Life or limb: an international qualitative study on decision making in sarcoma surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented as a global crisis over the last century. How do specialist surgeons make decisions about patient care in these unprecedent times? DESIGN: Between April and May 2020, we conducted an international qualitative study. Sarcoma surgeons from diverse global settings participated in 60 min interviews exploring surgical decision making during COVID-19. Interview data were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. SETTING: Participants represented public and private hospitals in 14 countries, in different phases of the first wave of the pandemic: Australia, Argentina, Canada, India, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, UK and USA. PARTICIPANTS: From 22 invited sarcoma surgeons, 18 surgeons participated. Participants had an average of 19 years experience as a sarcoma surgeon. RESULTS: 17/18 participants described a decision they had made about patient care since the start of the pandemic that was unique to them, that is, without precedence. Common to 'unique' decisions about patient care was uncertainty about what was going on and what would happen in the future (theme 1: the context of uncertainty), the impact of the pandemic on resources or threat of the pandemic to overwhelm resources (theme 2: limited resources), perceived increased risk to self (theme 3: duty of care) and least-worst decision making, in which none of the options were perceived as ideal and participants settled on the least-worst option at that point in time (theme 4: least-worst decision making). CONCLUSIONS: In the context of rapidly changing standards of justice and beneficence in patient care, traditional decision-making frameworks may no longer apply. Based on the experiences of surgeons in this study, we describe a framework of least-worst decision making. This framework gives rise to actionable strategies that can support decision making in sarcoma and other specialised fields of surgery, both during the current crisis and beyond.

A virtual multi-disciplinary meeting is a cost-effective method of triaging referrals to a regional musculoskeletal oncology service.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In 2010, a virtual sarcoma referral model was implemented, which aims to provide a centralised multidisciplinary team (MDT) to provide rapid advice, avoiding unnecessary appointments and providing a streamlined service. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of this screening tool in reducing the service burden and expediting patient journey. METHODS AND RESULTS: All referrals made to a single tertiary referral sarcoma unit from January 2010 to December 2018 were extracted from a prospective database. Only 26.0% events discussed required review directly. 30.3% were discharged back to referrer. 16.5% required further investigations. 22.5% required a biopsy prior to review. There was a reduction in the rate of patients reviewed at the sarcoma clinic, and a higher discharge rate from the MDT in 2018 versus 2010 (p < 0.001). This gives a potential cost saving of 670,700 GBP over the 9 year period. CONCLUSION: An MDT meeting which triages referrals is cost-effective at reducing unnecessary referrals. This can limit unnecessary exposure of patients who may have an underlying diagnosis of cancer to a high-risk environment, and reduces burden on services as it copes with increasing demands during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Did COVID-19 related delays in surgical management lead to patient morbidity in the orthopaedic oncological population?

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess orthopaedic oncologic patient morbidity resulting from COVID-19 related institutional delays and surgical shutdowns during the first wave of the pandemic in New York, USA. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted of all orthopaedic oncologic patients undergoing surgical evaluation from March to June 2020. Patients were prioritized as level 0-IV, 0 being elective and IV being emergent. Only priority levels 0 to III were included. Delay duration was measured in days and resulting morbidities were categorized into seven groups: prolonged pain/disability; unplanned preoperative radiation and/or chemotherapy; local tumour progression; increased systemic disease; missed opportunity for surgery due to progression of disease/lost to follow up; delay in diagnosis; and no morbidity. RESULTS: Overall, 25 patients met inclusion criteria. There were eight benign tumours, seven metastatic, seven primary sarcomas, one multiple myeloma, and two patients without a biopsy proven diagnosis. There was no priority level 0, two priority level I, six priority level II, and 17 priority level III cases. The mean duration of delay for priority level I was 114 days (84 to 143), priority level II was 88 days (63 to 133), and priority level III was 77 days (35 to 269). Prolonged pain/disability and delay in diagnosis, affecting 52% and 40%,respectively, represented the two most frequent morbidities. Local tumour progression and increased systemic disease affected 32% and 24% respectively. No patients tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 related delays in surgical management led to major morbidity in this studied orthopaedic oncologic patient population. By understanding these morbidities through clearer hindsight, a thoughtful approach can be developed to balance the risk of COVID-19 exposure versus delay in treatment, ensuring optimal care for orthopedic oncologic patients as the pandemic continues with intermittent calls for halting surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):236-242.

Mortality of high-risk orthopaedic oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Should the threshold for orthopaedic oncology surgery during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic be higher, particularly in men aged 70 years and older? This study reports the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during, respiratory complications and 30-day mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study included 100 consecutive patients. The primary outcome measure was 14-day symptoms and/or SARS-CoV-2 test. The secondary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients comprising 35 females and 65 males, with a mean age of 52.4 years (range, 16-94 years) included 16 males aged greater than 70 years. The 51% of patients were tested during their admission for SARS-CoV-2; 5% were diagnosed/developed symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 during and until 14 days post-discharge; four were male and one female, mean age 41.2 years (range, 17-75 years), all had primary malignant bone or soft-tissue tumours, four of five had received immunosuppressive therapy pre-operatively. The 30-day mortality was 1% overall and 20% in those with SARS-CoV-2. The pulmonary complication rate was 3% overall. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate peri-operative measures to prevent viral transmission, major surgery for urgent orthopaedic oncology patients can continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. These results need validating with national data to confirm these conclusions.

Bone sarcoma surgery in times of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown-early experience from a tertiary centre in India.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown has presented a unique challenge for sarcoma care. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the early results and feasibility of surgeries for bone sarcomas during the COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: Our prospectively collected orthopaedic oncological database was reviewed to include two groups of patients- those who underwent surgery in the immediate 4 weeks before lockdown (non-lockdown group) and those operated in the first 4 weeks of lockdown (lockdown group). All patients were followed-up clinically and telephonically to collect the outcome data. RESULTS: Out of the 91 patients who qualified for inclusion, fifty were classified into the non-lockdown group while 41 patients formed the lockdown group. Both the groups were comparable with respect to baseline demographic parameters. However, during the lockdown period 37 patients (90%) had undergone a major surgical intervention as against 24 patients (48%) in the non-lockdown group (P < .001). There was no significant difference in type of anaesthesia, median estimated blood loss and procedure duration. None of the patients/health care workers had evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection at 15 days follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our study results suggest that appendicular bone tumours can be safely operated with adequate precautions during the lockdown period.

Service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experience from The Oxford Bone Tumour and Soft Tissue Sarcoma service.

The COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic has caused an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems across the globe. Apart from being a major hurdle to delivery of basic healthcare services, this may be associated with potential harm for cancer patients. Usually being immunocompromised, cancer patients are at a higher risk of contracting the disease and with hospitals being a potential source of the infection, an urgent need to reorganise the structure of delivery of cancer care is essential. Cancer departments must balance patient care whilst also minimising transmission among patients and healthcare professionals. The Oxford Sarcoma Service was re-structured based on the guidelines issued by the National Health Service (NHS) and the British Orthopaedic Oncology Society (BOOS) to deliver unhindered care to patients. Prioritising patients who needed urgent surgery, weighing the risk-benefit ratio while delivering adjuvant treatments and conducting regular virtual multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings combined with personal protection equipment (PPE) usage by all involved healthcare workers were salient features in terms of ensuring the delivery of effective care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our new model of modus operandi during this global crisis was effective in delivering high standard of care to patients and might serve as a guide to similar units managing bone and soft tissue tumours.