Trends in Treatment of Colorectal Cancer and Short-term Outcomes During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Sweden.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a large impact on health care systems, not least the treatment of malignant diseases, including colorectal cancer. Objective: To investigate the treatment of colorectal cancer and short-term outcomes during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the year before. Design, Setting, and Participants: This register-based cohort study used information from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry during the years 2020 and 2019. Patients were from the Stockholm-Gotland region, 1 of 6 health care regions in Sweden, with approximately one-fifth of the country's population and 8 hospitals. All patients with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer from March 1 to August 31, 2019, and March 1 to August 31, 2020, were eligible. Data were analyzed from May to June 2021. Exposures: Diagnosis of colorectal cancer during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study aimed to compare the number of patients, time to surgery, operation methods, short-term complications, and residents' involvement in surgical practice between 2019 and 2020. Subanalyses were conducted for colon and rectal cancer. Results: A total of 1140 patients (583 men [51%]; median [IQR] age, 74 [26-99] years in 2019 and 73 [24-96] years in 2020) were enrolled. Fewer patients received a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in March through August 2020 compared with the same months in 2019 (550 vs 590 patients). Overall, patient characteristics were similar, but pretherapeutic tumor stage was more advanced in 2020 compared with 2019, with an increased proportion of T4 tumors (30% [172 patients] vs 22% [132 patients]; χ23 = 21.1; P < .001). The proportion of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, time to surgery, and 30-day complications were similar, but the proportion of patients treated with ostomy almost doubled between 2019 and 2020, from 17% (53 patients) to 30% (96 patients) (absolute risk, 13.0%; 95% CI, 6.8% to 20.0%). Residents participated in fewer resections in 2020 than in 2019 (35% [108 patients] vs 27% [83 patients]; absolute risk, -7.90%; 95% CI, -15.00% to -0.55%). On the other hand, the treatment and outcomes for rectal cancer were comparable between the years. Significantly more patients were transferred to the nonemergency, COVID-free hospital in the region in 2020. Conclusions and Relevance: In this Swedish register-based cohort study of patients who received a diagnosis of colorectal cancer during the most intense period of the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant increase in ostomy formation for patients with colon cancer and a lower participation of residents during surgery were observed. These changes most likely were aimed at reducing complications and intensive care unit care.

Colon cancer treatment in Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic: A nationwide register-based study.

AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has reduced the capacity to diagnose and treat cancer worldwide due to the prioritization of COVID-19 treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate treatment and outcomes of colon cancer in Sweden before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In an observational study, using the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry, we included (i) all Swedish patients diagnosed with colon cancer, and (ii) all patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer, in 2016-2020. Incidence of colon cancer, treatments and outcomes in 2020 were compared with 2019. RESULTS: The number of colon cancer cases in Sweden in April-May 2020 was 27% lower than the previous year, whereas no difference was observed on an annual level (4,589 vs. 4,763 patients [-4%]). Among patients with colon cancer undergoing surgery in 2020, the proportion of resections was 93 vs. 94% in 2019, with no increase in acute resections. Time from diagnosis to elective surgery decreased (29 days vs. 33 days in 2020 vs. 2019). In 2020, more patients underwent a two-stage procedure with a diverting stoma as first surgery (6.1%) vs. (4.4%) in 2019 (p = 0.0020) and more patients were treated with preoperative chemotherapy (5.1%) vs. (3,5%) 2019 (p = 0.0016). The proportion of patients that underwent laparoscopic surgery increased from 54% to 58% (p = 0.0017) There were no differences in length of stay, surgical complications, reoperation, ICU-stay or 30-day mortality between the years. CONCLUSION: Based on nationwide annual data, we did not observe adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on colon cancer treatment and short time outcomes in Sweden.

An observational study of intermediate- or high-dose thromboprophylaxis for critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill COVID-19 patients have a high reported incidence of thromboembolic complications and the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis is not yet determined. The aim of this study was to investigate if 90-day mortality differed between patients treated with intermediate- or high-dose thromboprophylaxis. METHOD: In this retrospective study, all critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care from March 6th until July 15th, 2020, were eligible. Patients were categorized into groups according to daily dose of thromboprophylaxis. Dosing was based on local standardized recommendations, not on degree of critical illness or risk of thrombosis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios of death within 90 days from ICU admission. Multivariable models were adjusted for sex, age, body-mass index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score III, invasive respiratory support, glucocorticoids, and dosing strategy of thromboprophylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included; 92 intermediate- and 73 high-dose thromboprophylaxis. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. The 90-day mortality was 19.6% in patients with intermediate-dose and 19.2% in patients with high-dose thromboprophylaxis. Multivariable hazard ratio of death within 90 days was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.36-1.53) for the high-dose group compared to intermediate-dose group. Multivariable hazard ratio for thromboembolic events and bleedings within 28 days was 0.93 (95% CI 0.37-2.29) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.28-2.54) for high versus intermediate dose, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A difference in 90-day mortality between intermediate- and high-dose thromboprophylaxis could neither be confirmed nor rejected due to a small sample size.

Central pulmonary embolism in patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to evaluate central pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with Covid-19. The association with severe radiological pulmonary changes, prophylactic anticoagulation and ICU care was assessed. METHODS: From 1 March until 31 May 2020, all in-hospital patients with a positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2-RNA and PE diagnosed with computed tomography pulmonary angiography were identified through diagnostic codes in medical charts. PE was characterised as central/peripheral and unilateral/bilateral. Covid-19 related lung changes were evaluated scoring the proportion of affected lung (max-score score 25) for all five lobes in both lungs. ICU and non-ICU patients were included and anticoagulant regimens were assessed. RESULTS: Of 1162 patients with Covid-19, 41 were diagnosed with PE (cumulative incidence 3.5%), and of these 63.4% (=overall 2.2%) had central PE. PE on admission was present in 46.3%. No differences were seen in the distribution of central vs. peripheral PE in relation to prophylactic anticoagulation (p=.317). Of ICU patients 82.4% were diagnosed with central PE compared to 50.0% among non-ICU patients (p=.05). No association was observed between the presence of central PE and the extent of radiological Covid-19 changes (p=.451). Mild (0-12 p) and severe (13-25 p) pulmonary changes were seen in 63.4% and 36.6% of patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, and especially in ICU-patients, a high proportion of central PE was seen and many were diagnosed at admission. No association between central PE and prophylactic anticoagulation, or the extent of pulmonary Covid-19 changes was observed.

Dosing of thromboprophylaxis and mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of critically ill COVID-19 patients develop thromboembolic complications, but it is unclear whether higher doses of thromboprophylaxis are associated with lower mortality rates. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the association between initial dosing strategy of thromboprophylaxis in critically ill COVID-19 patients and the risk of death, thromboembolism, and bleeding. METHOD: In this retrospective study, all critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to two intensive care units in March and April 2020 were eligible. Patients were categorized into three groups according to initial daily dose of thromboprophylaxis: low (2500-4500 IU tinzaparin or 2500-5000 IU dalteparin), medium (> 4500 IU but < 175 IU/kilogram, kg, of body weight tinzaparin or > 5000 IU but < 200 IU/kg of body weight dalteparin), and high dose (≥ 175 IU/kg of body weight tinzaparin or ≥ 200 IU/kg of body weight dalteparin). Thromboprophylaxis dosage was based on local standardized recommendations, not on degree of critical illness or risk of thrombosis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals of death within 28 days from ICU admission. Multivariable models were adjusted for sex, age, body mass index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score III, invasive respiratory support, and initial dosing strategy of thromboprophylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included: 67 received low-, 48 medium-, and 37 high-dose thromboprophylaxis. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. For patients who received high-dose prophylaxis, mortality was lower (13.5%) compared to those who received medium dose (25.0%) or low dose (38.8%), p = 0.02. The hazard ratio of death was 0.33 (95% confidence intervals 0.13-0.87) among those who received high dose, and 0.88 (95% confidence intervals 0.43-1.83) among those who received medium dose, as compared to those who received low-dose thromboprophylaxis. There were fewer thromboembolic events in the high (2.7%) vs medium (18.8%) and low-dose thromboprophylaxis (17.9%) groups, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, high-dose thromboprophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of death and a lower cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events compared with lower doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04412304 June 2, 2020, retrospectively registered.