Changes in breast cancer management during the Corona Virus Disease 19 pandemic: An international survey of the European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists (EUBREAST)

BackgroundCorona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) had a worldwide negative impact on healthcare systems, which were not used to coping with such pandemic. Adaptation strategies prioritizing COVID-19 patients included triage of patients and reduction or re-allocation of other services. The aim of our survey was to provide a real time international snapshot of modifications of breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA survey was developed by a multidisciplinary group on behalf of European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists and distributed via breast cancer societies. One reply per breast unit was requested.ResultsIn ten days, 377 breast centres from 41 countries completed the questionnaire. RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 prior to treatment was reported by 44.8% of the institutions. The estimated time interval between diagnosis and treatment initiation increased for about 20% of institutions. Indications for primary systemic therapy were modified in 56% (211/377), with upfront surgery increasing from 39.8% to 50.7% (p < 0.002) and from 33.7% to 42.2% (p < 0.016) in T1cN0 triple-negative and ER-negative/HER2-positive cases, respectively. Sixty-seven percent considered that chemotherapy increases risks for developing COVID-19 complications. Fifty-one percent of the responders reported modifications in chemotherapy protocols. Gene-expression profile used to evaluate the need for adjuvant chemotherapy increased in 18.8%. In luminal-A tumours, a large majority (68%) recommended endocrine treatment to postpone surgery. Postoperative radiation therapy was postponed in 20% of the cases.ConclusionsBreast cancer management was considerably modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data provide a base to investigate whether these changes impact oncologic outcomes.     

Breast cancer survivorship care during the COVID-19 pandemic within an urban New York Hospital System

PurposeTo examine clinicodemographic determinants associated with breast cancer survivorship follow-up during COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study including early stage (Stage I-II) breast cancer patients who underwent resection between 2006 and 2018 in a New York City hospital system. The primary outcome was oncologic follow-up prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary analyses compared differences in follow-up by COVID-19 case rates stratified by ZIP code.ResultsA total of 2942 patients with early-stage breast cancer were available for analysis. 1588 (54%) of patients had attended follow-up in the year prior to the COVID-19 period but failed to continue to follow-up during the pandemic, either in-person or via telemedicine. 1242 (42%) patients attended a follow-up appointment during the COVID-19 pandemic.Compared with patients who did not present for follow-up during COVID-19, patients who continued their oncologic follow-up during the pandemic were younger (p = 0.049) more likely to have received adjuvant radiation therapy (p = 0.025), and have lower household income (p = 0.031) on multivariate modeling. When patients who live in Bronx, New York, were stratified by ZIP code, there was a modest negative association (r = −0.56) between COVID-19 cases and proportion of patients who continued to follow-up during the COVID-19 period.ConclusionWe observed a dramatic disruption in routine breast cancer follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers and health systems should emphasize reintegrating patients who missed appointments during COVID-19 back into regular surveillance programs to avoid significant morbidity and mortality from missed breast cancer recurrences.     

IMPACT-Global Hip Fracture Audit: Nosocomial infection,risk prediction and prognostication,minimum reporting standards and global collaborative audit: Lessons from an international multicentre study of 7,090 patients conducted in 14 nations during the COVID-19 pandemic

AimsThis international study aimed to assess: 1) the prevalence of preoperative and postoperative COVID-19 among patients with hip fracture, 2) the effect on 30-day mortality, and 3) clinical factors associated with the infection and with mortality in COVID-19-positive patients.MethodsA multicentre collaboration among 112 centres in 14 countries collected data on all patients presenting with a hip fracture between 1st March-31st May 2020. Demographics, residence, place of injury, presentation blood tests, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score, time to surgery, management, ASA grade, length of stay, COVID-19 and 30-day mortality status were recorded.ResultsA total of 7090 patients were included, with a mean age of 82.2 (range 50–104) years and 4959 (69.9%) being female. Of 651 (9.2%) patients diagnosed with COVID-19, 225 (34.6%) were positive at presentation and 426 (65.4%) were positive postoperatively. Positive COVID-19 status was independently associated with male sex (odds ratio (OR) 1.38, p = 0.001), residential care (OR 2.15, p < 0.001), inpatient fall (OR 2.23, p = 0.003), cancer (OR 0.63, p = 0.009), ASA grades 4 (OR 1.59, p = 0.008) or 5 (OR 8.28, p < 0.001), and longer admission (OR 1.06 for each increasing day, p < 0.001). Patients with COVID-19 at any time had a significantly lower chance of 30-day survival versus those without COVID-19 (72.7% versus 92.6%, p < 0.001). COVID-19 was independently associated with an increased 30-day mortality risk (hazard ratio (HR) 2.83, p < 0.001). Increasing age (HR 1.03, p = 0.028), male sex (HR 2.35, p < 0.001), renal disease (HR 1.53, p = 0.017), and pulmonary disease (HR 1.45, p = 0.039) were independently associated with a higher 30-day mortality risk in patients with COVID-19 when adjusting for confounders.ConclusionThe prevalence of COVID-19 in hip fracture patients during the first wave of the pandemic was 9%, and was independently associated with a three-fold increased 30-day mortality risk. Among COVID-19-positive patients, those who were older, male, with renal or pulmonary disease had a significantly higher 30-day mortality risk.     

Decreased Incidence of Hirschsprung-Associated Enterocolitis During COVID-19 Across United States Children's Hospitals

BackgroundThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic provided a natural experiment to study the effect of social distancing on the risk of developing Hirschsprung's Associated Enterocolitis (HAEC).MethodsUsing the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), a retrospective cohort study of children (<18 years) with Hirschsprung's Disease (HSCR) across 47 United States children's hospitals was performed. The primary outcome was HAEC admissions per 10,000 patient-days. The exposure (COVID-19) was defined as April 2020–December 2021. The unexposed (historical control) period was April 2018–December 2019. Secondary outcomes included sepsis, bowel perforation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality, and length of stay.ResultsOverall, we included 5707 patients with HSCR during the study period. There were 984 and 834 HAEC admissions during the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, respectively (2.6 vs. 1.9 HAEC admissions per 10,000 patient-days, incident rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.74 [0.67, 0.81], p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic, those with HAEC during the pandemic were younger (median [IQR]: 566 [162, 1430] days pandemic vs. 746 [259, 1609] days pre-pandemic, p < 0.001) and more likely to live in the lowest quartile of median household income zip codes (24% pandemic vs. 19% pre-pandemic, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in rates of sepsis (6.1% pandemic vs. 6.1% pre-pandemic, p > 0.9), bowel perforation (1.3% pandemic vs. 1.2% pre-pandemic, p = 0.8), ICU admissions (9.6% pandemic vs. 12% pre-pandemic, p = 0.2), mortality (0.5% pandemic vs. 0.6% pre-pandemic, p = 0.8), or length of stay (median [interquartile range]: 4 [(Pastor et al., 2009; Gosain and Brinkman, 2015) 2,112,11 days pandemic vs. 5 [(Pastor et al., 2009; Tang et al., 2020) 2,102,10 days pre-pandemic, p = 0.4).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significantly decreased incidence of HAEC admissions across US children's hospitals. Possible etiologies such as social distancing should be explored.Level of evidenceII.     

Goserelin plus tamoxifen compared to chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen in premenopausal patients with early stage-, lymph node-negative breast cancer of luminal A subtype

ObjectivesTo study the outcomes of adjuvant goserelin combined with tamoxifen (GosTam) compared to chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen (ChemTam) in premenopausal patients with early stage, luminal A breast cancer.MethodsFrom 2008 until 2013, data were retrospectively collected for premenopausal patients who underwent surgery for invasive tumors that were ≤2.0 cm, node-negative, strongly positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors, HER-2-negative, and Ki-67 < 25%. The patients were divided into two groups according to adjuvant regimen, either GosTam or ChemTam. All patients who underwent different adjuvant regimens were excluded.ResultsIn total, 235 patients underwent GosTam and 171 patients underwent ChemTam. There were significantly more patients younger than 40 years in the GosTam group (32% GosTam vs. 22% ChemTam, p = 0.031). Mean tumor size was significantly smaller (1.19 cm vs. 1.48 cm, p < 0.001), Ki-67 significantly lower (p = 0.049), and nuclear grade was low in a significant number of patients in the GosTam group (2% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 51.3 months, there was no mortality in either group. There was no significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups even after univariate analysis considering age, tumor size, nuclear grade, and P53% (GosTam = 98.9% vs. ChemTam = 95.7%, HR = 0.404, 95% CI = [0.073, 2.222], p = 0.248).ConclusionThere was no difference between treatment groups, and neither chemotherapy nor ovarian suppression seemed to improve the outcome. Thus, tamoxifen alone might be a sufficient option for this low-risk patient population.     

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 infection in 45 patients with breast cancer: A multi-center retrospective study in Hubei,China

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is a significant worldwide health crisis. Breast cancer patients with COVID-19 are fragile and require particular clinical care. This study aimed to identify the clinical characteristics of breast cancer patients with COVID-19 and the risks associated with anti-cancer treatment.MethodsThe medical records of breast cancer patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were collected among 9559 COVID-19 patients from seven designated hospitals from 13th January to 18th March 2020 in Hubei, China. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess risk factors for COVID-19 severity.ResultsOf the 45 breast cancer patients with COVID-19, 33 (73.3%) developed non-severe COVID-19, while 12 (26.7%) developed severe COVID-19, of which 3 (6.7%) patients died. The median age was 62 years, and 3 (6.7%) patients had stage IV breast cancer. Univariate analysis showed that age over 75 and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score were associated with COVID-19 disease severity (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that patients who received chemotherapy within 7 days had a significantly higher risk for severe COVID-19 (logistic regression model: RR = 13.886, 95% CI 1.014–190.243, P = 0.049; Cox proportional hazards model: HR = 13.909, 95% CI 1.086–178.150, P = 0.043), with more pronounced neutropenia and higher LDH, CRP and procalcitonin levels than other patients (P < 0.05).ConclusionsIn our breast cancer cohort, the severity of COVID-19 could be associated with baseline factors such as age over 75 and ECOG scores. Chemotherapy within 7 days before symptom onset could be a risk factor for severe COVID-19, reflected by neutropenia and elevated LDH, CRP and procalcitonin levels.     

Effect of Covid-19 on best practice care of hip fracture patients: An analysis from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD)

BackgroundBest practice tariff (BPT) has brought significant improvements in hip fracture care; the 2019 report showing a 30-day mortality of 6.1%. Data relating to more than 65,000 patients who sustain a fractured neck of femur (FNOF) are recorded each year in the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD). The aim of our study was to review the impact of COVID-19 on BPT.MethodsData was extracted from the NHFD for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The months of March to June 2020 (lockdown period related to COVID-19) were compared to the same period in 2019. Data used in this study was collated and analysed between 14th and 17th October 2020.ResultsData for more than 40,000 patients was reviewed. BPT dropped −4.3% in March, −12.6% in April, −12.9% in May 2020, and −7.2% in June. Prompt surgery remained stable (four-month average + 0.1%). The most significant changes were noted for timely orthogeriatric review (−7.6%, p < 0.001), bone health assessment (−7.3%, p < 0.001) and post-operative delirium assessment (−6.6%, p < 0.001).30-day mortality increased to 13.7% in March 2020 and remained high in April 2020 (11.3%) and May (7.3%). Acute hospital length of stay was lowest in May 2020 (11.7 days).ConclusionPatients sustaining FNOF in March 2020 had an associated 30-day mortality of 13.7%. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant reduction in BPT. The most significant changes were observed in timely orthogeriatric review.Maintaining a high standard of multidisciplinary care for this vulnerable group of patients is crucial during future spikes of COVID-19.     

Rising incidence of late stage breast cancer after COVID-19 outbreak. Real-world data from the Italian COVID-DELAY study

PurposeBreast cancer (BC) patients’ (pts) management was affected by a global reorganization after Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our multicenter study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on access to diagnosis, staging and treatment for BC pts compared to pre-pandemic.MethodsMedical records of all consecutive newly diagnosed BC pts referred to 6 Italian Institutions between March and December 2020 were assessed. Monthly access rate and temporal intervals between date of symptoms onset, radiological, cytohistological diagnosis and treatment start were analyzed and compared with 2019.ResultsA reduction (25%) in newly diagnosed BC was observed compared to 2019 (666 vs 890). New BC pts in 2020 were less likely to be diagnosed with early stage BC (77% vs 83%, p < 0.01), had a worse performance status according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG PS) (19.8% had PS > 0 in 2020 vs 16.5% in 2019, p < 0.01) and fewer pts were asymptomatic at diagnosis in 2020 (54% vs 71%,p < 0.01). COVID-19 did not negatively impact in terms of access to diagnosis, staging and treatment. Time intervals between symptom onset and radiological diagnosis, symptom onset and cytohistological diagnosis, cytohistological diagnosis and treatment start were maintained or improved. However, less cases were discussed in multidisciplinary tumor meetings during 2020 (60% vs 73%, p < 0.01).ConclusionsOur data proved an alarming reduction of early stage BC associated with the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. Despite the upheaval generated by the pandemic, our study shed light on the effective performance delivered by Italian Oncology Departments to guarantee diagnostic-therapeutic pathways.     

Rate of COVID-19 infection and 30 day mortality between blue and green (dedicated COVID-19 safe) pathways: Results from phase 1 and 2 of the UK foot and ankle COVID-19 national (UK-FAlCoN) audit

ObjectivesThe primary aim was to determine the differences in COVID-19 infection rate and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery between different treatment pathways over the two phases of the UK-FALCON audit, spanning the first and second UK national lockdowns.SettingThis was an ambispective (retrospective Phase 1 and prospective Phase 2) national audit of foot and ankle procedures in the UK in 2020 completed between 13th January 2020 and 30th November 2020.ParticipantsAll adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included from 46 participating centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were categorised as either a green pathway (designated COVID-19 free) or blue pathway (no protocols to prevent COVID-19 infection).Results10,846 patients were included, 6644 from phase 1 and 4202 from phase 2. Over the 2 phases the infection rate on a blue pathway was 1.07% (69/6470) and 0.21% on a green pathway (9/4280). In phase 1, there was no significant difference in the COVID-19 perioperative infection rate between the blue and green pathways in any element of the first phase (pre-lockdown (p = .109), lockdown (p = .923) or post-lockdown (p = .577)). However, in phase 2 there was a significant reduction in perioperative infection rate when using the green pathway in both the pre-lockdown (p < .001) and lockdown periods (Odd’s Ratio 0.077, p < .001). There was no significant difference in COVID-19 related mortality between pathways.ConclusionsThere was a five-fold reduction in the perioperative COVID-19 infection rate when using designated COVID-19 green pathways over the whole study period; however the success of the pathways only became significant in phase 2 of the study, where there was a 13-fold reduction in infection rate. The study shows a developing success to using green pathways in reducing the risk to patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery.     

Utilization of a rapid diagnostic centre during the COVID-19 pandemic reduced diagnostic delays in breast cancer

BackgroundAccess to breast imaging was restricted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the impact of healthcare restrictions on the Gattuso Rapid Diagnostic Centre (GRDC) at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.MethodsA retrospective review of patients seen at the GRDC between March 12 - August 31, 2020 and the corresponding period from 2019 was performed.ResultsThere was an 18.6% decrease in patients seen at the GRDC (n = 429 in 2020 vs. 527 in 2019). Time from the first abnormal breast image to diagnosis was significantly shorter (17.4 days [IQR 13.0–21.8] in 2020 vs. 25.9 days [21.0–30.8] in 2019; p = 0.020) with no appreciable difference in time from diagnosis to consult or from consult to surgery.ConclusionThe GRDC enabled patients with concerning breast symptoms to access breast imaging, which helped to ensure timely treatment during the first wave of the pandemic.     

Comparing epidemiologic features,outcomes, and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of traumatic patients before and during COVID-19 pandemic: Data from the National Trauma Registry of Iran

PurposeTo prepare for future possible communicable disease epidemics/pandemics, health care providers should know how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced injured patients. This study aimed to compare epidemiologic features, outcomes, and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of trauma patients admitted to a university-affiliated hospital before and during the pandemic.MethodsThis retrospective study was performed on data from the National Trauma Registry of Iran. All injured patients admitted to the hospital from July 25, 2016 to March 10, 2021 were included in the study. The patients were excluded if they had hospital length of stay less than 24 h. The injury outcomes, trauma mechanisms, and therapeutic and diagnostic procedures of the 2 periods: before (from July 25, 2016 to February 18, 2020) and during (from February 19, 2020 to March 10, 2021) COVID-19 pandemic were compared. All analyses were performed using STATA version 14.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX).ResultsTotally, 5014 patients were included in the registry. Of them, 773 (15.4%) were registered after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic on February 19, 2020, while 4241 were registered before that. Gender, education level, and cause of injury were significantly different among the patients before and after the beginning of the pandemic (p < 0.001). In the ≤ 15 years and ≥ 65 years age groups, injuries decreased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic (p < 0.001). The frequency of intensive care unit (ICU) admission decreased from 694 (16.4%) to 88 (11.4%) (p < 0.001). The mean length of stay at the hospital (days) and at the ICU (days) declined as follow: 8.3 (SD = 17.2) vs. 5.5 (SD = 6.1), p < 0.001 and 7.5 (SD = 11.5) vs. 4.5 (SD = 6.3), p < 0.022. The frequency of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures before and during the pandemic was as follows, respectively: ultrasonography 905 (21.3%) vs. 417 (53.9%) (p < 0.001), echocardiography 313 (7.4%) vs. 107 (13.8%) (p < 0.001), angiography 1597 (37.7%) vs. 534 (69.1%) (p < 0.001), MRI 166 (3.9%) vs. 51 (6.6%) (p < 0.001), surgery 3407 (80.3%) vs. 654 (84.6%) (p < 0.001), and internal/external fixation 1215 (28.6%) vs. 336 (43.5%) (p < 0.001).ConclusionThe pandemic affected the epidemiology of traumatic patients in terms of gender, age, educational level, and trauma mechanism. It changed the outcomes of injured patients: ICU admission, length of stay at the hospital and ICU decreased. The patients received more diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during the pandemic. To be more precise, more research is needed on the details.     

Reduction mammaplasty in patients with history of breast cancer: The incidence of occult cancer and high-risk lesions

IntroductionContralateral reduction mammaplasty is regularly included in the treatment of breast cancer patients. We analyzed the incidence of occult breast cancer and high-risk lesions in reduction mammaplasty specimens of women with previous breast cancer. We also analyzed if timing of reduction mammaplasty in relation to oncological treatment influenced the incidence of abnormal findings, and compared if patients with abnormal contralateral histopathology differed from the study population in terms of demographics.Materials and methodsThe study consisted of 329 breast cancer patients, who underwent symmetrizing reduction mammaplasty between 1/2007 and 12/2011. The data was retrospectively analyzed for demographics, operative and histopathology reports, oncological treatment, and postoperative follow-up.ResultsReduction mammaplasty specimens revealed abnormal findings in 68 (21.5%) patients. High-risk lesions (ADH, ALH, and LCIS) were revealed in 37 (11.7%), and cancer in six (1.9%) patients. Abnormal histopathology correlated with higher age (p = 0.0053), heavier specimen (p = 0.0491), and with no previous breast surgery (p < 0.001). Abnormal histopathological findings were more frequent in patients with reduction mammaplasty performed prior to oncological treatment (p < 0.001), and in patients with immediate reconstruction (p = 0.0064).ConclusionThe incidences of malignant and high-risk lesions are doubled compared to patients without prior breast cancer. Patients with abnormal histopathology cannot be preoperatively identified based on demographics. If reduction mammaplasty is performed before oncological treatment, the incidence of abnormal findings is higher. In the light of our results, contralateral reduction mammaplasty with histopathological evaluation in breast cancer patients offers a sophisticated tool to catch those patients whose contralateral breast needs increased attention.     

Impact of COVID-19 on volume of elective and nonelective ventral hernia repair

BackgroundThe significant decrease in elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted fears that there would be an increase in emergency or urgent operations for certain disease states. The impact of COVID-19 on ventral hernia repair is unknown. This study aimed to compare volumes of elective and nonelective ventral hernia repairs performed pre–COVID-19 with those performed during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsAn analysis of a prospective database from 8 hospitals capturing patient admissions with the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Procedure Coding System for ventral hernia repair from January 2017 through June 2021 were included. During, COVID-19 was defined as on or after March 2020.ResultsComparing 3,558 ventral hernia repairs pre–COVID-19 with 1,228 during COVID-19, there was a significant decrease in the mean number of elective ventral hernia repairs per month during COVID-19 (pre–COVID-19: 61 ± 5 vs during COVID-19 19: 39 ± 11; P < .001), and this persisted after excluding the initial 3-month COVID-19 surge (61 ± 5 vs 42 ± 9; P < .001). There were fewer nonelective cases during the initial 3-month COVID-19 surge (32 ± 9 vs 24 ± 4; P = .031), but, excluding the initial surge, there was no difference in nonelective volume (32 ± 9 vs 33 ± 8; P = .560).During COVID-19, patients had lower rates of congestive heart failure (elective: 9.0% vs 6.6%; P = .0047; nonelective: 17.7% vs 11.6%; P < .001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (elective: 13.7% vs 10.2%; P = .017; nonelective: 17.9% vs 12.0%; P < .001) and underwent fewer component separations (10.2% vs 6.4%; P ≤ .001). Intensive care unit admissions decreased for elective ventral hernia repairs (7.7% vs 5.0%; P = .016). Length of stay, cost, and readmission were similar between groups.ConclusionElective ventral hernia repair volume decreased during COVID-19 whereas nonelective ventral hernia repairs transiently decreased before returning to baseline. During COVID-19, patients appeared to be lower risk and less complex. The possible impact of the more complex patients delaying surgery is yet to be seen.     

The effect of family history on screening procedures and prognosis in breast cancer patients - Results of a large population-based case-control study

BackgroundThe potential benefit of additional breast cancer screening examinations in moderate risk patients (patients with a history of breast cancer in one or two family members) remains unclear.MethodsA large population-based case–control study on breast cancer in postmenopausal women in Germany recruited 2002–2005 (3813 cases and 7341 age-matched controls) was used to assess the association of family history with breast cancer risk. Analysis of family history, participation in screening procedures, and tumor size regarding prognosis in patients was based on follow-up data until 2015.ResultsA first degree family history of breast cancer was associated with higher breast cancer risk (OR 1.39, p < 0.001). Patients with a first degree family history of breast cancer were more likely to have had >10 mammograms (MG) (42.7% vs. 24.9%, p < 0.001) and showed a higher rate of imaging-detected tumors (MG or ultrasound) (45.8% vs. 31.9%, p < 0.001). A smaller tumor size at initial diagnosis (below 2 cm) was more likely in patients with a positive family history (OR 1.45, p < 0.001) and a higher number of MG (≥10 MG: OR 2.29). After accounting for tumor characteristics, mammogram regularity (HR 0.72, p < 0.001) and imaging-assisted tumor detection (HR 0.66, p < 0.001) were associated with better overall survival but not with a positive family history.DiscussionPatients with a positive family history had a higher rate of imaging detected tumors with smaller size at initial diagnosis compared to patients without affected family members. Screening was associated with improved survival after a breast cancer diagnosis, irrespective of a positive family history.     

The change of clinical features and surgical outcomes in patients with pressure injury during the COVID-19 pandemic

This retrospective study aims to explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic altered patient conditions and surgery outcomes by studying 213 pressure injury (PI) patients who underwent surgery during 2016 to 2019 (pre-COVID) and 2020 to 2021 (COVID) in Taiwan. We extracted patient demographics, surgical and blood test records, preoperative vital signs, and flap surgery outcomes. In total, 464 surgeries were performed, including 308 pre-COVID and 156 COVID. During the COVID period, there were more patients presenting with dementia, and it had significantly more patients with >12 000 white blood cells/μL (24.03% vs 15.59%, P = 0.029), higher C-reactive protein levels (7.13 ± 6.36 vs 5.58 ± 5.09 mg/dL, P = 0.014), pulse rates (86.67 ± 14.76 vs 81.26 ± 13.66 beats/min, P < 0.001), and respiratory rates (17.87 ± 1.98 vs 17.31 ± 2.39 breaths/min, P = 0.009) but lower haemoglobin levels (9.75 ± 2.02 vs 10.43 ± 1.67 mg/dL, P < 0.001) preoperatively. There were no between-group differences in flap surgery outcomes but had fewer flap surgeries during COVID-19. Thus, PI patient condition was generally poor during the COVID-19 pandemic because of reduced access to medical treatment; this problem may be resolved through holistic care during a future pandemic or pandemic-like situation.     

Impact of Covid-19 on kidney transplant and waiting list patients: Lessons from the first wave of the pandemic

BackgroundThe first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a drastic reduction in kidney transplantation and a profound change in transplant care in France. It is critical for kidney transplant centers to understand the behaviors, concerns and wishes of transplant recipients and waiting list candidates.MethodsFrench kidney patients were contacted to answer an online electronic survey at the end of the lockdown.ResultsAt the end of the first wave of the pandemic in France (11 May 2020), 2112 kidney transplant recipients and 487 candidates answered the survey. More candidates than recipients left their home during the lockdown, mainly for health care (80.1% vs. 69.4%; P < 0.001). More candidates than recipients reported being exposed to Covid-19 patients (2.7% vs. 1.2%; P = 0.006). Many recipients and even more candidates felt inadequately informed by their transplant center during the pandemic (19.6% vs. 54%; P < 0.001). Among candidates, 71.1% preferred to undergo transplant as soon as possible, 19.5% preferred to wait until Covid-19 had left their community, and 9.4% were not sure what to do.ConclusionsDuring the Covid-19 pandemic in France, the majority of candidates wished to receive a transplant as soon as possible without waiting until Covid-19 had left their community. Communication between kidney transplant centers and patients must be improved to better understand and serve patients’ needs.     

Decision-to-delivery interval and neonatal outcomes for category-1 caesarean sections during the COVID-19 pandemic

General anaesthesia is known to achieve the shortest decision-to-delivery interval for category-1 caesarean section. We investigated whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected the decision-to delivery interval and influenced neonatal outcomes in patients who underwent category-1 caesarean section. Records of 562 patients who underwent emergency caesarean section between 1 April 2019 and 1 July 2019 in seven UK hospitals (pre-COVID-19 group) were compared with 577 emergency caesarean sections performed during the same period during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 April 2020–1 July 2020) (post-COVID-19 group). Primary outcome measures were: decision-to-delivery interval; number of caesarean sections achieving decision-to-delivery interval < 30 min; and a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes (Apgar 5-min score < 7, umbilical arterial pH < 7.10, neonatal intensive care unit admission and stillbirth). The use of general anaesthesia decreased significantly between the pre- and post-COVID-19 groups (risk ratio 0.48 (95%CI 0.37–0.62); p < 0.0001). Compared with the pre-COVID-19 group, the post-COVID-19 group had an increase in median (IQR [range]) decision-to-delivery interval (26 (18–32 [4–124]) min vs. 27 (20–33 [3–102]) min; p = 0.043) and a decrease in the number of caesarean sections meeting the decision-to-delivery interval target of < 30 min (374/562 (66.5%) vs. 349/577 (60.5%); p = 0.02). The incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes was similar in the pre- and post-COVID-19 groups (140/568 (24.6%) vs. 140/583 (24.0%), respectively; p = 0.85). The small increase in decision-to-delivery interval observed during the COVID-19 pandemic did not adversely affect neonatal outcomes.     

Orthopaedic trauma during COVID-19: Is patient care compromised during a pandemic?

BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare system. Many institutions implemented a government-mandated restructured set of safety and administrative protocols to treat urgent orthopaedic trauma patients. The objective of this study was to compare two cohorts of patients, a COVID group and non-COVID control group, and to evaluate the effectiveness of safety measures outlined in the Rutgers Orthopaedic Trauma Patient Safety Protocol (ROTPSP). Secondary outcomes were to elucidate risk factors for complications associated with fractures and COVID-19.MethodsPatients treated for orthopaedic traumatic injuries were retrospectively identified between March and May 2020, and compared to a series of patients from the same time period in 2018. Main outcome measures included surgical site infections (SSI), length of stay (LOS), post-operative LOS (poLOS), presentation to OR time (PORT), and length of surgery.ResultsAfter review, 349 patients (201 non-COVID, 148 COVID) undergoing 426 surgeries were included. Average LOS (11.91 days vs. 9.27 days, p = 0.04), poLOS (9.68 days vs. 7.39 days, p = 0.03), and PORT (30.56 vs. 25.59 h, p < 0.01) was significantly shorter in the COVID cohort. There were less SSI in the COVID group (5) compared to the non-COVID group (14) (p = 0.03). Overall complications were significantly lower in the COVID group. Patients receiving Cepheid tests had significantly shorter LOS and poLOS compared to patients receiving the RNA and DiaSorin tests (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). The Cepheid test carried the best benefit-to-cost ratio, 0.10, p < 0.05.ConclusionThe restructuring of care protocols caused by COVID-19 did not negatively impact perioperative complication rates, PORT or LOS. Cepheid COVID test type administered upon admission plays an integral role in a patient's hospital course by reducing both length of stay and hospital costs. This information demonstrates we can continue to treat orthopaedic trauma patients safely during the COVID-19 pandemic by utilizing strict safety protocols.     

Increased proportion of alcohol-related trauma in a South London major trauma centre during lockdown: A cohort study

PurposeAlcohol has been associated with 10%–35% trauma admissions and 40% trauma-related deaths globally. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Kingdom entered a state of “lockdown” on March 23, 2020. Restrictions were most significantly eased on June 1, 2020, when shops and schools re-opened. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of lockdown on alcohol-related trauma admissions.MethodsAll adult patients admitted as “trauma calls” to a London major trauma centre during April 2018 and April 2019 (pre-lockdown, n = 316), and 1st April–31st May 2020 (lockdown, n = 191) had electronic patient records analysed retrospectively. Patients’ blood alcohol level and records of intoxication were used to identify alcohol-related trauma. Trauma admissions from pre-lockdown and lockdown cohorts were compared using multiple regression analyses.ResultsAlcohol-related trauma was present in a significantly higher proportion of adult trauma calls during lockdown (lockdown 60/191 (31.4%), vs. pre-lockdown 62/316 (19.6%); (odds ratio (OR): 0.83, 95% CI: 0.38–1.28, p < 0.001). Lockdown was also associated with increased weekend admissions of trauma (lockdown 125/191 weekend (65.5%) vs. pre-lockdown 179/316 (56.7%); OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.79 to ?0.02, p = 0.041). No significant difference existed in the age, gender, or mechanism between pre-lockdown and lockdown cohorts (p > 0.05).ConclusionsThe United Kingdom lockdown was independently associated with an increased proportion of alcohol-related trauma. Trauma admissions were increased during the weekend when staffing levels are reduced. With the possibility of further global “waves” of COVID-19, the long-term repercussions of dangerous alcohol-related behaviour to public health must be addressed.     

The effect of COVID-19 on burn management and outcomes in a resource-limited setting

IntroductionOptimal burn care includes fluid resuscitation and early excision and grafting. During the COVID-19 pandemic, resource-constrained environments were susceptible to interruptions in burn care. We sought to characterize pre- and intra-pandemic burn-associated outcomes at a busy tertiary hospital in Malawi.MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of burn patients that presented to Kamuzu Central Hospital Lilongwe from 2011 through December 2021. We compared patients based on whether they presented pre- or intra-pandemic, starting on March 11, 2020, the date of official WHO designation. Comparing these cohorts, we used modified Poisson modeling to estimate the adjusted risk of undergoing an operation and the risk of death.ResultsWe included 2969 patients, with 390 presenting during the pandemic. Patient factors were similar between the cohorts. More patients underwent surgery pre-pandemic (21.1 vs 10.3 %, p < 0.001) but crude mortality was similar at 17.3 % vs. 21.2 % (p = 0.08). The RR of undergoing surgery during the pandemic was 0.45 (95 % CI 0.32, 0.64) adjusted for age, sex, % TBSA, flame burns, and time to presentation. During the pandemic, the risk ratio for in-hospital mortality was 1.23 (95 % CI 1.01, 1.50) adjusted for age, sex, % TBSA, surgical intervention, flame burns, and time to presentation.ConclusionsDuring the pandemic, the probability of undergoing burn excision or grafting was significantly lower for patients, independent of the severity. Consequently, the adjusted risk of mortality was higher. To improve patient outcomes, efforts to preserve operative capacity for burn patients during periods of severe resource constraint are imperative.