysis of outcomes revealed that allogenic blood transfusion significantly reduced long-term survival (HR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.76; P < 0.001). There appeared to be a dose-related response with patients who received ≥3 units of blood having lower long-term survival compared to patient who received between 0 and 2 units (HR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.93; P < 0.001). Two studies comparing patients who received allogenic versus autologous blood transfusion showed superior survival in the latter group. Factors associated with the requirement for perioperative blood transfusion included: intraoperative blood loss; preoperative hemoglobin; operative approach; operative time, and; presences of advanced disease. These findings indicate that perioperative blood transfusion is associated with significantly worse long-term survival in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Autologous donation of blood, meticulous intraoperative hemostasis, and avoidance of unnecessary transfusions may prevent additional deaths attributed to this intervention.

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.

Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P &lt; 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P &lt; 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.