A systematic review and meta-analysis on delaying surgery for urothelial carcinoma of bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Implications for the COVID19 pandemic and beyond

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has led to competing strains on hospital resources and healthcare personnel. Patients with newly diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinomas of bladder (UCB) upper tract (UTUC) may experience delays to definitive radical cystectomy (RC) or radical nephro-ureterectomy (RNU) respectively. We evaluate the impact of delaying definitive surgery on survival outcomes for invasive UCB and UTUC. Methods We searched for all studies investigating delayed urologic cancer surgery in Medline and Embase up to June 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Results We identified a total of 30 studies with 32,591 patients. Across 13 studies (n = 12,201), a delay from diagnosis of bladder cancer/TURBT to RC was associated with poorer overall survival (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.09–1.45, p = 0.002). For patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC, across the 5 studies (n = 4,316 patients), a delay between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy was not found to be significantly associated with overall survival (pooled HR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.96–1.94, p = 0.08). For UTUC, 6 studies (n = 4,629) found that delay between diagnosis of UTUC to RNU was associated with poorer overall survival (pooled HR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19–2.02, p = 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (pooled HR of 2.56, 95% CI: 1.50–4.37, p = 0.001). Limitations included between-study heterogeneity, particularly in the definitions of delay cut-off periods between diagnosis to surgery. Conclusions A delay from diagnosis of UCB or UTUC to definitive RC or RNU was associated with poorer survival outcomes. This was not the case for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Delayed surgery for localised and metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation or deferment of many elective cancer surgeries. We performed a systematic review on the oncological effects of delayed surgery for patients with localised or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the targeted therapy (TT) era. METHOD: The protocol of this review is registered on PROSPERO(CRD42020190882). A comprehensive literature search was performed on Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using MeSH terms and keywords for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. Risks of biases were assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For localised RCC, immediate surgery [including partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN)] and delayed surgery [including active surveillance (AS) and delayed intervention (DI)] were compared. For metastatic RCC, upfront versus deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) were compared. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included for quantitative analysis. Delayed surgery was significantly associated with worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23-2.27, p < 0.01) in T1a RCC, but no significant difference was noted for overall survival. For localised ≥ T1b RCC, there were insufficient data for meta-analysis and the results from the individual reports were contradictory. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN was associated with better overall survival when compared to upfront CN followed by deferred TT (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.86, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Noting potential selection bias, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that delayed surgery is safe in localised RCC. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN should be considered.

Urology practice during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

INTRODUCTION: The current scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic is significantly different from that of the first, emergency phase. Several countries in the world are experiencing a second, or even a third, wave of contagion, while awaiting the effects of mass vaccination campaigns. The aim of this report was to provide an update of previously released recommendations on prioritization and restructuring of urological activities. METHODS: A large group of Italian urologists directly involved in the reorganization of their urological wards during the first and second phase of the pandemic agreed on a set of updated recommendations for current urology practice. RESULTS: The updated recommendations included strategies for the prioritization of both surgical and outpatient activities, implementation of perioperative pathways for patients scheduled for elective surgery, management of urological conditions in infected patients. Future scenarios with possible implementation of telehealth and reshaping of clinical practice following the effects of vaccination are also discussed. CONCLUSION: The present update may be a valid tool to be used in the clinical practice, may provide useful recommendations for national and international urological societies, and may be a cornerstone for further discussion on the topic, also considering further evolution of the pandemic after the recently initiated mass vaccination campaigns.

Traditional and Virtual Congress Meetings During the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Post-COVID-19 Era: Is it Time to Change the Paradigm?

The speed and reach of the COVID-19 pandemic have forced rapid changes in how we conduct medical practice and research. The rapid evolution in how scientific meetings are conducted may have long-term benefits. A new reality in which technology and sociality are merged may offer a more engaging and adaptable scientific congress experience with more flexible and dynamic use of content modulated to the needs of each attendee.

Clinical pathways for urology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The public health emergency caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a significant reallocation of health resources with a consequent reorganization of the clinical activities also in several urological centers. A panel of Italian urologists has agreed on a set of recommendations on pathways of pre-, intra- and post-operative care for urological patients undergoing urgent procedures or non-deferrable oncological interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Simplification of the diagnostic and staging pathway has to be prioritized in order to reduce hospital visits and consequently the risk of contagion. In absence of strict uniform regulations that impose the implementation of nasopharyngeal swabs, we recommend that an accurate triage for COVID-19 symptoms be performed both by telephone at home before hospitalization and at the time of hospitalization. We recommend that during hospital stay patients should be provided with as many instructions as possible to facilitate their return to, and stay at, home. Patients should be discharged under stable good conditions in order to minimize the risk of readmission. It is advisable to reduce or reschedule post-discharge controls and implement an adequate system of communication for telemonitoring discharged patients.

Telehealth in Urology: A Systematic Review of the Literature. How Much Can Telemedicine Be Useful During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic?

CONTEXT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused increased interest in the application of telehealth to provide care without exposing patients and physicians to the risk of contagion. The urological literature on the topic is sparse. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature and evaluate all the available studies on urological applications of telehealth. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: After registration on PROSPERO, we searched PubMed and Scopus databases to collect any kind of studies evaluating any telehealth interventions in any urological conditions. The National Toxicology Program/Office of Health Assessment and Translation Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies was used to estimate the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 45 studies (11 concerning prostate cancer [PCa], three hematuria management, six urinary stones, 14 urinary incontinence [UI], five urinary tract infections [UTIs], and six other conditions), including 12 randomized controlled trials. The available literature indicates that telemedicine has been implemented successfully in several common clinical scenarios, including the decision-making process following a diagnosis of nonmetastatic PCa, follow-up care of patients with localized PCa after curative treatments, initial diagnosis of hematuria, management diagnosis and follow-up care of uncomplicated urinary stones and uncomplicated UTIs, and initial evaluation, behavioral therapies, and pelvic floor muscle training in UI patients, as well as follow-up care after surgical treatments of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. The methodological quality of most of the reports was good. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth has been implemented successfully in selected patients with PCa, UI, pelvic organ prolapse, uncomplicated urinary stones, and UTIs. Many urological conditions are suitable for telehealth, but more studies are needed on other highly prevalent urological malignant and benign conditions. Likely, the COVID-19 pandemic will give a significant boost to the use of telemedicine. More robust data on long-term efficacy, safety, and health economics are necessary. PATIENT SUMMARY: The diffusion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections has recently increased the interest in telehealth, which is the adoption of telecommunication to deliver any health care activity. The available literature indicates that telemedicine has been adopted successfully in selected patients with several common clinical urological conditions, including prostate cancer, uncomplicated urinary stones, uncomplicated urinary infections, urinary incontinence, or pelvic organ prolapse. Likely, the COVID-19 pandemic will give a significant boost to the use of telemedicine, but more robust data on long-term efficacy, safety, and costs are necessary.

Risk of Virus Contamination Through Surgical Smoke During Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature on a Neglected Issue Revived in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era.

CONTEXT: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raised concerns about the safety of laparoscopy due to the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diffusion in surgical smoke. Although no case of SARS-CoV-2 contagion related to surgical smoke has been reported, several international surgical societies recommended caution or even discouraged the use of a laparoscopic approach. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of virus spread due to surgical smoke during surgical procedures. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched PubMed and Scopus for eligible studies, including clinical and preclinical studies assessing the presence of any virus in the surgical smoke from any surgical procedure or experimental model. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 24 studies. No study was found investigating SARS-CoV-2 or any other coronavirus. About other viruses, hepatitis B virus was identified in the surgical smoke collected during different laparoscopic surgeries (colorectal resections, gastrectomies, and hepatic wedge resections). Other clinical studies suggested a consistent risk of transmission for human papillomavirus (HPV) in the surgical treatments of HPV-related disease (mainly genital warts, laryngeal papillomas, or cutaneous lesions). Preclinical studies showed conflicting results, but HPV was shown to have a high risk of transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Although all the available data come from different viruses, considering that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been shown in blood and stools, the theoretical risk of virus diffusion through surgical smoke cannot be excluded. Specific clinical studies are needed to understand the effective presence of the virus in the surgical smoke of different surgical procedures and its concentration. Meanwhile, adoption of all the required protective strategies, including preoperative patient nasopharyngeal swab for COVID-19, seems mandatory. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this systematic review, we looked at the risk of virus spread from surgical smoke exposure during surgery. Although no study was found investigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or any other coronavirus, we found that the theoretical risk of virus diffusion through surgical smoke cannot be excluded.

Forecasting the Future of Urology Practice: A Comprehensive Review of the Recommendations by International and European Associations on Priority Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: The unprecedented health care scenario caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has revolutionized urology practice worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To review the recommendations by the international and European national urological associations/societies (UASs) on prioritization strategies for both oncological and nononcological procedures released during the current emergency scenario. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Each UAS official website was searched between April 8 and 18, 2020, to retrieve any document, publication, or position paper on prioritization strategies regarding both diagnostic and therapeutic urological procedures, and any recommendations on the use of telemedicine and minimally invasive surgery. We collected detailed information on all urological procedures, stratified by disease, priority (higher vs lower), and patient setting (outpatient vs inpatient). Then, we critically discussed the implications of such recommendations for urology practice in both the forthcoming "adaptive" and the future "chronic" phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, we analyzed the recommendations from 13 UASs, of which four were international (American Urological Association, Confederation Americana de Urologia, European Association of Urology, and Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand) and nine national (from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the UK). In the outpatient setting, the procedures that are likely to impact the future burden of urologists' workload most are prostate biopsies and elective procedures for benign conditions. In the inpatient setting, the most relevant contributors to this burden are represented by elective surgeries for lower-risk prostate and renal cancers, nonobstructing stone disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Finally, some UASs recommended special precautions to perform minimally invasive surgery, while others outlined the potential role of telemedicine to optimize resources in the current and future scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: The expected changes will put significant strain on urological units worldwide regarding the overall workload of urologists, internal logistics, inflow of surgical patients, and waiting lists. In light of these predictions, urologists should strive to leverage this emergency period to reshape their role in the future. PATIENT SUMMARY: Overall, there was a large consensus among different urological associations/societies regarding the prioritization of most urological procedures, including those in the outpatient setting, urological emergencies, and many inpatient surgeries for both oncological and nononcological conditions. On the contrary, some differences were found regarding specific cancer surgeries (ie, radical cystectomy for higher-risk bladder cancer and nephrectomy for larger organ-confined renal masses), potentially due to different prioritization criteria and/or health care contexts. In the future, the outpatient procedures that are likely to impact the burden of urologists' workload most are prostate biopsies and elective procedures for benign conditions. In the inpatient setting, the most relevant contributors to this burden are represented by elective surgeries for lower-risk prostate and renal cancers, nonobstructing stone disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Urology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the disease it causes, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is generating a rapid and tragic health emergency in Italy due to the need to provide assistance to an overwhelming number of infected patients and, at the same time, treat all the non-deferrable oncological and benign conditions. A panel of Italian urologists has agreed on possible strategies for the reorganization of urological routine practice and on a set of recommendations that should facilitate the process of rescheduling both surgical and outpatient activities during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the subsequent phases. This document could be a valid tool to be used in routine clinical practice and, possibly, a cornerstone for further discussion on the topic also considering the further evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also may provide useful recommendations for national and international urological societies in a condition of emergency.