Publication rates of podium presentations at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) annual meetings.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to determine the publication rates of podium presentations from the 2017 and 2018 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Annual Meetings; and to examine rates and predictors of oral presentations that resulted in publication. METHODS: We reviewed podium presentations given at the 2017 and 2018 SGO Annual Meetings. Abstracts were evaluated for publication from January 1, 2017 to March 30, 2020 and January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2021, respectively, to allow for a 3 year period of publication. RESULTS: In 2017 and 2018, 43 of 75 (57.3%) and 47 of 83 (56.6%) podium presentations were published within 3 years, respectively. No significant difference was found between the mean time to publication within 3 years (13.0 months vs 14.1 months for 2017 and 2018, respectively; p=0.96). Similarly, the mean difference of journal impact factors between both years did not reach significance (6.57 and 10.7 for 2017 and 2018, respectively; p=0.09). The median impact factor (IF) was 4.54 (range: 40.3) and 4.62 (range: 70.7) in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Of the presentations published, 53.4% (2017) and 38.3% (2018) appeared in the journal Gynecologic Oncology. Significant positive correlations for the likelihood of publication were determined among the following: funding status (r=0.93) including funding involving National Institutes for Health (r=0.91) or pharmaceutical (r=0.95), clinical trial study design (r=0.94), and pre-clinical research (r=0.95) (all p<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: At the 2017 and 2018 SGO Annual Meetings 57% of podium presentations were published in a peer-reviewed journal within 3 years. Publication in peer-reviewed journals is crucial for timely distribution of clinical information to the medical community.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Surgical Training and Education.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted conventional medical education for surgical trainees with respect to clinical training, didactics, and research. While the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical trainees were variable, some common themes are identifiable. As hordes of COVID-19 patients entered hospitals, many surgical trainees stepped away from their curricula and were redeployed to other hospital units to care for COVID-19 patients. Moreover, the need for social distancing limited traditional educational activities. Regarding clinical training, some trainees demonstrated reduced case logs and decreased surgical confidence. For residents, fellows, and medical students alike, most didactic education transitioned to virtual platforms, leading to an increase in remote educational resources and an increased emphasis on surgical simulation. Resident research productivity initially declined, although the onset of virtual conferences provided new opportunities for trainees to present their work. Finally, the pandemic was associated with increased anxiety, depression, and substance use for some trainees. Ultimately, we are still growing our understanding of how the COVID-19 pandemic has redefined surgical training and how to best implement the lessons we have learned.

Immuno-oncologic care during COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities for improving clinical care and investigation.

Cancer care has been greatly impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of cases and deaths caused by the COVID-19 pandemic continues to escalate throughout the United States and the world. Worldwide, over 150 million people have been diagnosed with the coronavirus and more than 3 million have died. Now that we have gained additional experience with COVID-19, we are starting to learn its full impact on oncology care and its effects on the practice of medicine and clinical research.

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.

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.

Impact of CoVID-19 on resident and fellow education: Current guidance and future opportunities for urologic oncology training programs.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 has impacted all aspects of urologic training. Didactics have shifted to a virtual platform and new approaches to surgical training have been undertaken. There has been a shift in research away from the laboratory space, with an increased focus on clinical outcomes and multi-institutional collaborations. Finally, there have been impacts on home life, questions about time away from work, case logs and case minimums, as well as how to manage resident and fellow reassignment. Herein, we review the current state of urologic education in the United States, focusing specifically on urologic oncology and highlight opportunities for the future.

Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Call for a National Video-Based Curriculum for Urology Residents.

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created many unique challenges in urology resident training. Urologists are operating at a fraction of normal volume to conserve personal protective equipment and prevent viral spread. Many residency programs have organized rotating skeleton crews to perform clinical duties while a portion of residents work from home. In some regions, urology residents have been deployed to emergency rooms, intensive care units, and medical floors to care for COVID-19 patients. With these interruptions in urologic education, many questions remain about how residents will proceed with their clinical and didactic training. During these unprecedented times, many residencies have transitioned their didactic sessions to video-based platforms, allowing educators to reach larger numbers of learners. This perspective addresses how innovative virtual education programs created during the pandemic can be developed into a national video-based curriculum for urology residents, incorporating both didactics and surgical skill training.

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.