Diagnostic yield and costs associated with a routine pre-operative COVID-19 testing algorithm for asymptomatic patients prior to elective surgery

Objectives: Infection with COVID-19 presents known and unknown perioperative risks to the patient and operative staff. Pre-operative testing protocols have become widespread, yet little is known about the utility of this practice in asymptomatic patients undergoing elective surgery. We describe the impact and cost of a routine testing protocol on elective surgical procedures in a retrospective series at a single institution. Methods: Standardized pre-operative COVID-19 testing in all surgical patients was implemented in May 2020. Health system protocol required testing 3 to 5 days before all elective surgery. Data stratified by surgical specialty were collected over the initial 90-day period and disposition over a period of 6-months was assessed for all positive and indeterminate results. Results: Thirty-one (0.41%) positive results amongst 7579 pre-procedural tests, including 3 of 792 (0.38%) for urologic procedures, were noted in asymptomatic patients. Following a positive test, 20 procedures (62.5%) were delayed an average of 49 days, 8 were not performed and 3 proceeded without delay. All 3 urologic procedures were delayed a mean of 59 days. Institutional cost per test ranged from $34-$54. The number needed to test for one positive result was 244 with a cost of $11,573 for each positive result. Conclusions: Institution of a universal pre-operative COVID-19 screening protocol for asymptomatic, unvaccinated patients undergoing elective surgery identified clinically silent infection in 0.4% of cases with a significant associated cost. Risk and symptom-based testing is likely a better strategy for triaging resources.

Impact of COVID-19 on Initial Management and Evaluation of Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic starkly affected all aspects of health care, forcing many to divert resources towards emergent patient needs while decreasing emphasis on routine cancer care. We compared prostate cancer care before and during the pandemic in a multi-institutional cohort. METHODS: A prospective regional collaborative was queried to assess practice pattern variations relative to the initial COVID-19 lockdown (March 16 to May 15, 2020). The preceding 10 months were selected for comparison. The impact of the lockdown was evaluated on the basis of 1) weekly trends in biopsy and radical prostatectomy volumes, 2) comparisons between those undergoing prostate biopsy, and 3) clinicopathological characteristics within radical prostatectomy patients. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact and Pearson's chi-square tests, and Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate continuous covariates. RESULTS: Overall, there was a 55% and 39% decline in biopsy and prostatectomy volumes, respectively. During the pandemic, biopsy patients were younger with fewer COVID-19 severity risk factors (17.0% vs 9.7% no risk factors, p=0.023) and prostatectomy patients had higher grade group (GG; 45.6% >GG 4 vs 28%, p=0.01). Large variation in the change in procedural volume was noted across practice sites. CONCLUSION: In a multi-institutional assessment of surgical and diagnostic delay for prostate cancer, we found a non-uniform decline in procedural volume across sites. Future analyses within this cohort are needed to further discern the effects of care delays related to COVID-19.

Assessment of Prostate Cancer Treatment Among Black and White Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, racial/ethnic minority communities disproportionately experienced poor outcomes; however, the association of the pandemic with prostate cancer (PCa) care is unknown. Objective: To assess the association between race and PCa care delivery for Black and White patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, regional, collaborative, retrospective cohort study compared prostatectomy rates between Black and White patients with untreated nonmetastatic PCa during the COVID-19 pandemic (269 patients from March 16 to May 15, 2020) and prior (378 patients from March 11 to May 10, 2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostatectomy rates. Results: Of the 647 men with nonmetastatic PCa, 172 (26.6%) were non-Hispanic Black men, and 475 (73.4%) were non-Hispanic White men. Black men were significantly less likely to undergo prostatectomy during the pandemic compared with White patients (1 of 76 [1.3%] vs 50 of 193 [25.9%]; P < .001), despite similar COVID-19 risk factors, biopsy Gleason grade groups, and comparable prostatectomy rates prior to the pandemic (17 of 96 [17.7%] vs 54 of 282 [19.1%]; P = .75). Black men had higher median prostate-specific antigen levels prior to biopsy (8.8 ng/mL [interquartile range, 5.3-15.2 ng/mL] vs 7.2 ng/mL [interquartile range, 5.1-11.1 ng/mL]; P = .04). A linear combination of regression coefficients with an interaction term for year demonstrated an odds ratio for likelihood of surgery of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01-0.35; P = .002) for Black patients and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.81-2.44; P = .23) for White patients during the pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic. Changes in surgical volume varied by site (from a 33% increase to complete shutdown), with sites that experienced the largest reduction in cancer surgery caring for a greater proportion of Black patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large multi-institutional regional collaborative cohort study, the odds of PCa surgery were lower among Black patients compared with White patients during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although localized PCa does not require immediate treatment, the lessons from this study suggest systemic inequities within health care and are likely applicable across medical specialties. Public health efforts are needed to fully recognize the unintended consequence of diversion of cancer resources to the COVID-19 pandemic to develop balanced mitigation strategies as viral rates continue to fluctuate.