Changes in the Management of Patients having Radical Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK

AimsIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines on reduced fractionation for patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy were published, aimed at reducing the number of hospital attendances and potential exposure of vulnerable patients to minimise the risk of COVID-19 infection. We describe the changes that took place in the management of patients with stage I–III lung cancer from April to October 2020.Materials and methodsLung Radiotherapy during the COVID-19 Pandemic (COVID-RT Lung) is a prospective multicentre UK cohort study. The inclusion criteria were: patients with stage I–III lung cancer referred for and/or treated with radical radiotherapy between 2nd April and 2nd October 2020. Patients who had had a change in their management and those who continued with standard management were included. Data on demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis, diagnostic work-up, radiotherapy and systemic treatment were collected and reported as counts and percentages. Patient characteristics associated with a change in treatment were analysed using multivariable binary logistic regression.ResultsIn total, 1553 patients were included (median age 72 years, 49% female); 93 (12%) had a change to their diagnostic investigation and 528 (34%) had a change to their treatment from their centre's standard of care as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Age ≥70 years, male gender and stage III disease were associated with a change in treatment on multivariable analysis. Patients who had their treatment changed had a median of 15 fractions of radiotherapy compared with a median of 20 fractions in those who did not have their treatment changed. Low rates of COVID-19 infection were seen during or after radiotherapy, with only 21 patients (1.4%) developing the disease.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in changes to patient treatment in line with national recommendations. The main change was an increase in hypofractionation. Further work is ongoing to analyse the impact of these changes on patient outcomes.     

Lung Cancer Risk in Never-Smokers of European Descent is Associated With Genetic Variation in the 5p15.33 TERT-CLPTM1Ll Region

IntroductionInherited susceptibility to lung cancer risk in never-smokers is poorly understood. The major reason for this gap in knowledge is that this disease is relatively uncommon (except in Asians), making it difficult to assemble an adequate study sample. In this study we conducted a genome-wide association study on the largest, to date, set of European-descent never-smokers with lung cancer.MethodsWe conducted a two-phase (discovery and replication) genome-wide association study in never-smokers of European descent. We further augmented the sample by performing a meta-analysis with never-smokers from the recent OncoArray study, which resulted in a total of 3636 cases and 6295 controls. We also compare our findings with those in smokers with lung cancer.ResultsWe detected three genome-wide statistically significant single nucleotide polymorphisms rs31490 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.769, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.722–0.820; p value 5.31 × 10^-16), rs380286 (OR: 0.770, 95% CI: 0.723–0.820; p value 4.32 × 10^-16), and rs4975616 (OR: 0.778, 95% CI: 0.730–0.829; p value 1.04 × 10^-14). All three mapped to Chromosome 5 CLPTM1L-TERT region, previously shown to be associated with lung cancer risk in smokers and in never-smoker Asian women, and risk of other cancers including breast, ovarian, colorectal, and prostate.ConclusionsWe found that genetic susceptibility to lung cancer in never-smokers is associated to genetic variants with pan-cancer risk effects. The comparison with smokers shows that top variants previously shown to be associated with lung cancer risk only confer risk in the presence of tobacco exposure, underscoring the importance of gene-environment interactions in the etiology of this disease.     

The effect of patient ethnicity on the accuracy of peripheral pulse oximetry in patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis: a single-centre,retrospective analysis

Pulse oximetry is used widely to titrate oxygen therapy and for triage in patients who are critically ill. However, there are concerns regarding the accuracy of pulse oximetry in patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis and in patients who have a greater degree of skin pigmentation. We aimed to determine the impact of patient ethnicity on the accuracy of peripheral pulse oximetry in patients who were critically ill with COVID-19 pneumonitis by conducting a retrospective observational study comparing paired measurements of arterial oxygen saturation measured by co-oximetry on arterial blood gas analysis (SaO₂) and the corresponding peripheral oxygenation saturation measured by pulse oximetry (S_pO₂). Bias was calculated as the mean difference between SaO₂ and S_pO₂ measurements and limits of agreement were calculated as bias ±1.96 SD. Data from 194 patients (135 White ethnic origin, 34 Asian ethnic origin, 19 Black ethnic origin and 6 other ethnic origin) were analysed consisting of 6216 paired SaO₂ and S_pO₂ measurements. Bias (limits of agreement) between SaO₂ and S_pO₂ measurements was 0.05% (−2.21–2.30). Patient ethnicity did not alter this to a clinically significant degree: 0.28% (1.79–2.35), −0.33% (−2.47–2.35) and −0.75% (−3.47–1.97) for patients of White, Asian and Black ethnic origin, respectively. In patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis, S_pO₂ measurements showed a level of agreement with SaO₂ values that was in line with previous work, and this was not affected by patient ethnicity.     

Editorial Commentary: Defining Proficiency in Hip Arthroscopic Surgery Is Facing Its Own Learning Curve

The learning curve of hip arthroscopy has been described as steep. A wide range, between 30 and 520 cases, has been gathered as the learning curve before complications are minimized. While the precise number of cases required for proficiency has remained elusive, the heterogeneity in surgeon profile and baseline training can serve as an explanation. Moreover, as caseload increases, case complexity, revision surgeries, and outside referrals may begin to consume the greater-volume surgeon. While the learning curve remains hard to define, innovations in surgical training hold the promise of improving proficiency. Regardless of career stage, hip arthroscopists can still expect improved patient outcomes with appropriate indications and a properly executed procedure.     

Who should do endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms and how should they do them?

BackgroundCure of aneurysms which involve the aorta at the level of the visceral arteries and the thoracoabdominal segment remains a considerable surgical enterprise with a relatively high mortality and morbidity despite improvements of the surgical procedure and anesthetic technique. Fenestrated and branched endovascular stent grafts are currently available offering an attractive less invasive option especially for most frail patients. These grafts are relatively recent, technically more demanding to insert than the current stent graft for infrarenal aneurysm and besides, given the relative low frequency of the disease, they are much less used by practitioners. Thus, unconditional widespread of this sophisticated technique may not necessarily benefit patients.MethodsWe reviewed our experiences and articles regarding this concern, 1) who should perform this new technique and 2) in what kind of setting.ConclusionBased on the combined complexities of 1) patients selection, 2) proper planning and manufacturing of the graft, 3) the need for outstanding imaging and operating facilities, 4) and the required endovascular skill of physicians involved in the procedure, we feel that only highly specialized centers should be allowed to perform this complex procedure.     

Intraoperative Practice Variability in Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundConsiderable practice variability exists among orthopedic surgeons performing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study is to understand what TKA surgical and perioperative techniques are standard among high-volume academic knee arthroplasty surgeons.MethodsA written survey with 59 questions regarding management preferences in TKA was distributed by the 2018 John N. Insall Traveling Fellows to all arthroplasty-trained attending physicians at 13 medical centers, with 45 responses recorded.ResultsSurveyed surgeons performed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (88%) and bilateral TKA (87%). Most surveyed surgeons rarely or never performed outpatient primary TKA (71%). Conventional alignment guides and cemented implants were used by 80% of respondents. Most surgeons used posterior-stabilized implants (67%), followed by cruciate-retaining (20%), ultracongruent (20%), and medial congruent or medial pivot designs (17.8%). Surveyed surgeons frequently or always resurfaced the patella (73%), used a tourniquet for the entire case (73%), and used tranexamic acid for all TKAs (91%). The most common locations for intra-articular anesthetic injection were the arthrotomy (91%), the periosteum (84%), and the medial posterior capsule (82%). Saline (62%) and dilute iodine (47%) were the most common irrigation fluids. The arthrotomy was most commonly closed with running barbed suture (60%) followed by interrupted vicryl (40%). Skin closure was predominantly with running monocryl (60%) followed by staples (29%). Anticoagulation for TKA was primarily aspirin 81 mg BID (60%).ConclusionThere was considerable variability among surgeons polled although a strong preference for more conventional and less developmental techniques prevailed.