Delay and Disparity in Observed vs Predicted Incidence Rate of Screenable Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in disruption of healthcare services, including cancer screenings, yet data on this is limited. We sought to compare observed and expected cancer incidence rates for screenable cancers, quantifying potential missed diagnoses. STUDY DESIGN: Lung, female breast, and colorectal cancer patients from 2010-2020 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) were standardized to calculate annual incidence rates per 100,000. A linear regression model of 2010-2019 incidence rates (pre-COVID) was used to calculate predicted 2020 incidence compared to observed incidence in 2020 (COVID) with sub-analyses for age, sex, race, ethnicity and geographic region. RESULTS: In total, 1,707,395 lung, 2,200,505 breast, and 1,066,138 colorectal cancer patients were analyzed. After standardizing, the observed 2020 incidence was 66.888, 152.059, and 36.522 per 100,000 compared to predicted 2020 incidence of 81.650, 178.124, and 44.837 per 100,000, resulting in an observed incidence decrease of -18.1%, -14.6%, and -18.6% for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer, respectively. The difference was amplified on sub-analysis for lung (female, ≥65 years-old, non-White, Hispanic, Northeastern and Western region), breast (≥65 years-old, non-Black, Hispanic, Northeastern and Western region), and colorectal (male, <65 years-old, non-White, Hispanic, and Western region) cancer patients. CONCLUSION: The reported incidence of screenable cancers significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), suggesting that many patients currently harbor undiagnosed cancers. In addition to the human toll, this will further burden the healthcare system and increase future healthcare costs. It is imperative that providers empower patients to schedule cancer screenings to flatten this pending oncological wave.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Time to Treatment Initiation: A National Cancer Database Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic strained oncologic care access and delivery, yet little is known about how it impacted hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) management. Our study sought to evaluate the annual effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to treatment initiation (TTI) for HCC. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with clinical stages I-IV HCC (2017-2020). Patients were categorized based on their year of diagnosis as "Pre-COVID" (2017-2019) and "COVID" (2020). TTI based on stage and type of treatment first received was compared by the Mann-Whitney U test. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate factors of increased TTI and treatment delay (> 90 days). RESULTS: In total, 18,673 patients were diagnosed during Pre-COVID, whereas 5249 were diagnosed during COVID. Median TTI for any first-line treatment modality was slightly shorter during the COVID year compared with Pre-COVID (49 vs. 51 days; p < 0.0001), notably in time to ablation (52 vs. 55 days; p = 0.0238), systemic therapy (42 vs. 47 days; p < 0.0001), and radiation (60 vs. 62 days; p = 0.0177), but not surgery (41 vs. 41 days; p = 0.6887). In a multivariate analysis, patients of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and uninsured/Medicaid/Other Government insurance status were associated with increased TTI by factors of 1.057 (95% CI: 1.022-1.093; p = 0.0013), 1.045 (95% CI: 1.010-1.081; p = 0.0104), and 1.088 (95% CI: 1.053-1.123; p < 0.0001), respectively. Similarly, these patient populations were associated with delayed treatment times. CONCLUSIONS: For patients diagnosed during COVID, TTI for HCC, while statistically significant, had no clinically significant differences. However, vulnerable patients were more likely to have increased TTI.

Emerging From the Pandemic: How Has Academic Surgery Changed?

Academic surgery has changed along with the rest of the world in response to the COVID pandemic. With increasing rates of vaccination against COVID over the past 2 y, we have slowly but steadily made progress toward controlling the spread of the virus. Surgeons, academic surgery departments, health systems, and trainees are all attempting to establish a new normal in various domains-clinical, research, teaching, and in their personal lives. How has the pandemic changed these areas? At the 2022 Academic Surgical Congress Hot Topics session, we attempted to address these issues.

Outcomes of the First Virtual General Surgery Certifying Exam of the American Board of Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To Study the Outcomes of the First Virtual General Surgery Certifying Exam of the American Board of Surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ABS General Surgery CE is normally an in-person oral examination. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the ABS was required to reschedule these. After 2 small pilots, the CE's October administration represented the first large-scale remote virtual exam. The purpose of this report is to compare the outcomes of this virtual and the previous in-person CEs. METHODS: CE candidates were asked to provide feedback on their experience via a survey. The passing rate was compared to the 1025 candidates who took the 2019-2020 in-person CEs. RESULTS: Of the 308 candidates who registered for the virtual CE, 306 completed the exam (99.4%) and 188 completed the survey (61.4%). The majority had a very positive experience. They rated the virtual CE as very good/excellent in security (90%), ease of exam platform (77%), audio quality (71%), video quality (69%), and overall satisfaction (86%). Notably, when asked their preference, 78% preferred the virtual exam. There were no differences in the passing rates between the virtual or in-person exams. CONCLUSIONS: The first virtual CE by the ABS was completed using available internet technology. There was high satisfaction, with the majority preferring the virtual platform. Compared to past in-person CEs, there was no difference in outcomes as measured by passing rates. These data suggest that expansion of the virtual CE may be desirable.

National Disparities in COVID-19 Outcomes between Black and White Americans.

BACKGROUND: There is very limited comprehensive information on disparate outcomes of black and white patients with COVID-19 infection. Reports from cities and states have suggested a discordant impact on black Americans, but no nationwide study has yet been performed. We sought to understand the differential outcomes for black and white Americans infected with COVID-19. METHODS: We obtained case-level data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on 76,442 white and 48,338 non-Hispanic Black patients diagnosed with COVID-19, ages 0 to >80+, outlining information on hospitalization, ICU admission, ventilation, and death outcomes. Multivariate Poisson regressions were used to estimate the association of race, treating white as the reference group, controlling for sex, age group, and the presence of comorbidities. RESULTS: Black patients were generally younger than white, were more often female, and had larger numbers of comorbidities. Compared to white patients with COVID-19, black patients had 1.4 times the risk of hospitalization (RR 1.42, p < 0.001), and almost twice the risk of requiring ICU care (RR 1.68, p < 0.001) or ventilatory support (RR 1.81, p < 0.001) after adjusting for covariates. Black patients saw a 1.36 times increased risk of death (RR 1.36, p < 0.001) compared to white. Disparities between black and white outcomes increased with advanced age. CONCLUSION: Despite the initial descriptions of COVID-19 being a disease that affects all individuals, regardless of station, our data demonstrate the differential racial effects in the United States. This current pandemic reinforces the need to assess the unequal effects of crises on disadvantaged populations to promote population health.

The Boston Medical Center Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Procedure Team: Optimizing the surgeon's role in pandemic care at a safety-net hospital.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has claimed many lives and strained the US health care system. At Boston Medical Center, a regional safety-net hospital, the Department of Surgery created a dedicated coronavirus disease 2019 Procedure Team to ease the burden on other providers coping with the surge of infected patients. As restrictions on social distancing are lifted, health systems are bracing for additional surges in coronavirus disease 2019 cases. Our objective is to quantify the volume and types of procedures performed, review outcomes, and highlight lessons for other institutions that may need to establish similar teams. METHODS: Procedures were tracked prospectively along with patient demographics, immediate complications, and time from donning to doffing of the personal protective equipment. Retrospective chart review was conducted to obtain patient outcomes and delayed adverse events. We hypothesized that a dedicated surgeon-led team would perform invasive bedside procedures expeditiously and with few complications. RESULTS: From March 30, 2020 to April 30, 2020, there were 1,196 coronavirus disease 2019 admissions. The Procedure Team performed 272 procedures on 125 patients, including placement of 135 arterial catheters, 107 central venous catheters, 25 hemodialysis catheters, and 4 thoracostomy tubes. Specific to central venous access, the average procedural time was 47 minutes, and the rate of immediate complications was 1.5%, including 1 arterial cannulation and 1 pneumothorax. CONCLUSION: Procedural complication rate was less than rates reported in the literature. The team saved approximately 192 hours of work that could be redirected to other patient care needs. In times of crisis, redeployment of surgeons (who arguably have the most procedural experience) into procedural teams is a practical approach to optimize outcomes and preserve resources.

How Has COVID-19 Affected the Costs of the Surgical Fellowship Interview Process?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on the costs of the surgical fellowship interview process. DESIGN: A literature review of the historical costs of surgical fellowship interviews and a summary of how the shift to virtual interviews has unintended positive and negative effects on costs for applicants and training programs. RESULTS: Transitioning fellowship interviews to virtual platforms affects expenditures of finances and time. Each fellowship candidate saves close to $6,000 in interview travel expenses. Applicants require less time off from their residency programs during this critical time of need for frontline healthcare workers. However, applicants miss some of the live aspects of interviewing, and training programs invest more effort upfront altering their interviews to virtual formats. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 public health crisis has had a significant impact on surgical education, including how selection is conducted. Virtual recruitment has the potential for cost savings but should continue to be refined. This is an opportune time to innovate and rethink how to recruit prospective surgical residency and fellowship candidates during the current and forthcoming interview seasons.