Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted health-care systems, leading to concerns about its subsequent impact on non-COVID disease conditions. The diagnosis and management of cancer is time sensitive and is likely to be substantially affected by these disruptions. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care in India. MethodsWe did an ambidirectional cohort study at 41 cancer centres across India that were members of the National Cancer Grid of India to compare provision of oncology services between March 1 and May 31, 2020, with the same time period in 2019. We collected data on new patient registrations, number of patients visiting outpatient clinics, hospital admissions, day care admissions for chemotherapy, minor and major surgeries, patients accessing radiotherapy, diagnostic tests done (pathology reports, CT scans, MRI scans), and palliative care referrals. We also obtained estimates from participating centres on cancer screening, research, and educational activities (teaching of postgraduate students and trainees). We calculated proportional reductions in the provision of oncology services in 2020, compared with 2019. FindingsBetween March 1 and May 31, 2020, the number of new patients registered decreased from 112 270 to 51 760 (54% reduction), patients who had follow-up visits decreased from 634 745 to 340 984 (46% reduction), hospital admissions decreased from 88 801 to 56 885 (36% reduction), outpatient chemotherapy decreased from 173634 to 109 107 (37% reduction), the number of major surgeries decreased from 17 120 to 8677 (49% reduction), minor surgeries from 18 004 to 8630 (52% reduction), patients accessing radiotherapy from 51 142 to 39 365 (23% reduction), pathological diagnostic tests from 398 373 to 246 616 (38% reduction), number of radiological diagnostic tests from 93 449 to 53 560 (43% reduction), and palliative care referrals from 19 474 to 13 890 (29% reduction). These reductions were even more marked between April and May, 2020. Cancer screening was stopped completely or was functioning at less than 25% of usual capacity at more than 70% of centres during these months. Reductions in the provision of oncology services were higher for centres in tier 1 cities (larger cities) than tier 2 and 3 cities (smaller cities).Interpretation The COVID-19 pandemic has had considerable impact on the delivery of oncology services in India. The long-term impact of cessation of cancer screening and delayed hospital visits on cancer stage migration and outcomes are likely to be substantial.

Fluorescence-guided surgery is an emerging and promising operative adjunct to assist the surgeon in various aspects of oncosurgery, ranging from assessing perfusion, identification, and characterization of tumors and peritoneal metastases, mapping of lymph nodes/leaks, and assistance for fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS). This study aims to provide an overview of principles, currently available dyes, platforms, and surgical applications and summarizes the available literature on the utility of FGS with a focus on abdomino-thoracic malignancies.

PURPOSE Preventing metastases by using perioperative interventions has not been adequately explored. Local anesthesia blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and thereby prevents activation of prometastatic pathways. We conducted an open-label, multicenter randomized trial to test the impact of presurgical, peritumoral infiltration of local anesthesia on disease-free survival (DFS). METHODS Women with early breast cancer planned for upfront surgery without prior neoadjuvant treatment were randomly assigned to receive peritumoral injection of 0.5% lidocaine, 7-10 minutes before surgery (local anesthetics [LA] arm) or surgery without lidocaine (no LA arm). Random assignment was stratified by menopausal status, tumor size, and center. Participants received standard postoperative adjuvant treatment. Primary and secondary end points were DFS and overall survival (OS), respectively. RESULTS Excluding eligibility violations, 1,583 of 1,600 randomly assigned patients were included in this analysis (LA, 796; no LA, 804). At a median follow-up of 68 months, there were 255 DFS events (LA, 109; no LA, 146) and 189 deaths (LA, 79; no LA, 110). In LA and no LA arms, 5-year DFS rates were 86.6% and 82.6% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95; P = .017) and 5-year OS rates were 90.1% and 86.4%, respectively (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.94; P = .019). The impact of LA was similar in subgroups defined by menopausal status, tumor size, nodal metastases, and hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. Using competing risk analyses, in LA and no LA arms, 5-year cumulative incidence rates of locoregional recurrence were 3.4% and 4.5% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.11), and distant recurrence rates were 8.5% and 11.6%, respectively (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.99). There were no adverse events because of lidocaine injection. CONCLUSION Peritumoral injection of lidocaine before breast cancer surgery significantly increases DFS and OS. Altering events at the time of surgery can prevent metastases in early breast cancer (CTRI/2014/11/005228).

Patients with anorectal malignant melanoma (ARMM) have a poor prognosis. Optimal surgical treatment is not defined. The aim of the study was to define the surgical treatment for ARMM, to compare the overall survival (OS) of abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and wide local excision (WLE) and to study various prognostic factors. Thirty patients of ARMM were managed, 20 with locoregional disease, 10 metastatic. Of the 20 patients with locoregional disease, 15 underwent APR and 5 WLE. The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year overall survival rates (by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis) in the APR group were 67, 40, 40, and 32%, and in WLE group were 100, 100, 67, and 67% respectively. Median survival for APR and WLE groups were 13 and 36 months and were not significant (p 0.48). Node-negative patients had better survival than node positive in the APR group (56 vs. 13 months) (p 0.017). Patients with tumor size < 2cm, lymphovascular invasion and perineural invasion negative, and margin-negative and with superficial infiltration had a trend toward better survival than their counterparts. WLE gives an equivalent oncological outcome and can be offered for patients with smaller ARMM and APR for locally advanced, larger tumors or as a salvage following recurrence after WLE.

Purpose To understand the actual impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and frame the future strategies, we conducted a pan India survey to study the impact on the surgical management of gastrointestinal cancers. Methods A national multicentre survey in the form of a questionnaire from 16 tertiary care gastrointestinal oncology centres across India was conducted from January 2019 to June 2021 that was divided into a 15-month pre-Covid era and a similar period of active Covid pandemic era. Results There was significant disruption of services; 13 (81%) centres worked as dedicated Covid care centres and 43% reported suspension of essential care for more than 6 months. In active Covid phase, there was a 14.5% decrease in registrations and proportion of decrease was highest in the centres from South zone (22%). There was decrease in resections across all organ systems; maximum reduction was noted in hepatic resections (33%) followed by oesophageal and gastric resections (31 and 25% respectively). There was minimal decrease in colorectal resections (5%). A total of 584 (7.1%) patients had either active Covid-19 infection or developed infection in the post-operative period or had recovered from Covid-19 infection. Only 3 (18%) centres reported higher morbidity, while the rest of the centres reported similar or lower morbidity rates when compared to pre-Covid phase; however, 6 (37%) centres reported slightly higher mortality in the active Covid phase. Conclusion Covid-19 pandemic resulted in significant reduction in new cancer registrations and elective gastrointestinal cancer surgeries. Perioperative morbidity remained similar despite 7.1% perioperative Covid 19 exposure. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-022-02675-6.

No abstract

Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) have been demonstrated to improve survival compared to surgery alone in esophageal carcinoma, but the evidence is scarce on which of these therapies is more beneficial, particularly with regard to resectability rates, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and histological responses. Objective This study compares the resectability, pathological response rates, and short-term surgical outcomes in patients with carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction receiving NACT or NACRT prior to surgery. Methods Patients with resectable carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and adenosquamous histologies were enrolled in this well-matched prospective non-randomized study. Thirty-five patients were given NACT, and 35 NACRT. In the NACT group, 25 patients received three cycles of three-weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel, and 10 received three cycles of cisplatin/5-fluorouracil, while all the patients in the NACRT group received 41.4 Gy of radiotherapy concomitant with five cycles of weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Results Twenty-two patients in the NACT group and 33 patients in NACRT group had resection ( P value = 0.0027). The percentage of microscopically margin-negative resection (R0 resection) was similar in both the groups (86% versus 88%). The incidences of surgical and non-surgical complications were similar in both the groups ( P= 0.34). There was no 30-day mortality. There was a trend toward more pathological complete regression in the NACRT group ( P= 0.067). The percentage of patients achieving complete tumor regression at the primary site (pT0) was significantly higher in the NACRT group. The down-staging effect on nodal status was similar in both the groups ( P= 0.55). There was a statistically significant reduction in tumor size in the NACRT group. The median numbers of nodes harvested and positive nodes were similar in both the groups. Conclusion Patients receiving NACRT had better resectability rates and pathological response rates, but similar postoperative morbidity compared to the NACT group.

Uterine sarcomas are uncommon and aggressive tumors comprising 3-7% of all uterine malignancies. The aim is to evaluate clinical presentation, histopathologic pattern, recurrence pattern, and outcome of patients with uterine sarcomas presenting to a tertiary care cancer center over an 8-year period. A total of 11 cases of uterine sarcoma were diagnosed. The median age of patients at presentation was 51 years (range 30-67 years). Six patients had leiomyosarcoma (54.5%), 4 had endometrial stromal sarcoma (36%), and 1 had adenosarcoma (9%). The main presenting symptoms were abnormal vaginal bleeding, low abdominal pain, and white discharge. Median follow-up was 11 months ranging from 3 to 200 months. Median survivals for leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma, and adenosarcoma were 6.5, 18, and 56 months. The 3-and 5-year survival by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the entire cohort was 30 and 20%. The mitotic index, age, adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy, radiotherapy), and performance of pelvic nodal dissection did not impact survival significantly in the patient with leiomyosarcoma. Stage and histology had the strongest bearing on survival and leiomyosarcoma has the worst survival, whereas adenosarcoma had the best prognosis. Adequately powered prospective studies are required to define the role of radiation therapy and chemotherapy in this rare disease.