Definitive Management of Cervical Cancer Patients at an Urban Institution During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Brachytherapy Treatment During the Surge

Purpose: Locally advanced cervical cancer was defined by an international consensus panel as a high priority malignancy during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending prompt initiation of definitive treatment and completion of treatment (PMID 32563593). The objective of this study was to study the clinical outcomes of patients (pts) with cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) and brachytherapy (BT) at our institution in 2019 (pre-COVID) and in 2020 (peri-COVID). Material(s) and Method(s): This was a retrospective cohort study of pts with FIGO Stage IB2-IVA cervical cancer at our institutions from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020. Pts received CRT followed by intracavitary brachytherapy (IC) with two operative insertions one week apart, or interstitial (IS) BT with one operative insertion. BT treatment was planned using image-guided CT or MR delineation. Pre-COVID was defined by initiation of CRT in 1/2019-12/2019, and peri-COVID was defined by initiation in 1/2020-10/2020. Process changes peri-COVID included limited on-site staff (e.g., minimal OR staff, no trainees, remote physics team), universal implementation of COVID-19 testing prior to surgery, and CT instead of MR-delineation based treatment. Outcomes of interest were time to treatment initiation and completion and differences in treatment planning modality or dosimetry. Fisher's exact and Mann Whitney U tests were used with significance p<0.05. Result(s): Thirty-one pts were included, with 18 patients undergoing treatment pre-COVID and 13 peri-COVID. The median age at diagnosis pre-COVID was 57.7 (range 23-77) and for peri-COVID, 45.5 (range 28-62, p=0.06). There were no differences in non-English speaking pts (44% vs 59%, p=0.71) or uninsured pts (11% vs 33%, p=0.184) between the two cohorts. Median time to initiation of treatment from biopsy diagnosis was 52 days (range 13-209) in 2019 and for peri-COVID, 55.5 (range 20-173, p=0.71). During COVID, four pts had delayed initiation to treatment >100 days: two related to fertility, and one due to fear of COVID-19. For this pt, tumor size progressed from 2.3 cm to 4.2 cm maximal dimension. One pt treated in 2020 tested positive following treatment and did not require hospital admission. All pts except one completed CRT with RT: 25 pts pelvic RT (45 Gy), 3 pelvic and para-aortic RT (45 Gy with 57.5 Gy concomitant boost to nodes), 8 pts pelvic RT (45Gy) with sequential parametrial boost (50.4-59.4 Gy) using IMRT with no dose differences between pre and peri-COVID (Table 1). No pts required treatment breaks and the median overall treatment time was 50 days (range 31-85) in 2019 vs 50 days (range 43-63) in 2020 (p=0.710). Conclusion(s): Despite the significant burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on our health care system, all cervical cancer pts receiving CRT met standard of care including CRT and BT within the recommended time frame with no significant differences in dosimetric treatment parameters pre- and peri-COVID. Delays in treatment initiation of treatment initiation were seen in 30% of pts in the peri-COVID period, suggesting that patients may have had increased barriers to access care. More follow-up is needed to determine how the Covid pandemic impacted cervical cancer outcome measures. Copyright © 2022

PO40 Presentation Time: 4:45 PM: Definitive Management of Cervical Cancer Patients at an Urban Institution During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Brachytherapy Treatment During the Surge

Purpose: Locally advanced cervical cancer was defined by an international consensus panel as a high priority malignancy during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending prompt initiation of definitive treatment and completion of treatment (PMID 32563593). The objective of this study was to study the clinical outcomes of patients (pts) with cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) and brachytherapy (BT) at our institution in 2019 (pre-COVID) and in 2020 (peri-COVID). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of pts with FIGO Stage IB2-IVA cervical cancer at our institutions from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020. Pts received CRT followed by intracavitary brachytherapy (IC) with two operative insertions one week apart, or interstitial (IS) BT with one operative insertion. BT treatment was planned using image-guided CT or MR delineation. Pre-COVID was defined by initiation of CRT in 1/2019-12/2019, and peri-COVID was defined by initiation in 1/2020-10/2020. Process changes peri-COVID included limited on-site staff (e.g., minimal OR staff, no trainees, remote physics team), universal implementation of COVID-19 testing prior to surgery, and CT instead of MR-delineation based treatment. Outcomes of interest were time to treatment initiation and completion and differences in treatment planning modality or dosimetry. Fisher's exact and Mann Whitney U tests were used with significance p<0.05. Results: Thirty-one pts were included, with 18 patients undergoing treatment pre-COVID and 13 peri-COVID. The median age at diagnosis pre-COVID was 57.7 (range 23-77) and for peri-COVID, 45.5 (range 28-62, p=0.06). There were no differences in non-English speaking pts (44% vs 59%, p=0.71) or uninsured pts (11% vs 33%, p=0.184) between the two cohorts. Median time to initiation of treatment from biopsy diagnosis was 52 days (range 13-209) in 2019 and for peri-COVID, 55.5 (range 20-173, p=0.71). During COVID, four pts had delayed initiation to treatment >100 days: two related to fertility, and one due to fear of COVID-19. For this pt, tumor size progressed from 2.3 cm to 4.2 cm maximal dimension. One pt treated in 2020 tested positive following treatment and did not require hospital admission. All pts except one completed CRT with RT: 25 pts pelvic RT (45 Gy), 3 pelvic and para-aortic RT (45 Gy with 57.5 Gy concomitant boost to nodes), 8 pts pelvic RT (45Gy) with sequential parametrial boost (50.4-59.4 Gy) using IMRT with no dose differences between pre and peri-COVID (Table 1). No pts required treatment breaks and the median overall treatment time was 50 days (range 31-85) in 2019 vs 50 days (range 43-63) in 2020 (p=0.710). Conclusions: Despite the significant burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on our health care system, all cervical cancer pts receiving CRT met standard of care including CRT and BT within the recommended time frame with no significant differences in dosimetric treatment parameters pre- and peri-COVID. Delays in treatment initiation of treatment initiation were seen in 30% of pts in the peri-COVID period, suggesting that patients may have had increased barriers to access care. More follow-up is needed to determine how the Covid pandemic impacted cervical cancer outcome measures.

Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced/recurrent (AR) mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability–high or proficient/stable (dMMR/MSI-H or MMRp/MSS) endometrial cancer (EC) treated with dostarlimab in the GARNET study

Background: Dostarlimab is a programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor approved in the EU as a monotherapy in patients (pts) with dMMR/MSI-H AR EC that has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy;and in the US as a monotherapy in pts with dMMR AR EC that has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy or dMMR solid tumors that have progressed on or after prior treatment, with no satisfactory alternative treatment options. We report on PFS and OS in 2 expansion cohorts of the GARNET trial that enrolled pts with EC. Methods: GARNET is a multicenter, open-label, single-arm phase 1 study. Pts were assigned to cohort A1 (dMMR/MSI-H EC) or A2 (MMRp/MSS EC) based on local immunohistochemistry assessment. Pts received 500 mg of dostarlimab IV every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then 1000 mg every 6 weeks until disease progression, discontinuation, or withdrawal. PFS and OS are secondary efficacy endpoints. Results: 153 pts with dMMR/MSI-H and 161 pts with MMRp/MSS EC were enrolled and treated. The efficacy-evaluable population included 143 pts with dMMR/MSI-H EC and 156 pts with MMRp/MSS EC with measurable disease at baseline and ≥6 mo of follow-up. Median follow-up was 27.6 mo for dMMR/MSI-H and 33.0 mo for MMRp/MSS EC (Table). For pts with dMMR/MSI-H EC, median PFS (mPFS) was 6.0 mo, with 3-year estimated PFS rate of 40.1%. With 37.3% of pts experiencing an event, mOS was not reached;estimated 3-year OS was >50%. For pts with MMRp/MSS EC, mPFS was 2.7 mo. mOS was 16.9 mo with 68.9% of pts experiencing an event. Safety has been previously reported. [Formula presented] Conclusions: Dostarlimab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in dMMR/MSI-H and MMRp/MSS AR EC. dMMR/MSI-H was associated with longer PFS and OS than MMRp/MSS as expected. Clinical trial identification: NCT02715284. Editorial acknowledgement: Writing and editorial support, funded by GlaxoSmithKline (Waltham, MA, USA) and coordinated by Heather Ostendorff-Bach, PhD, of GlaxoSmithKline, was provided by Shannon Morgan-Pelosi, PhD, and Jennifer Robertson, PhD, of Ashfield MedComms, an Ashfield Health company (Middletown, CT, USA). Legal entity responsible for the study: GlaxoSmithKline. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline. Disclosure: A.V. Tinker: Financial Interests, Institutional, Sponsor/Funding: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: AstraZeneca, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline. B. Pothuri: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Atossa, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera, Elevar Therapeutics, Imab, Mersana, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Sutro Biopharma, Tora, GOG Partners;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Atossa, Deciphera, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, Imab, Merck, Mersana, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Toray;Financial Interests, Personal, Leadership Role: GOG Partners, NYOB Society Secretary, SGO Clinical Practice Committee Chair, SGO COVID-19 Taskforce Co-Chair. L. Gilbert: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Esperas, IMV, ImmunoGen Inc, Karyopharm, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Novocure GmbH, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Merck, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Eisai-Merck, GlaxoSmithKline. R. Sabatier: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: AstraZeneca, Eisai;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche;Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Other: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche. J. Brown: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Caris, Clovis, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding: GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech. S. Ghamande: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: GlaxoSmithKline;Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: Abbv e, Advaxis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda. C. Mathews: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Deciphera, Moderna, GSK, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: IMAB biopharma. D. O'Malley: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Tesaro/GSK, Immunogen, Ambry, Janssen/J&J, Abbvie, Regeneron, Amgen, Novocure, Genentech/Roche, GOGFoundation, Iovance, Eisai, Agenus, Merck, SeaGen, Novartis, Mersana, Clovis, Elevar, Takeda, Toray, INXMED, SDP Oncology (BBI), Arquer Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics MSA, Sorrento, Corcept Therapeutics, Celsion Corp;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding: AstraZeneca, Tesaro/GSK, Immunogen, Janssen/J&J, Abbvie, Regeneron, Amgen, Novocure, Genentech/Roche, VentiRx, Array Biopharma, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Ajinomoto Inc, Ludwig Cancer Research, Stemcentrx, Inc, Cerulean Pharma, GOGFoundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Serono Inc, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Yale University, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, INC Research, Inc, inVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance, PRA Intl, Eisai, Agenus, Merck, GenMab, SeaGen, Mersana, Clovis, SDP Oncology (BBI);Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Myriad Genetics, Tarveda. V. Boni: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: OncoArt, Guidepoint Global;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Solti;Financial Interests, Personal, Other: START, Loxo, IDEAYA Biosciences;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Loxo, Novartis, CytomX Therapeutics, Pumo Biotechnology, Kura Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Menarini, Synthon, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Lilly, Merus, Pfizer, Bayer, Incyte, Merus, Zenith Epigenetics, Genmab, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Adaptimmune, Alkermes, Amgen, Array BioPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, BioNTech AG, Boston Biomedical. A. Gravina: Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Gentili, Pfizer. S. Banerjee: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Amgen, Genmab, Immunogen, Mersana, Merck Sereno, MSD, Roche, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, GSK, Oncxerna;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Clovis, Pfizer, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, GSK, Takeda, Amgen, Medscape, Research to Practice, Peerview;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: PerciHealth;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: AstraZeneca, GSK, Tesaro;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator, Phase II clinical trial Global lead, ENGOTov60/GOG3052/RAMP201: Verastem;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator, ENGOT-GYN1/ATARI phase II international trial (academic sponsored): Astrazeneca;Non-Financial Interests, Advisory Role: Epsilogen;Non-Financial Interests, Other, Member of membership committee: ESGO;Non-Financial Interests, Advisory Role, Medical advisor to UK ovarian cancer charity: Ovacome Charity;Non-Financial Interests, Other, Received research funding from UK based charity I have provided medical advice (non-remunerated): Lady GardenFoundation Charity. R. Miller: Financial Interests, Personal, Other: AZD, Clovis Oncology, Ellipses, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Shionogi, AZD, GlaxoSmithKline;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: AZD, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Roche. J. Pikiel: Financial Interests, Personal, Other: Amgen, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche. M.R. Mirza: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Biocad, GSK, Karyopharm, Merck, Roche, Zailab;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: AstraZeneca, GSK, Karyopharm;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Karyopharm;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: GSK, AstraZeneca, ultimovacs, Apexigen;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Deciphera;Non-Financial Interests, Advisory Role: Ultimovacs, Apexigen. T. Duan: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. G. Antony: Financial Interests, Personal, Fu l or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. S. Zildjian: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. E. Zografos: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. J. Veneris: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: GlaxoSmithKline. A. Oaknin: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro, Merck Sharps & Dohme de España, SA, Agenus, Sutro, Corcept Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Novocure, prIME Oncology, Sattucklabs, Itheos, Eisai, F. Hoffmann-La Roche,;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel and accomodation: AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche;Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: Abbvie Deutschland, Advaxis Inc., Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Clovis Oncology Inc, EISAI limited LTD, F. Hoffmann –La Roche LTD, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen Inc, Merck, Sharp & Dohme de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc, PharmaMar SA, Tesaro Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb;Non-Financial Interests, Leadership Role, Executive Board member as a Co-Chair: GEICO;Non-Financial Interests, Leadership Role, Phase II Committee and Cervix Cancer Committee Representative on behalf of GEICO: GCIG;Non-Financial Interests, Officer, Chair of Gynaecological Track ESMO 2019. Scientific Track Member Gynaecological Cancers ESMO 2018, ESMO 2020, ESMO 2022. Member of Gynaecological Cancers Faculty and Subject Editor Gyn ESMO Guidelines.: ESMO;Non-Financial Interests, Member: ESMO, ASCO, GCIG, SEOM, GOG.

Frequency of germline testing after tumor sequencing by cancer type

Background: Tumor next generation sequencing (NGS) is used to identify somatic mutations. It can also identify potential germline mutations associated with cancer susceptibility. We aimed to describe the frequency of actionable tumor NGS results that met ESMO 2019 guidelines for germline genetic testing (GT), germline GT receipt and positive GT results in a large cancer cohort. Methods: Patients with tumor NGS from Sept 2019-Feb 2022 in a large health system in New York City were retrospectively identified. ESMO guidelines were used to identify potentially actionable germline mutations on NGS (Mandelker et al. 2019). Results: Of 3796 patients who underwent tumor NGS, 454 (12.0%) had at least one potential actionable germline mutation per ESMO guidelines. Cancer types with over 20% of patients whose tumor NGS results met ESMO criteria for germline GT included ampullary, ovarian, uterine, liver, skin, mesothelioma, and thyroid. The most common tumor mutations identified were BRCA2 [26.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 22.6-31.0], BRCA1 [14.1%, CI 11.0-17.6], MUTYH [9.9%, CI 7.3-13.0], MSH6 [7.9%, CI 5.6-10.8], and TSC2 [6.8%, CI 4.7-9.6]. Overall, 162 (35.7%) eligible patients per ESMO guidelines received germline GT, of which the most likely cancer types were ovarian (91.1%), pancreatic (66.7%), breast (58.3%), thyroid (50.0%), and uterine (46.9%) (Table). Of 162 patients who underwent germline GT, 98 (60.5%) had positive GT results with the most common cancer types being bone marrow (100%), esophageal (100%), ovarian (80.5%), pancreatic (66.7%) and lung (64.3%). Distribution of positive GT results was: 39 BRCA2;24 BRCA1;12 MUTYH;6 BRIP1;4 RAD51C;4 PALB2;3 MSH6;2 CHEK2;2 MSH2;2 RAD51D;and one each of SDHA, MLH1, NF1, PMS2. [Formula presented] Conclusions: Of 12% of patients who met ESMO criteria for germline GT, only 35% received GT and among those tested, 60% had a germline mutation. Mutations were prevalent across cancer types, highlighting the need for clinicians to know and implement society guidelines. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: B. Pothuri: Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Leadership Role, Clinical Practice Committee Chair, Board of Directors, COVID-19 Taskforce Co-chair: Society of Gynecologic Oncology;Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Leadership Role: Gynecologic Oncology Group;Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Leadership Role, Society Secretary: New York Obstetrical Society;Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Advisory Board, Advisory board consulting fee + clinical trial support at NYU: Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Sutro, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Mersana, Seattle Genetics, Toray;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Advisory board consulting fee, support for attending meetings: Gynecologic Oncology Group;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Advisory board consulting fee: Lilly, Atossa, Elevar, Deciphera, Imab, Arquer Diagnostics;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Bioascend, PERS, Vanium, OncLive;Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding, clinical trial support at NYU: Karyopharm, Immunogen, VBL Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Celsion, Takeda, Incyte. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Inflammatory markers in gynecologic oncology patients hospitalized with covid-19

Introduction Elevated inflammatory markers in COVID-19 infection are predictive of disease severity and mortality. It is unclear if these markers are associated with severe disease in patients with cancer due to underlying tumor related inflammation. We sought to further understand the inflammatory response related to COVID-19 in gynecologic cancer patients. Methods Patients with history of gynecologic cancer hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with available laboratory data were identified. Laboratory values at the time of hospital admission and clinical outcomes were abstracted from electronic medical records. Severe infection was defined as infection requiring ICU admission or resulting in death. Results 86 patients with gynecologic cancer were hospitalized with COVID-19 infection with median age of 68.5 years (interquartile range (IQR), 59.0 to 74.8 years). Of the 86 patients, 29 (33.7%) patients required ICU admission and 25 (29.1%) patients died of COVID-19 complications. There were 36 (41.9%) patients in remission and 50 (58.1%) had active disease. Patients with severe infection had significantly higher ferritin (median 1163.0, IQR 640.0-1967.0) and Creactive protein (CRP) (median 142.0, IQR 62.5-217.1) levels than those with non-severe disease (median 624.0, IQR 269.7-954.0, P=0.01;median 62.3, IQR 13.0-159.1, P=0.02 respectively) (table 1). White blood cell count, absolute neutrophil count, and lactate were also associated with severe disease. Procalcitonin and D-Dimer levels were not significantly associated with severe disease (P=0.2;P=0.7 respectively). Conclusion/Implications Inflammatory markers (ferritin and CRP) in gynecologic cancer patients are associated with COVID-19 severity and can be used as prognostic markers at the time of admission.

When to Operate, Hesitate and Reintegrate: Society of Gynecologic Oncology Surgical Considerations During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged our abilities to provide timely surgical care for patients, including women with gynecologic cancer. In March 2020, the American College of Surgeons, The US Surgeon General, and many medical and surgical academic societies recommended postponing elective surgical interventions. Recognizing that the pandemic may occur in waves, special considerations should be made for appropriate indications for surgical intervention in the setting of strained resources and personnel to meet surgical demand and prioritize excellent patient care. The purpose of this white paper is to highlight all phases of gynecologic cancer surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic and to illustrate when it is best to operate, to hesitate, and reintegrate surgery. Regarding prioritization, patients should be counseled on risks of surgical delay versus in-hospital or community-acquired COVID-19 exposure in the perioperative setting. Patients should be informed that surgical prioritization is based on (1) local projected resources, (2) disease prevalence, (3) patient and tumor characteristics, and (4) expected outcomes from delays. Several prioritization algorithms have been developed that take into account disease characteristics, patient comorbidities, available personal protective equipment, length of hospital stay, local COVID-10 prevalence, and more. Most oncological procedures have been classified as semiurgent, with a high priority tier 3 designation (second to emergent cases and trauma). Published literature demonstrates that most women with newly diagnosed gynecologic cancer are unlikely to be impacted by a few weeks surgical delay. Those with malignancies with a propensity for metastasis or advanced stage ovarian and uterine malignancies that require interval cytoreduction should be prioritized when possible. For mitigation of complications before, during, and after surgery, patients should be educated on recommendations for social distancing, hand hygiene, and personal protective equipment such as face masks. Providers should abide by similar recommendations and use eye protection in the ambulatory and inpatient settings. N95 respirators or powered air-purifying respirators are recommended in the care of suspected or known COVID-19 patients. Clinical screening should be done at multiple points, COVID-19 testing should be done preoperatively, and a positive test result should delay surgery until asymptomatic formore than 14 days. Safety protocols are critical during procedural intubation and extubation, as this is themost hazardous aspect of surgery in a COVID-19-positive/unknown patient. Open surgery should not be considered safer than minimally invasive surgery. Practitioners for whom the risk of severe disease and death is highest should avoid participating in the surgical care of known COVID-19-positive patients, if possible. Telemedicine should be incorporated to limit provider and patient exposure in the postoperative setting. Virtual platforms have also demonstrated efficacy in virtual rounding as well as patient care settings to involve family members in treatment planning and discussions around diagnosis. Platforms emphasizing enhanced recovery time and same-day discharge should be prioritized, and measures should be taken to reduce delirium risk given lack of patient visitors. Reintegration efforts should focus on systematically prioritizing the nonurgent cases that were initially delayed. Surgical restrictions are likely to continue for some time, and institutional and departmental leadership will be paramount to optimize surgical manpower, support operative personnel, and use hospital resources equitably and responsibly.