Limited disease progression in endocrine surgery patients with treatment delays due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted the delivery of care and timing of elective surgical procedures. Most endocrine-related operations were considered elective and safe to postpone, providing a unique opportunity to assess clinical outcomes under protracted treatment plans. METHODS: American Association of Endocrine Surgeon members were surveyed for participation. A Research Electronic Data Capture survey was developed and distributed to 27 institutions to assess the impact of COVID-19-related delays. The information collected included patient demographics, primary diagnosis, resumption of care, and assessment of disease progression by the surgeon. RESULTS: Twelve out of 27 institutions completed the survey (44.4%). Of 850 patients, 74.8% (636) were female; median age was 56 (interquartile range, 44-66) years. Forty percent (34) of patients had not been seen since their original surgical appointment was delayed; 86.2% (733) of patients had a delay in care with women more likely to have a delay (87.6% vs 82.2% of men, χ2 = 3.84, P = .05). Median duration of delay was 70 (interquartile range, 42-118) days. Among patients with a delay in care, primary disease site included thyroid (54.2%), parathyroid (37.2%), adrenal (6.5%), and pancreatic/gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (1.3%). In addition, 4.0% (26) of patients experienced disease progression and 4.1% (24) had a change from the initial operative plan. The duration of delay was not associated with disease progression (P = .96) or a change in operative plan (P = .66). CONCLUSION: Although some patients experienced disease progression during COVID-19 delays to endocrine disease-related care, most patients with follow-up did not. Our analysis indicated that temporary delay may be an acceptable course of action in extreme circumstances for most endocrine-related surgical disease.

Analyzing the adoption of radiofrequency ablation of thyroid nodules using the diffusion of innovations theory: understanding where we are in the United States?

Thyroid nodules are very common and found in up to 68% of the general U.S. population on ultrasound. Although thyroidectomy has long been the mainstay of treatment for malignant and symptomatic benign thyroid nodules, various interventional ablative techniques have emerged in the last couple of decades as alternative non-surgical treatment options. Globally, the most widely adopted technique has been ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA). RFA of thyroid nodules was first performed in 2002, and there has been an expanding body of evidence since 2006 showing that RFA and other interventional ablative techniques are effective treatments for benign solid thyroid nodules, toxic adenomas, and thyroid cysts. More recently, evidence has emerged that these techniques may be effective treatment for low-risk thyroid cancer and recurrent disease. Despite these findings, the United States has been slow to adopt these techniques, with only a single publication on RFA more than a decade after the first series was published. EM Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory provides us the appropriate lens to carefully analyze the process of adoption of RFA for thyroid nodules-to understand where we are currently, as well as, the important next steps that must be accomplished in order for RFA and other ablative techniques to be successfully adopted into the management algorithm of thyroid nodules in the United States.

Ethanol ablation for the treatment of benign thyroid nodules.

BACKGROUND: Ethanol ablation (EA) is a non-surgical option for the treatment of benign cystic thyroid nodules. This study summarizes our preliminary experience with the efficacy and safety of EA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients undergoing EA for symptomatic, benign, cystic and predominantly cystic (≥75%) thyroid nodules. Baseline nodule volume, cosmetic scores, and symptom scores were assessed, as well as volume reduction ratio (VRR), cosmetic and symptom scores at post-procedure months 1, 3, 6, and 12. RESULTS: 31 patients underwent an uncomplicated EA for a single cyst with an average volume of 21.3 cc (range: 1.7-101.4 cc). Follow-up was limited by the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean nodule VRRs were 66 ± 20% (1 m, n = 17), 87 ± 15% (3 m, n = 9), 72 ± 20% (6 m, n = 7), and 78% (12 m, n = 3). Mean symptom and cosmetic scores decreased concurrently post-procedure. CONCLUSION: EA is a safe, effective option for benign cystic and predominantly cystic thyroid nodules.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of endocrine surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on endocrine surgeons. METHODS: A survey on the professional, educational, and clinical impact was sent to active and corresponding members of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES) in September 2020. Chi-square and paired t-test were used for analysis. RESULTS: 77 surgeons responded (14.8 %). All reported suspension of elective surgeries; 37.7 % were reassigned to other duties during this time. The median number of cases backlogged was 30 (IQR 15-50). Most surgeons reported decreased clinical volume (74.6 %). The use of virtual platforms for clinical and educational purposes increased from pre-COVID-19 levels (all p < 0.001). Use of in-office procedures (p < 0.001) and length of observation prior to discharge for thyroid surgery (p < 0.05) decreased. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to suspension of operations and decreased practice volume for endocrine surgeons. Surgeons increased use of virtual platforms, decreased in-office procedures, and decreased duration of observation for thyroid surgery in response.

Perspectives on virtual interviews-A follow-up study of the Comprehensive Endocrine Surgery Fellowship interview process.

BACKGROUND: The American Association of Endocrine Surgeons Comprehensive Endocrine Surgery Fellowship interview stakeholders previously favored in-person interviews, despite time and expense. This study assessed perception changes given mandated virtual interviews because of coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: Immediately after the 2020 Match, anonymous surveys were distributed to applicants (n = 37) and program directors (n = 22). Mixed-methods analyses were used to evaluate responses. Results were compared to data from a prior study of the 2013 to 2018 in-person interview process. RESULTS: Response rates were 82% (program directors) and 60% (applicants). Compared with prior applicants, 2020 applicants attended similar numbers of interviews (1-10, 32% vs 37%; P = .61), used fewer vacation days (23% vs 56%; P = .01), and most reported 0 expenses. Burdens included lack of protected time for interviews. The virtual format did not compromise applicant ability to meet faculty (mean rank = 6.8/10) or make favorable impressions (mean rank = 6.8/10). Program directors reported equivalent or improved assessments of applicants. Program directors (72%) and applicants (77%) indicated that future interviews should be partially or completely virtual. CONCLUSION: In contrast to prior survey data, applicants and program directors now express interest in virtual or hybrid interview processes. Virtual interviews were less costly, less time-consuming, and met goals effectively. Integrating virtual interview components will require innovative strategies to reduce redundancies and promote equitable access.