Delaying surgery for clinical T1b-T2bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma: Oncologic implications in the COVID-19 era and beyond.

PURPOSE: During COVID-19, many operating rooms were reserved exclusively for emergent cases. As a result, many elective surgeries for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were deferred, with an unknown impact on outcomes. Since surveillance is commonplace for small renal masses, we focused on larger, organ-confined RCCs. Our primary endpoint was pT3a upstaging and our secondary endpoint was overall survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively abstracted cT1b-T2bN0M0 RCC patients from the National Cancer Database, stratifying them by clinical stage and time from diagnosis to surgery. We selected only those patients who underwent surgery. Patients were grouped by having surgery within 1 month, 1-3 months, or >3 months after diagnosis. Logistic regression models measured pT3a upstaging risk. Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models assessed overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 29,746 patients underwent partial or radical nephrectomy. Delaying surgery >3 months after diagnosis did not confer pT3a upstaging risk among cT1b (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.77-1.05, P = 0.170), cT2a (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.69-1.19, P = 0.454), or cT2b (OR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.62-1.51, P = 0.873). In all clinical stage strata, nonclear cell RCCs were significantly less likely to be upstaged (P <0.001). A sensitivity analysis, performed for delays of <1, 1-3, 3-6, and >6 months, also showed no increase in upstaging risk. CONCLUSION: Delaying surgery up to, and even beyond, 3 months does not significantly increase risk of tumor progression in clinically localized RCC. However, if deciding to delay surgery due to COVID-19, tumor histology, growth kinetics, patient comorbidities, and hospital capacity/resources, should be considered.

Urologic oncology surgery during COVID-19: a rapid review of current triage guidance documents.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic placed urologic surgeons, and especially urologic oncologists, in an unprecedented situation. Providers and healthcare systems were forced to rapidly create triage schemas in order to preserve resources and reduce potential viral transmission while continuing to provide care for patients. We reviewed United States and international triage proposals from professional societies, peer-reviewed publications, and publicly available institutional guidelines to identify common themes and critical differences. To date, there are varying levels of agreement on the optimal triaging of urologic oncology cases. As the need to preserve resources and prevent viral transmission grows, prioritizing only high priority surgical cases is paramount. A similar approach to prioritization will also be needed as nonemergent cases are allowed to proceed in the coming weeks. While these decisions will often be made on a case-by-case basis, more nuanced surgeon-driven consensus guidelines are needed for the near future.