Dataset Information

COVID-19 free oncologic surgical hub: The experience of reallocation of a gynecologic oncology unit during pandemic outbreak.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the majority of healthcare resources of the affected Italian regions were allocated to COVID-19 patients. Due to lack of resources and high risk of death, most cancer patients have been shifted to non-surgical treatments. The following reports our experience of a Gynaecologic Oncology Unit's reallocation of resources in a COVID-19 free surgical oncologic hub in order to guarantee standard quality of surgical activities.

Materials and methods

This is a prospective observational study performed in the Gynaecologic Oncology Unit, on the outcomes of the reallocation of surgical activities outside the University Hospital of Bologna, Italy, during the Italian lockdown period. Here, we described our COVID-19 free surgical oncologic pathway, in terms of lifestyle restrictions, COVID-19 screening measures, and patient clinical, surgical and follow up outcomes.

Results

During the lockdown period (March 9th - May 4th, 2020), 83 patients were scheduled for oncological surgery, 51 patients underwent surgery. Compared to pre-COVID period, we performed the same activities: number of cases scheduled for surgery, type of surgery and surgical and oncological results. No cases of COVID-19 infection were recorded in operated patients and in medical staff. Patients were compliant and well accepted the lifestyle restrictions and reorganization of the care.

Conclusionsonclusions

Our experience showed that the prioritization of oncological surgical care and the allocation of resources during a pandemic in COVID-19 free surgical hubs is an appropriate choice to guarantee oncological protocols.

SUBMITTER: Perrone AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7832928 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesFinancial toxicity is increasingly recognized as an adverse outcome of cancer treatment. Our objective was to measure financial toxicity among gynecologic oncology patients and its association with demographic and disease-related characteristics; self-reported overall health; and cost-coping strategies.MethodsFollow-up patients at a gynecologic oncology practice completed a survey including the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and a self-reported overall health assessment, the EQ-VAS. We abstracted disease and treatment characteristics from medical records. We dichotomized COST scores into low and high financial toxicity and assessed the correlation (r) between COST scores and self-reported health. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of demographic and disease-related characteristics with high financial toxicity, as well as the associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies.ResultsAmong 240 respondents, median COST score was 29. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse self-reported health (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). In the crude analysis, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, unemployment, cervical cancer and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with high financial toxicity. In the multivariable analysis, only government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, and treatment with chemotherapy were significantly associated with high financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with all cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care (RR: 7.3; 95% CI: 2.8-19.1).ConclusionsAmong highly-insured gynecologic oncology patients, many respondents reported high levels of financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with worse self-reported overall health and cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care.

Project description:There are currently no assessments of the impact of surgical complications on health-related quality of life in gynecology and gynecologic oncology. This is despite complications being a central focus of surgical outcome measurement, and an increasing awareness of the need for patient-reported data when measuring surgical quality.We sought to measure the impact of surgical complications on health-related quality of life at 1 month postoperatively, in women undergoing gynecologic and gynecologic oncology procedures.This is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing surgery by gynecologic oncologists at a tertiary care academic center from October 2013 through October 2014. Patients were enrolled preoperatively and interviewed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Health-related quality of life measures included validated general and disease-specific instruments, measuring multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, including anxiety and depression. The medical record was abstracted for clinical data and surgical complications were graded using validated Clavien-Dindo criteria, and women grouped into those with and without postoperative complications. Bivariate statistics, analysis of covariance, responder analysis, and multivariate modeling was used to analyze the relationship of postoperative complications to change health-related quality of life from baseline to 1 month. Plots of mean scores and change over time were constructed.Of 281 women enrolled, response rates were 80% (n = 231/281) at baseline, and from that cohort, 81% (n = 187/231), 74% (n = 170/231), and 75% (n = 174/231) at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The primary analytic cohort comprised 185 women with completed baseline and 1-month interviews, and abstracted clinical data. Uterine (n = 84, 45%), ovarian (n = 23, 12%), cervical (n = 17, 9%), vulvar (n = 3, 2%), and other (n = 4, 2%) cancers were represented, along with 53 (30%) cases of benign disease. There were 42 (24%) racial/ethnic minority women. Minimally invasive (n = 115, 63%) and laparotomy (n = 60, 32%) procedures were performed. Postoperative complications occurred in 47 (26%) of patients who experienced grade 1 (n = 12), grade 2 (n = 29), and grade 3 (n = 6) complications. At 1 month, physical (20.6 vs 22.5, P = .04) and functional (15.4 vs 18.3, P = .02) well-being, global physical health (43.1 vs 46.3, P = .02), and work ability (3 vs 7.2, P = .001) were lower in postoperative complication vs non-postoperative complication women. Relative change, however, in most health-related quality of life domains from baseline to 1 month did not differ between postoperative complication and nonpostoperative complication groups. Postoperative complication patients did have increased odds of sustained or worsened anxiety at 1 month vs baseline (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-5.0) compared to nonpostoperative complication patients.Collectively, women who experienced postoperative complications after gynecologic and gynecologic oncology procedures did not appear to have differences in most health-related quality of life trends over time compared to those who did not. An exception was anxiety, where postoperative complications were associated with sustained or worsened levels of high anxiety after surgery.