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...
Objective: To evaluate the oncological outcomes of patients with low-volume metastasis compared to those with macrometastasis and negative nodes in endometrial cancer. Methods: A single institutional retrospective study was carried out, which included all patients with endometrial cancer who underwent surgical treatment between January 2007 and December 2016. We analyzed the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of all patients after sentinel node biopsy and full nodal surgical staging according to their final pathological nodal status, focusing on the impact of the size of nodal metastasis. Results: A total of 270 patients were operated on during the study period; among them, 230 (85.2%) patients underwent nodal staging. On final pathology, 196 (85.2%) patients had negative lymph nodes; low-volume metastasis (LVM) was present in 14 (6.1%) patients: 6 (2.6%) patients had isolated tumor cells (ITCs) and 8 (3.5%) patients presented just micrometastasis; additionally, 20 (8.7%) patients presented macrometastasis. After a median (range) follow-up of 60 (0–146) months, patients with macrometastasis showed a significantly worse PFS compared to LVM and node-negative patients (61.1% vs. 71.4% vs. 83.2%, respectively; p = 0.018), and similar results were obtained for 5-year OS (50% vs. 78.6% vs. 81.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Half of the patients presenting LVM did not receive adjuvant treatment. Moreover, LVM had a moderate nonsignificant decrease in 5-year PFS compared to node-negative patients. Conclusions: Patients with endometrial cancer and low-volume nodal metastasis demonstrated a better prognosis than those presenting macrometastasis. Low-volume metastasis did not show worse oncological outcomes than node-negative patients, although there was a slight decrease in progression-free survival.
Objective: To compare perioperative outcomes and complications in robotically assisted laparoscopy (RAL) and standard laparoscopy (SLP) approaches in the treatment of endometrial cancer by body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters). Methods: A comparative study was carried out of women treated for endometrial cancer at the Hospital Clinico San Carlos from January 2012 to December 2016: 133 patients were operated by RAL and 101 by SLP. Demographic characteristics of the patients, perioperative outcomes and complications were compared in both approaches. Results: Hospital stay was significantly lower in patients with BMI ≤30 operated with RAL (2 days RAL vs 4 days SLP; P=0.002). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the group with BMI<25 (60 mL RAL vs 100 mL SLP; P=0.004) and in the group with BMI ≥30 (87.5 mL RAL vs 180 SLP; P=0.003) operated with RAL. RAL significantly reduced the conversion rate in patients with BMI ≥30 (2 [3.4%] patients RAL vs 6 [27.3%] patients SLP; P=0.004). Conclusions: RAL has demonstrated advantages in treating obese women with endometrial cancer by reducing blood loss and conversion to laparotomy.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.