Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Diagnosis and Surgery of Breast Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Study

PurposeThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the rates of screening, case identification, and referral for cancer diagnosis. We investigated the diagnosis and surgery status of breast cancer before and after the COVID-19 pandemic at a multi-institutional level.MethodsWe collected breast cancer data from the clinical data warehouse which contained the medical records of patients from six academic institutions in South Korea. Patients were divided into two groups: February to April (period A) and May to July (period B). The data from the two groups were then compared against the same periods in 2019 and 2020. The primary objective was to investigate the differences in breast cancer stages before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsAmong 3,038 patients, there was a 9.9% reduction in the number of diagnoses in 2020. This decrease was more significant during period A than period B. The breast cancer stage was not statistically different in period A (p = 0.115), but it was in period B (p = 0.001). In the subset analysis according to age, there was a statistical difference between 2019 and 2020 in period B for patients under the age of 65 years (p = 0.002), but no difference was observed in the other groups.ConclusionThe number of breast cancer cases declined during the pandemic, and the staging distribution has changed after the pandemic peak.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis determining the effect of implemented COVID-19 guidelines on surgical oncology volumes and clinical outcomes

BackgroundTo provide for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) healthcare capacity, (surgical oncology) guidelines were established, forcing to alter the timing of performing surgical procedures. It is essential to determine whether these guidelines have led to disease progression. This study aims to give an insight into the number of surgical oncology procedures performed during the pandemic and provide information on short-term clinical outcomes.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was performed on all COVID-19 articles including operated patients, published before March 21, 2022. Meta-analysis was performed to visualize the number of performed surgical oncology procedures during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period. Random effects models were used for evaluating short-term clinical outcomes.ResultsTwenty-four studies containing 6762 patients who underwent a surgical oncology procedure during the pandemic were included. The number of performed surgical procedures for an oncological pathology decreased (−26.4%) during the pandemic. The number of performed surgical procedures for breast cancer remained stable (+0.3%). Moreover, no difference was identified in the number of ≥T2 (OR 1.00, P = 0.989), ≥T3 (OR 0.95, P = 0.778), ≥N1 (OR 1.01, P = 0.964) and major postoperative complications (OR 1.55, P = 0.134) during the pandemic.ConclusionThe number of performed surgical oncology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic decreased. In addition, the number of performed surgical breast cancer procedures remained stable. Oncological staging and major postoperative complications showed no significant difference compared to pre-pandemic practice. During future pandemics, the performed surgical oncology practice during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic seems appropriate for short-term results.     

Ensuring access to post-cancer breast reconstructions: COVID-19 lessons from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry

BackgroundCOVID-19 has impacted breast implant surgery for oncological and non-oncological patients worldwide. This population-based study aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to reconstructive and cosmetic breast implant surgery in the Netherlands using real-world data to describe trends, and to identify lessons to prevent future capacity problems within (inter)national healthcare.MethodsThis longitudinal study included patients undergoing breast implant surgery from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. For 2020, the first COVID-19 wave, intermediate period, and second wave were defined. We compared data from during the pandemic to a pre-pandemic (2019) reference year, assessing differences in the number of registered breast implants, and patient and surgery-related characteristics.ResultsA total of 34133 breast implants (17459 patients) were included. Compared to 2019, fewer implants were registered for post-cancer (n=484; -14.7%), cosmetic (n=480; -3.6%), and gender-affirming indications (n=104; -38.0%) during 2020. Fewer implants were registered in academic (n=196; -22.0%) and regional hospitals (n=1591; -16.5%), but more in private clinics (n=725; +10.1%). After the first wave, up to twice as many implants were registered in private clinics compared to 2019. No differences were found in characteristics of patients undergoing surgery in 2020 versus 2019.ConclusionHospital-based reconstructive and gender-affirming surgery were heavily impacted during the pandemic, while private-clinic-based cosmetic surgery quickly recovered. These outcomes are useful to fuel discussions about how healthcare could be reorganized in times of capacity problems. We suggest exploring options to deploy private clinics for ambulatory surgery aiming to keep hospital capacity available for acutely ill patients.     

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Population-based Study

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care services worldwide. In the Netherlands, the first confirmed COVID-19 infection was on February 27, 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands.MethodsColorectal cancer patients who were diagnosed in 25 hospitals in weeks 2 to 26 of the year 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and divided in 4 periods. The average number of patients treated per type of initial treatment was analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age. Median time between diagnosis and treatment and between (neo)adjuvant therapy and surgery were analyzed by the Mann Whitney test. Percentages of (acute) resection, stoma and (neo)adjuvant therapy were compared using the Chi-squared test.ResultsIn total, 1,653 patients were included. The patient population changed during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding higher stage and more clinical presentation with ileus at time of diagnosis. Slight changes were found regarding type of initial treatment. Median time between diagnosis and treatment decreased on average by 4.5 days during the pandemic. The proportion of colon cancer patients receiving a stoma significantly increased with 6.5% during the pandemic. No differences were found in resection rate and treatment with (neo)adjuvant therapy.ConclusionDespite the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global health care, the impact on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands was limited.     

Enforcing centralization for gastric cancer in Denmark

BackgroundPopulation-based data on the early postoperative outcome after surgery for gastric cancer are very sparse. We examined the development in the quality of surgery and early postoperative outcomes in Denmark following centralization of gastric cancer surgery and implementation of national clinical guidelines.MethodsAll patients in Denmark who underwent resection with curative intent for gastric cancer between 1st July 2003 and 31st December 2008 in one of five university hospitals were registered in a national database. Data on surgical quality and mortality were obtained from the database and compared with the results from the period before centralization (1999–2003).ResultsA total of 416 patients underwent resection in the study period. The risk of anastomotic leakages for the whole period was 5.0% (95%CI; 3.2–7.7) compared to 6.1% (95%CI; 4.3–8.6) before centralization, whereas the 30-days hospital mortality was 2.4% (95%CI; 1.2–4.4) compared to 8.2% (95%CI; 6.0–10.4) before centralization. In addition, the percentage of patients with at least 15 lymph nodes removed increased during the study period from 19 in 2003 to 76 in 2008.ConclusionsCentralization of gastric cancer surgery in Denmark and implementation of national clinical guidelines monitored by a national database was associated with improvements in surgical quality and substantially lower in-hospital mortality.     

Breast Cancer Management During COVID-19 Pandemic in Madrid: Surgical Strategy

BackgroundFrom the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan (China), the infection spread all around the world causing a pandemic of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Spain has been one of the most severely affected countries, and Madrid has reported a high number of cases and deaths. We discuss our strategies for optimal breast cancer management during COVID-19 pandemic.Patients and MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study at Clínico San Carlos Hospital to analyze the management of patients with breast cancer during the pandemic outbreak and the surgical strategy after the pandemic outbreak. We created a practical and dynamic tool based on a “traffic light” system for prioritizing surgical time. Every patient was contacted by telephone with a preoperative COVID-19 protocol. After surgical procedures, patient satisfaction was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer in-patient satisfaction with cancer care questionnaire (EORTC IN-PATSAT32).ResultsPatients with breast cancer actively treated with surgical procedures were put on a waiting list and received systemic therapy. Telemedicine was used to evaluate any side effects and to avoid unnecessary hospital visits. Surgery was only considered after the pandemic outbreak, and then, only those procedures designed to minimize surgical complications and, therefore, reduce hospital stay. We also measured patients’ satisfaction with medical and nursing scales that resulted in a “very good” evaluation tending to “excellent”.ConclusionIt is necessary to adapt management of oncology treatment and surgical strategy to optimize resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients’ perception of care quality and the degree of patients’ satisfaction with health services has potential relevance in the absence of outcome data.     

Cancer screenings during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of public interest trends

IntroductionThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer screenings in the U.S. by decreasing screening numbers.?We believe multiple types of cancer screenings may have been impacted during the pandemic as a result of cancellations of elective procedures and patient fear of seeking cancer screenings during a pandemic and that Google Trends may be a marker to estimate screening usage.MethodsGoogle Trends (trends.google.com) was utilized to assess public interest in multiple cancer types. We then constructed a forecasting model to determine the expected search interest had the pandemic not occurred. We then compared our models to actual screening usage during the pandemic.ResultsPublic interest in cancer screenings decreased precipitously at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that the Google Trends estimated the decrease in mammogram usage 25.8% below the actual value. Similarly, Google Trends estimated the decrease in colon cancer screening usage 9.7% below the true value.DiscussionWe found the decrease in public interest in breast and colon cancer screenings slightly underestimated the actual screening usage numbers, suggesting Google Trends may be utilized as an indicator for human behavior regarding cancer screening, particularly with colon and breast cancer screenings. If the negative trend in cancer screening continues and missed screenings are not appropriately corrected for, socioeconomic and racial disparities in cancer diagnoses, morbidity, and mortality will widen.     

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Background The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions.Methods This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting.Findings Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey.Conclusions The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.Subject terms: Breast cancer, Surgical oncology, Health care economics, Quality of life, Health policy     

COVID-19 and the Global Impact on Colorectal Practice and Surgery

BackgroundThe novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus that emerged in December 2019 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to the sudden national reorganization of health care systems and changes in the delivery of health care globally. The purpose of our study was to use a survey to assess the global effects of COVID-19 on colorectal practice and surgery.Materials and MethodsA panel of International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 22 questions, which were included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in the ISUCRS database and was advertised on social media sites. The questionnaire remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.ResultsA total of 287 surgeons completed the survey. Of the 287 respondents, 90% were colorectal specialists or general surgeons with an interest in colorectal disease. COVID-19 had affected the practice of 96% of the surgeons, and 52% were now using telemedicine. Also, 66% reported that elective colorectal cancer surgery could proceed but with perioperative precautions. Of the 287 respondents, 19.5% reported that the use of personal protective equipment was the most important perioperative precaution. However, personal protective equipment was only provided by 9.1% of hospitals. In addition, 64% of surgeons were offering minimally invasive surgery. However, 44% reported that enough information was not available regarding the safety of the loss of intra-abdominal carbon dioxide gas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, 61% of the surgeons were prepared to defer elective colorectal cancer surgery, with 29% willing to defer for ≤ 8 weeks.ConclusionThe results from our survey have demonstrated that, globally, COVID-19 has affected the ability of colorectal surgeons to offer care to their patients. We have also discussed suggestions for various practical adaptation strategies for use during the recovery period.     

The introduction of mammographical screening has had little effect on the trend in breast-conserving surgery: a population-based study in Southeast Netherlands

In addition to reducing breast cancer mortality, breast cancer screening programmes are expected to increase the proportion of patients who can undergo breast-conserving surgery. Trends in the use of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in Southeast Netherlands between 1990 and 1998 were studied in relation to the gradual introduction of mammographical screening for women 50–69 years of age between 1992 and 1996. The characteristics of the tumours detected by the screening programme or outside of the programme were compared, to see whether this might clarify the observed trends. In the period 1990–1998, 4788 patients were diagnosed with invasive, operable breast cancer, of whom 2341 were 50–69 years of age. Although the screening programme resulted in a larger proportion of patients with small tumours and more favourable tumour characteristics, no increase was observed in the use of BCS for patients 50–69 years of age in the period 1990–1998 (64% in 1990 and 1998). Patients with a screening-detected tumour, however, were more likely to undergo breast conservation compared with those presenting clinically (68% versus 54%; P<0.0001). In conclusion, no increase in the proportion of breast-conserving surgical procedures was observed in Southeast Netherlands among patients 50–69 years of age in the period 1990–1998, during the introduction of mass mammographical screening for this group. Screening, however, resulted in a larger proportion of patients with small tumours with more favourable characteristics, who are better candidates for breast conservation.     

Oncoplastic Surgery in Surgical Treatment of Breast Cancer: Is the Timing of Adjuvant Treatment Affected?

IntroductionWith the results of studies on the timing of adjuvant treatment, it currently appears that adjuvant treatment should be initiated as soon as possible. Breast conserving surgery and oncoplastic surgery is being used with increasing frequency. Therefore, studies about whether or not these applications delay the adjuvant treatment are needed. The aim of this study was to determine the time period needed for adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy of the patients with breast cancer and to reveal associated factors related to the patient, tumor, and surgical technique.Patients and MethodsTwo hundred eighty patients with breast cancer who had surgery and were given adjuvant treatments in our clinic were included in the study. Age, body mass index, concomitant diseases, smoking habits, menopausal status, neoadjuvant treatments, tumor characteristics, surgical technique, and surgical complications were recorded. The time period between surgery and initiation of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the number of chemotherapy cycles, and the duration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy were calculated.ResultsThe numbers of patients who had modified radical mastectomy, breast conserving surgery, and oncoplastic surgery were 155 (55%), 47 (16.8%), and 78 (27.9%), respectively. The mean (SD) time period needed for chemotherapy administration was 19.5 ± 4.2 days (range, 13-41 days) and 3.9 ± 0.9 months for radiotherapy. Early wound complication of breast surgery was the only factor that delayed the adjuvant chemotherapy (P = .001).DiscussionIt has been well known that the time period between surgical treatment of breast cancer and adjuvant treatment affects survival. In our study, it has been shown that the surgical techniques used in breast and axillary surgery do not delay the initiation of adjuvant treatments. The adjuvant treatments of the patients who had oncoplastic surgery and breast conserving surgery were not delayed. The cooperation between the disciplines for the initiation of adjuvant treatments is important.     

Change in the Use of Fractionation in Radiotherapy Used for Early Breast Cancer at the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Population-Based Cohort Study of Older Women in England and Wales

AimsAdjuvant radiotherapy is recommended for most patients with early breast cancer (EBC) receiving breast-conserving surgery and those at moderate/high risk of recurrence treated by mastectomy. During the first wave of COVID-19 in England and Wales, there was rapid dissemination of randomised controlled trial-based evidence showing non-inferiority for five-fraction ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) regimens compared with standard moderate-HFRT, with guidance recommending the use of five-fraction HFRT for eligible patients. We evaluated the uptake of this recommendation in clinical practice as part of the National Audit of Breast Cancer in Older Patients (NABCOP).Materials and methodsWomen aged ≥50 years who underwent surgery for EBC from January 2019 to July 2020 were identified from the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset for England and from Wales Cancer Network data. Radiotherapy details were from linked national Radiotherapy Datasets. Multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to assess characteristics influential in the use of ultra-HFRT.ResultsAmong 35 561 women having surgery for EBC, 71% received postoperative radiotherapy. Receipt of 26 Gy in five fractions (26Gy5F) increased from <1% in February 2020 to 70% in April 2020. Regional variation in the use of 26Gy5F during April to July 2020 was similar by age, ranging from 49 to 87% among women aged ≥70 years. Use of 26Gy5F was characterised by no known nodal involvement, no comorbidities and initial breast-conserving surgery. Of those patients receiving radiotherapy to the breast/chest wall, 85% had 26Gy5F; 23% had 26Gy5F if radiotherapy included regional nodes. Among 5139 women receiving postoperative radiotherapy from April to July 2020, nodal involvement, overall stage, type of surgery, time from diagnosis to start of radiotherapy were independently associated with fractionation choice.ConclusionsThere was a striking increase in the use of 26Gy5F dose fractionation regimens for EBC, among women aged ≥50 years, within a month of guidance published at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and Wales.     

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

IntroductionOne of the main clusters of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been identified in Italy. Following European and local guidelines, Italian endoscopy units modulated their activity. We aimed at analyzing the need and safety to continue selective colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic.Patients and MethodsWe carried out a retrospective controlled cohort study in our “COVID-free” hospital to compare data of the CRCS colonoscopies of the lockdown period (March 9 to May 4, 2020) with those of the same period of 2019 (control group). A pre/post endoscopic sanitary surveillance for COVID-19 infection was organized for patients and sanitary staff.ResultsIn the lockdown group, 60 of 137 invited patients underwent endoscopy, whereas in the control group, 238 CRCS colonoscopies (3.9-fold) were performed. In the lower number of examinations during the lockdown, we found more colorectal cancers (5 cases; 8% vs. 3 cases; 1%; P = .002). The “high-risk” adenomas detection rate was also significantly higher in the “lockdown group” than in controls (47% vs. 25%; P = .001). A multiple regression analysis selected relevant symptoms (hazard ratio [HR], 3.1), familiarity (HR, 1.99), and lockdown period (HR, 2.2) as independent predictors of high-risk lesions (high-risk adenomas and colorectal cancer). No COVID-19 infections were reported among staff and patients.ConclusionsThe overall adherence to CRCS decreased during the pandemic, but the continuation of CRCS colonoscopies was efficacious and safe.     

Characteristics and patterns of care of endometrial cancer before and during COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has correlated with the disruption of screening activities and diagnostic assessments. Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecological malignancies and it is often detected at an early stage, because it frequently produces symptoms. Here, we aim to investigate the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on patterns of presentation and treatment of EC patients.MethodsThis is a retrospective study involving 54 centers in Italy. We evaluated patterns of presentation and treatment of EC patients before (period 1: March 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020) and during (period 2: April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021) the COVID-19 outbreak.ResultsMedical records of 5,164 EC patients have been retrieved: 2,718 and 2,446 women treated in period 1 and period 2, respectively. Surgery was the mainstay of treatment in both periods (p=0.356). Nodal assessment was omitted in 689 (27.3%) and 484 (21.2%) patients treated in period 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). While, the prevalence of patients undergoing sentinel node mapping (with or without backup lymphadenectomy) has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (46.7% in period 1 vs. 52.8% in period 2; p<0.001). Overall, 1,280 (50.4%) and 1,021 (44.7%) patients had no adjuvant therapy in period 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). Adjuvant therapy use has increased during COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.001).ConclusionOur data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the characteristics and patterns of care of EC patients. These findings highlight the need to implement healthcare services during the pandemic.     

Use of Multiple Drains After Mastectomy Is Associated With More Patient Discomfort and Longer Postoperative Stay

BackgroundSeromas constitute a common complication following surgery for breast cancer, and closed drainage is used routinely to reduce its incidence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of number of drains on patient discomfort, seroma formation, and hospital stay during the immediate postoperative period after mastectomy for breast cancer.Patients and MethodsBased on a retrospective review of our clinical database, 110 consecutive patients from January 2004 through January 2006 who had undergone a mastectomy and axillary clearance for breast cancer were sent a simple postal questionnaire for collection of data.ResultsA total of 70 patients responded (all women; mean age, 69.4 ± 11.4 years). Twenty-seven patients (38.57%) had 3 drains implanted unilaterally, 24 (34.28%) had 2, and 19 (27.14%) had 1 drain. They were divided into 2 groups: the first group with 1 drain (19 patients) and the other with 2 or 3 drains (51 patients). Median postoperative hospital stay was 2 days (range, 1–8 days); patients with 1 drain had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (median, 2 days [range, 1–4 days] vs. 2 days [range, 1–8 days]; Mann-Whitney U test, P = .02). A total of 15 patients (21.43%) complained of a seroma. There was no difference in seroma rates between groups. Patients who had a single drain implanted had a significantly lower rate of discomfort (median, 2 [range, 1-5] vs. 3 [range, 1–7]; Mann-Whitney U test; P = .04).ConclusionThe number of drains used after a mastectomy for breast cancer did not significantly affect the rate or amount of seromas in this study, but the use of a single drain after mastectomy was significantly associated with less discomfort and shorter postoperative hospital stay.     

The Impact of the COVID‐19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives

Introduction

The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources.

Methods

A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries.

Results

The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted.

Implications for Practice

This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

     

Variation in management of early breast cancer in the Netherlands, 2003–2006

BackgroundTo describe variation in staging and primary treatment by hospital characteristics including type and volume and region in patients with early breast cancer (BC) in the Netherlands, 2003–2006 after completion of national guidelines in 2002.MethodsAll patients newly diagnosed with invasive BC in 2003–2006 and recorded in the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included (n = 51 354). Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the influence of patient and hospital characteristics, also by region, on type of breast surgery, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), sentinel node procedure (SNP), and adjuvant irradiation and/or systemic treatment.ResultsPatients <40 years more often underwent breast conserving surgery (BCS) in general hospitals (OR 1.4 (95%CI 1.1–1.5)) than in teaching and academic hospitals, whereas patients of 40–69 years less often received BCS in an academic hospital (OR 0.9 (95%CI 0.8–1.0)) than in teaching hospitals. Patients with pT1-2N0 cancer more often underwent primary ALND in a general hospital than in a larger teaching or academic hospital. Type of hospital did not seem to affect utilization of adjuvant systemic therapy, but patient age and tumour size and grade did. Over time, patients more often received SNP, BCS, and adjuvant systemic therapy, primary ALND being on the decline, but with substantial regional variation between geographic regions.ConclusionWith detailed evidence-based national guidelines since 2002 the considerable regional and hospital variation in staging procedures and primary treatment among newly diagnosed patients with early breast cancer in the Netherlands decreased markedly, suggesting the presence of late adaptors rather than specific hospital characteristics.     

Maximal surgical effort increases the risk of postoperative complications in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer

IntroductionSurgery is the cornerstone of the treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. Reaching complete cytoreduction resulting in no gross residual disease often requires complex surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of increased surgical radicality on the risk of complications in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.Materials and methodsAll consecutive patients with advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO Stage IIIB-IVB) who had undergone primary or interval debulking surgery during a six-year study period were identified. In the midst of the study period, a surgical practice change towards maximal surgical effort occurred. Two groups were formed for the analysis: cohort A, that consisted of patients operated before the surgical paradigm shift and cohort B, that consisted of patients operated under the period of increased surgical radicality.Results252 patients were included in the analysis. Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 21.3% of surgeries in cohort A and in 51.2% in cohort B. The total postoperative complication rate was 76.2%. Most of the complications (86.5%) were minor (Clavien-Dindo I-IIIA). The patients in cohort B were at increased risk for complications, OR 2.94 (95%CI 1.58–5.47; p = 0.001). As for the approach to cytoreduction (primary vs. interval debulking), there was no statistically significant association with the occurrence of postoperative complications (p = 0.659).ConclusionIn the present study more extensive surgeries led to better surgical results but increased postoperative morbidity. Postoperative complication rates were similar in both primary and interval debulking surgeries.