A systematic review and meta-analysis on delaying surgery for urothelial carcinoma of bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Implications for the COVID19 pandemic and beyond

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has led to competing strains on hospital resources and healthcare personnel. Patients with newly diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinomas of bladder (UCB) upper tract (UTUC) may experience delays to definitive radical cystectomy (RC) or radical nephro-ureterectomy (RNU) respectively. We evaluate the impact of delaying definitive surgery on survival outcomes for invasive UCB and UTUC. Methods We searched for all studies investigating delayed urologic cancer surgery in Medline and Embase up to June 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Results We identified a total of 30 studies with 32,591 patients. Across 13 studies (n = 12,201), a delay from diagnosis of bladder cancer/TURBT to RC was associated with poorer overall survival (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.09–1.45, p = 0.002). For patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC, across the 5 studies (n = 4,316 patients), a delay between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy was not found to be significantly associated with overall survival (pooled HR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.96–1.94, p = 0.08). For UTUC, 6 studies (n = 4,629) found that delay between diagnosis of UTUC to RNU was associated with poorer overall survival (pooled HR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19–2.02, p = 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (pooled HR of 2.56, 95% CI: 1.50–4.37, p = 0.001). Limitations included between-study heterogeneity, particularly in the definitions of delay cut-off periods between diagnosis to surgery. Conclusions A delay from diagnosis of UCB or UTUC to definitive RC or RNU was associated with poorer survival outcomes. This was not the case for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Clinical outcomes of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in minimally invasive urological surgery.

The adoption of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques has revolutionised urological practice. This necessitates a pneumoperitoneum (PNP) and the impact the PNP pressure has on post-operative outcomes is uncertain. During the current COVID-19 era guidance has suggested the utilisation of lower PNP pressures to mitigate the risk of intra-operative viral transmission. Review the current literature regarding the impact of pneumoperitoneum pressure, within the field of urology, on post-operative outcomes. A search of the PubMed, Medline and EMBASE databases was undertaken to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered to. Ten studies, that included both randomised controlled trials and retrospective case series reviews, were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The effect of PNP pressure on outcomes following prostatectomy, live donor nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and a variety of benign upper tract procedures were discussed. Low pressure PNP appears safe when compared to high pressure PNP, potentially reducing post-operative pain and rates of ileus. When compared to general surgery, there is a lack of quality evidence investigating the impact of PNP pressures on outcomes within urology. Low pressure PNP appears non-inferior to high pressure PNP. More research is required to validate this finding, particularly post-cystectomy and nephrectomy.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Major Urological Cancer Surgery for Patients is Safe and Surgical Training Should Be Encouraged During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicentre Analysis of 30-day Outcomes.

COVID-19 has resulted in the deferral of major surgery for genitourinary (GU) cancers with the exception of cancers with a high risk of progression. We report outcomes for major GU cancer operations, namely radical prostatectomy (RP), radical cystectomy (RC), radical nephrectomy (RN), partial nephrectomy (PN), and nephroureterectomy performed at 13 major GU cancer centres across the UK between March 1 and May 5, 2020. A total of 598 such operations were performed. Four patients (0.7%) developed COVID-19 postoperatively. There was no COVID-19-related mortality at 30 d. A minimally invasive approach was used in 499 cases (83.4%). A total of 228 cases (38.1%) were described as training procedures. Training case status was not associated with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (p = 0.194) or hospital length of stay (LOS; p > 0.05 for all operation types). The risk of contracting COVID-19 was not associated with longer hospital LOS (p = 0.146), training case status (p = 0.588), higher ASA score (p = 0.295), or type of hospital site (p = 0.303). Our results suggest that major surgery for urological cancers remains safe and training should be encouraged during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic provided appropriate countermeasures are taken. These real-life data are important for policy-makers and clinicians when counselling patients during the current pandemic. PATIENT SUMMARY: We collected outcome data for major operations for prostate, bladder, and kidney cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. These surgeries remain safe and training should be encouraged during the ongoing pandemic provided appropriate countermeasures are taken. Our real-life results are important for policy-makers and clinicians when counselling patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Fight Against COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has generated large volumes of clinical data that can be an invaluable resource towards answering a number of important questions for this and future pandemics. Artificial intelligence can have an important role in analysing such data to identify populations at higher risk of COVID-19-related urological pathologies and to suggest treatments that block viral entry into cells by interrupting the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2-transmembrane serine protease 2 (ACE2-TMPRSS2) pathway.

Outcomes of the 2019 novel coronavirus in patients with or without a history of cancer: a multi-centre North London experience.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the outcomes of COVID-19-positive disease in patients with a history of cancer to those without. METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical data and outcomes of COVID-19 positive cancer patients treated consecutively in five North London hospitals (cohort A). Outcomes recorded included time interval between most recent anti-cancer treatment and admission, severe outcome [a composite endpoint of intensive care unit (ITU) admission, ventilation and/or death] and mortality. Outcomes were compared with consecutively admitted COVID-19 positive patients, without a history of cancer (cohort B), treated at the primary centre during the same time period (1 March-30 April 2020). Patients were matched for age, gender and comorbidity. RESULTS: The median age in both cohorts was 74 years, with 67% male, and comprised of 30 patients with cancer, and 90 without (1:3 ratio). For cohort B, 579 patients without a history of cancer and consecutively admitted were screened from the primary London hospital, 105 were COVID-19 positive and 90 were matched and included. Excluding cancer, both cohorts had a median of two comorbidities. The odds ratio (OR) for mortality, comparing patients with cancer to those without, was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-2.5], and severe outcome (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.4-2.0) suggesting no increased risk of death or a severe outcome in patients with cancer. Cancer patients who received systemic treatment within 28 days had an OR for mortality of 4.05 (95% CI 0.68-23.95), p = 0.12. On presentation anaemia, hypokalaemia, hypoalbuminaemia and hypoproteinaemia were identified predominantly in cohort A. Median duration of admission was 8 days for cancer patients and 7 days for non-cancer. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of cancer does not appear to increase the risk of death or a severe outcome in COVID-19 patients with cancer compared with those without cancer. If a second spike of virus strikes, rational decision making is required to ensure optimal cancer care.