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

No abstract

PURPOSE Quality of life has become an integral aspect of the management of breast cancer. Many women still need to undergo a modified radical mastectomy (MRM). Factors affecting the choice a woman makes to undergo breast reconstruction (BR) are unclear and are hypothesized to be influenced by socioeconomic factors. We conducted a survey to evaluate the awareness and acceptability of BR among women with breast cancer at our institution. METHODS A novel questionnaire was designed and served to 3 groups of women: planned for MRM, follow up (FU) post-MRM, and FU post breast-conserving surgery. RESULTS Responses were analyzed from 492 women. Of these, 280 (56.91%) were planned for MRM and 212 (43.08%) women were on FU. Almost 45% women were older than 50 years of age, and literacy rate was 87.6%. More than 70% were homemakers and 15 women (3%) were unmarried. The aspects evaluating awareness of BR suggested that 251 (51.01%) women had knowledge about BR. Major source of information was the surgeon (45.81%) and media (32.87%). About 80% women on FU post-MRM did not want reconstruction, and 55% did not opt for BR as they had coped with the mastectomy and did not feel the need for BR. Only 6% cited family or financial reasons and 10% cited recurrence concerns. Among women planned for surgery, 65.71% had not considered BR. When questioned, 25 (12.88%) felt influenced by cost, 102 (52.58%) felt they did not need it, and 20 (10.31%) were worried it would affect treatment. CONCLUSION Our study shows high awareness regarding BR, but only 27.89% women opt for BR independent of economic issues. We recommend all patients should be counseled about the reconstructive options when their MRM is planned.

The covid-19 pandemic has impacted the management of non-covid-19 illnesses. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) requires long-duration multidisciplinary treatment. Teleconsultation and shared care are suggested solutions to mitigate the consequences of the pandemic. However, these may be challenging to implement among patients who come from the lower economic strata. We report the disastrous impact of the pandemic on the care of EOC by comparing patients who were treated during the pandemic with those treated in the previous year. We collected the following data from newly diagnosed patients with EOC: time from diagnosis to treatment, time for completion of planned chemotherapy, and proportion of patients completing various components of therapy (surgery and chemotherapy). Patients treated between January 2019 and September 2019 (Group 1: Pre-covid) were compared with those treated between January 2020 and December 2020 (Group 2: During covid pandemic). A total of 82 patients were registered [Group 1: 43(51%) Group 2: 39(49)]. The median time from diagnosis to start of treatment was longer in group 2 when compared to group 1 [31(23–58) days versus 17(11–30) days ( p = 0.03)]. The proportion of patients who had surgery in group 2 was lower in comparison to group 1 [33(77%) versus 21(54%) ( p = 0.02)]. Proportion of patients who underwent neoadjuvant (NACT) and surgery were fewer in group 2 in comparison to group 1 [9(33%) versus 18(64%) p = 0.002]. Among patients planned for adjuvant chemotherapy, the median time from diagnosis to treatment was longer in group 2 [28(17–45) days, group 1 versus 49(26–78) days, group 2 ( p = 0.04)]. The treatment of patients with EOC was adversely impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a compromise in the proportion of patients completing planned therapy. Even among those who completed the treatment, there were considerable delays when compared with the pre-covid period. The impact of these compromises on the outcomes will be known with longer follow-up.

Background Growing teratoma syndrome is a rare phenomenon seen in nonseminomatous germ cell tumors after chemotherapy, where the tumor grows paradoxically despite normalization of tumor markers. It has been found in various locations, most commonly, the retroperitoneum in association with metastatic disease. The occurrence of growing teratoma syndrome in a mediastinal primary is very rare and there are only a few reports in the literature. Methods In a retrospective review, out of 12 patients with mediastinal involvement by a germ cell tumor, 5 had a primary from the mediastinum. We present a series of 3 cases of primary germ cell tumor of the mediastinum, which after chemotherapy, fulfilled the criteria for growing teratoma syndrome and were managed with surgical excision. Conclusion Development of growing teratoma syndrome in a primary mediastinal germ cell tumor is extremely rare. Its awareness and early detection can lead to successful surgical excision and long-term cure.

No abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in surgical capacity for head and neck cancer in the UK between the first wave (March‐June 2020) and the current wave (Jan‐Feb 2021) of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Design REDcap online‐based survey of hospital capacity. Setting UK secondary and tertiary hospitals providing head and neck cancer surgery. Participants One representative per hospital was asked to report the capacity for head and neck cancer surgery in that institution. Main outcome measures The principal measures of interests were new patient referrals, capacity in outpatients, theatres and critical care; therapeutic compromises constituting delay to surgery, de‐escalated surgery and therapeutic migration to non‐surgical primary modality. Results Data were returned from approximately 95% of UK hospitals with a head and neck cancer surgery specialist service. 50% of UK head and neck cancer patients requiring surgery have significantly compromised treatments during the second wave: 28% delayed, 10% have received radiotherapy‐based treatment instead of surgery, and 12% have received de‐escalated surgery. Surgical capacity has been more severely constrained in the second wave (58% of pre‐pandemic level) compared with the first wave (62%) despite the time to prepare. Conclusions Some hospitals are overwhelmed by COVID‐19 and unable to offer essential cancer surgery, but all have neighbouring hospitals in their region retaining good (or even normal) capacity. It is noteworthy that very few patients have been appropriately redirected away from the hospitals most constrained by their burden of COVID‐19. The paucity of an effective central or regional strategic response to this evident mismatch between demand and surgical capacity is to the detriment of our head and neck cancer patients.