Comparison of nasopharyngeal swab and nasopharyngeal aspiration in adults for SARS-CoV-2 identification using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.

We aimed to compare reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results of nasopharyngeal aspiration (NA) and nasopharyngeal swab (NS) samples in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. NS was obtained with a dacron swab and NA was performed by aspiration cannula. The sampling was performed by an otolaryngologist to ensure standardized correct sampling from the nasopharynx. RT-PCR was performed for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The level of agreement between the result of NA and NS samples for each patient was analyzed. The Ct values were compared. Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 56.3 years. Thirteen subjects resulted negative with both NS and NA; 20 subjects resulted positive with NA and 18 subjects resulted positive with NS. The mean values of Ct for NA samples and NS samples were 24.6 ± 5.9 and 24 ± 6.7, respectively. There was no statistical difference between Ct values of NA and NS samples (p = 0.48). RT-PCR for SARS-Cov2 performed with NA sample and NS sample showed a strong correlation regarding the positivity/negativity and the Ct values.

Is elective cancer surgery feasible during the lock-down period of the COVID-19 pandemic? Analysis of a single institutional experience of 404 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the feasibility and short-term clinical outcomes of surgical procedures for cancer at an institution using a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-free surgical pathway during the peak phase of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center study, including cancer patients from all surgical departments, who underwent elective surgical procedures during the first peak phase between March 10 and June 30, 2020. The primary outcomes were the rate of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and 30-day pulmonary or non-pulmonary related morbidity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 disease. RESULTS: Four hundred and four cancer patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were analyzed. The rate of patients who underwent open and minimally invasive procedures was 61.9% and 38.1%, respectively. Only one (0.2%) patient died during the study period due to postoperative SARS-CoV2 infection because of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The overall non-SARS-CoV2 related 30-day morbidity and mortality rates were 19.3% and 1.7%, respectively; whereas the overall SARS-CoV2 related 30-day morbidity and mortality rates were 0.2% and 0.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Under strict institutional policies and measures to establish a COVID-19-free surgical pathway, elective and emergency cancer operations can be performed with acceptable perioperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality.