Uro-oncologic patient management during the COVID-19 pandemic: survey findings from an Italian oncologic hub.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Luzzago S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8288285 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo assess differences in referral and pathologic outcomes for uro-oncology cases prior to and during the COVID pandemic, comparing clinical and pathological data of cancer surgeries performed at an academic referral center between 2019 and 2020.MethodsWe collected data of 880 prostate biopsies, 393 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP) for prostate cancer (PCa), 767 trans-urethral resections of bladder tumor (TURB) and 134 radical cystectomies (RC) for bladder cancer (BCa), 29 radical nephro-ureterectomies (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma, 130 partial nephrectomies (PN) and 12 radical nephrectomies (RN) for renal cancer, and 41 orchifunicolectomies for testicular cancer. Data of patients treated in 2019 (before COVID-19 pandemic) were compared to patients treated in 2020 (during pandemic).ResultsNo significant decline in uro-oncological surgical activity was seen between 2019 and 2020. No significant increase in time between diagnosis and surgery was observed for all considered cancers. No differences in terms of main pathologic features were observed in patients undergoing RARP, TURB, RNU, RN/PN, or orchifunicolectomy. A higher proportion of ISUP grade 3 and 4 PCa were diagnosed in 2020 at biopsy (p = 0.001), but this did not translate into worse pathological grade/stage at RARP. In 2020, more advanced disease features were seen after RC, including lymph node involvement (p = 0.01) and non-organ confined disease (p = 0.02).ConclusionNeither decline in uro-oncologic activity nor delay between diagnosis and treatment was observed at our institution during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic. No significant worsening of cancer disease features was found in 2020 except for muscle-invasive BCa.
| S-EPMC8475474 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAirway management for thoracic surgery represents a high risk setting for SARS-CoV-2 infection diffusion due to complex and invasive airway instrumentation and techniques.ResultsAn 18-item questionnaire was submitted to the 56 members of the Thoracic subcommittee of the SIAARTI Cardio-Thoraco-Vascular Research Group to provide a snapshot of current situation and national variability of devices and procedures for airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic. The response rate was 64%. Eighty-three percent of anesthetists declared that they modified their airway management strategies. The Hospital Management considered necessary to provide a complete level 3 personal protective equipment for thoracic anesthetists only in 47% of cases. Double-lumen tube and bronchial blocker were preferred by 53% and 22% of responders to achieve one-lung ventilation respectively. Over 90% of responders considered the videolaryngoscope with separate screen and rapid sequence induction/intubation useful to minimize the infection risk. Thirty-nine percent of participants considered mandatory the bronchoscopic check of airway devices. Vivasight-DL was considered comfortable by more than 50% of responders while protective box and plastic drape were judged as uncomfortable by most of anesthetists.ConclusionsThe survey reveals many changes in the clinical practice due to SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. A certain diffusion of new devices such as the VivaSight-DL and barrier enclosure systems emerged too. Finally, we found that most of Italian hospitals did not recognize thoracic anesthesia as a high-risk specialty for risk of virus diffusion.
| S-EPMC8765104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo investigate the health-related quality of life of uro-oncologic patients whose surgery was postponed without being rescheduled during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Patients and methodsFrom the March 1 to April 26, 2020, major urologic surgeries were drastically reduced at our tertiary-care referral hospital. In order to evaluate health-related quality-of-life outcomes, the SF-36 questionnaire was sent to all patients scheduled for major surgery at our department 3 weeks after the cancellation of the planned surgical procedures because of the COVID-19 emergency.ResultsAll patients included in the analysis had been awaiting surgery for a median (interquartile range) time of 52.85 (35-72) days. The SF-36 questionnaire measured 8 domains: physical functioning (PF), role limitations due to physical health (PH), role limitations due to emotional problems (RE), energy/fatigue (EF), emotional well-being (EWB), social functioning (SF), bodily pain (BP), general health perceptions (GHP). When considering physical characteristics as measured by the SF-36 questionnaire, PF was 91.5 (50-100) and PH was 82.75 (50-100) with a BP of 79.56 (45-90). For emotional and social aspects, RE was 36.83 (0-100) with a SF of 37.98 (12.5-90). Most patients reported loss of energy (EF 35.28 [15-55]) and increased anxiety (EWB 47.18 [interquartile range, 20-75]). All patients perceived a reduction of their health conditions, with GHP of 49.47 (15-85). Generally, 86% of patients (n = 43) noted an almost intact physical function but a significant emotional alteration characterized by a prevalence of anxiety and loss of energy.ConclusionThe lockdown due to the novel coronavirus that has affected most operating rooms in Italy could be responsible for the increased anxiety and decrement in health status of oncologic patients. Without any effective solution, we should expect a new medical catastrophe-one caused by the increased risk of tumor progression and mortality in uro-oncologic patients.
| S-EPMC7366083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDuring 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 methodsThis 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.ResultsDuring 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.ConclusionsonclusionsOur 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.
| S-EPMC7832928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a potentially fatal disease that is of great global public health concern.ObjectiveWe explored the clinical management of inpatients with COVID-19 in Italy.MethodsA self-administered survey was sent by email to Italian physicians caring for adult patients with COVID-19. A panel of experts was selected according to their clinical curricula and their responses were analyzed.ResultsA total of 1,215 physicians completed the survey questionnaire (17.4% response rate). Of these, 188 (15.5%) were COVID-19 experts. Chest computed tomography was the most used method to detect and monitor COVID-19 pneumonia. Most of the experts managed acute respiratory failure with CPAP (56.4%), high flow nasal cannula (18.6%), and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (8%), while an intensivist referral for early intubation was requested in 17% of the cases. Hydroxychloroquine was prescribed as an antiviral in 90% of cases, both as monotherapy (11.7%), and combined with protease inhibitors (43.6%) or azithromycin (36.2%). The experts unanimously prescribed low-molecular-weight heparin to patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, and half of them (51.6%) used a dose higher than standard. The respiratory burden in patients who survived the acute phase was estimated as relevant in 28.2% of the cases, modest in 39.4%, and negligible in 9%.ConclusionsIn our survey some major topics, such as the role of non-invasive respiratory support and drug treatments, show disagreement between experts, likely reflecting the absence of high-quality evidence studies. Considering the significant respiratory sequelae reported following COVID-19, proper respiratory and physical therapy programs should be promptly made available.
| S-EPMC7949238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient Blood Management (PBM) is a systematic quality improving clinical model to reduce anemia and avoid transfusions in all kinds of clinical settings. Here, we investigated the potential of PBM in oncologic surgery and hypothesized that PBM improves 2-year overall survival (OS).MethodsRetrospective analysis of patients 2 years before and after PBM implementation. The primary endpoint was OS at 2 years after surgery. We identified a sample size of 824 to detect a 10% improvement in survival in the PBM group.ResultsThe analysis comprised of 836 patients that underwent oncologic surgery, 389 before and 447 after PBM, was implemented. Patients in the PBM+ presented significantly more frequent with normal hemoglobin values before surgery than PBM- (56.6 vs. 35.7%; p < 0.001). The number of transfusions was significantly reduced from 5.5 ± 11.1 to 3.0 ± 6.9 units/patient (p < 0.001); moreover, the percentage of patients being transfused during the clinic stay was significantly reduced from 62.4 to 40.9% (p < 0.001). Two-year OS was significantly better in the PBM+ and increased from 67.0 to 80.1% (p = 0.001). A normal hemoglobin value (> 12 g/dl in female and > 13 g/dl in male) before surgery (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.65, p < 0.001) was the only independent predictive factor positively affecting survival.ConclusionsPBM is a quality improvement tool that is associated with better mid-term surgical oncologic outcome. The root cause for improvement is the increase of patients entering surgery with normal hemoglobin values.
| S-EPMC6081799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect upon the National Health Service (NHS). Like other specialties, Interventional Radiology (IR) rapidly adapted to the evolving situation. Members of BSIR were surveyed to obtain a snapshot of the experiences of UK IRs in response to COVID-19. An electronic survey was compiled using Google Forms, approved by the BSIR Council Officers and distributed to BSIR members by email on 18 th April 2020. A total of 228 responses were received. The survey was open for a 14-day period and the data analysed in Microsoft Excel 365. The response rate was 29% (228/800).ResultsTwo thirds of respondents work in a Tertiary unit and 33% deliver IR in a District Hospital. 84% have a day-case facility. After the COVID-19 crisis, 81% of respondents were able to maintain 24-7 On-call service. 59% of respondents had been required change their day to day practice to allow the on-call service to continue. 55% of respondents were involved in providing a central line service. Of those questioned, 91% continued to offer endovascular services, 98% genitourinary and 92% hepatobiliary services, although a degree of service reduction was described. 38% have provided IR trainees with additional training material during this pandemic.ConclusionsThis survey has confirmed that the responses of UK IR departments to the COVID-19 crisis have ensured vital on-call and urgent services have continued, including ongoing availability of most IR sub-specialties. Availability of a day case facility has possibly influenced the positive response.
| S-EPMC7317887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The sudden COVID-19 outbreak in Italy has challenged our health systems and doctors faced the challenge of treating a large number of critically ill patients in a short time interval. Acute care surgeons, although not directly involved in treating COVID-19 + patients, have often modified their daily activity to help in this crisis. We have designed the first Italian survey on the effect of COVID-19 outbreak on Acute Care Surgery activity and submitted it to emergency surgeons in all the country to evaluate the experiences, trends, attitudes and possible educational outcomes that this emergency brought to light. A total of 532 valid surveys were collected during the study period. Lombardy and Lazio had the major answer rate. 96% of responders noticed a decrease in surgical emergencies. The outbreak affected regions and hospitals in different ways depending on the local incidence of infection. Half of responders modified their approach to intra-abdominal infections towards a more conservative treatment. 43% of responders, mainly in the North, were shifted to assist non-surgical patients. There has been a direct but non-homogeneous involvement of emergency surgeons. Almost all hospitals have responded with specific pathways and training. Both emergency surgery and trauma activity have changed and generally decreased but the majority of surgeons have operated on suspected COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7311859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to changes in global health care. Medical societies had to update guidelines and enhance new services such as video consultations. Cancer treatment had to be modified. The aim of this study is to ensure optimal care for cancer patients with the help of high-quality training even in times of crisis. We therefore conducted a nationwide survey of physicians in training in oncological disciplines during the pandemic to assess the impact on their education.MethodsThe survey was sent to tumour centres, hospitals, specialist societies, and working and junior research groups and distributed via newsletters and homepages. Interim results and a call for participation were published as a poster (DEGRO) [26] and in the German Cancer Society (DKG) journal FORUM [42]. The survey contained 53 questions on conditions of education and training and on clinical and scientific work. Statistics were carried out with LimeSurvey and SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).ResultsBetween February and November 2022, 450 participants answered the survey, with radio-oncologists being the largest group (28%). Most colleagues (63%) had access to digital training methods. Virtual sessions were rated as a good alternative, especially as multidisciplinary meetings (54%) as well as in-house and external training programs (48%, 47%). The time spent by training supervisors on education was rated as less than before the pandemic by 57%. Half of all participants perceived communication (54%), motivation (44%) and atmosphere (50%) in the team as bad. The participants felt strongly burdened by extra work (55%) and by a changed team atmosphere (49%). One third felt a change in the quality of training during the pandemic and rated it as negative (35%). According to 37% of the participants, this had little influence on their own quality of work. Additional subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in gender, specialty and education level.ConclusionIn order to improve oncology training in times of crisis, access to digital training options and meetings should be ensured. Participants wish for regular team meetings in person to enable good team spirit, compensation for overtime work and sufficient time for training supervisors for discussion and feedback.
| S-EPMC10449661 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9545500 | biostudies-literature