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.

PurposeThere are no internationally agreed upon clinical guidelines as to which women with gynecological cancer would benefit from Lynch syndrome screening or how best to manage the risk of gynecological cancer in women with Lynch syndrome. The Manchester International Consensus Group was convened in April 2017 to address this unmet need. The aim of the Group was to develop clear and comprehensive clinical guidance regarding the management of the gynecological sequelae of Lynch syndrome based on existing evidence and expert opinion from medical professionals and patients.MethodsStakeholders from Europe and North America worked together over a two-day workshop to achieve consensus on best practice.ResultsGuidance was developed in four key areas: (1) whether women with gynecological cancer should be screened for Lynch syndrome and (2) how this should be done, (3) whether there was a role for gynecological surveillance in women at risk of Lynch syndrome, and (4) what preventive measures should be recommended for women with Lynch syndrome to reduce their risk of gynecological cancer.ConclusionThis document provides comprehensive clinical guidance that can be referenced by both patients and clinicians so that women with Lynch syndrome can expect and receive appropriate standards of care.

Purpose: Endometrial cancer (EC) is often the sentinel cancer in women with Lynch syndrome (LS). However, efforts to implement universal LS screening in EC patients have been hampered by a lack of evidence detailing the proportion of EC patients that would be expected to screen positive for LS. Methods: Studies were identified by electronic searches of Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science. Proportions of test positivity were calculated by random and fixedeffects meta-analysis models. I 2 score was used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Results: Fifty-three studies, including 12,633 EC patients, met the inclusion criteria. The overall proportion of endometrial tumors with microsatellite instability or mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency by immunohistochemistry (IHC) was 0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.28, I 2 : 71%) and 0.26 (95% CI 0.25-0.27, I 2 : 88%), respectively. Of those women with abnormal tumor testing, 0.29 (95% CI 0.25-0.33, I 2 : 83%) had LS-associated pathogenic variants on germline testing; therefore around 3% of ECs can be attributed to LS. Preselection of EC cases did increase the proportion of germline LS diagnoses. Conclusion: The current study suggests that prevalence of LS in EC patients is approximately 3%, similar to that of colorectal cancer patients; therefore our data support the implementation of universal EC screening for LS.