Post-Pandemic Burden of COVID-19 Related Restrictions in the Management of Digestive Tract Cancers. A Single Center Study (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS- CoV-2) infection has required a complete change in the management of patients with gastrointestinal disease who needed to undergo endoscopic procedures. In the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to restrictions for elective endoscopic procedures a large number of cancer patients were prevented from early diagnosis of several digestive cancers, which has led to a serious burden in the health system which nowadays needs to be dealt with. We designed a prospective study that included patients in whom access to elective endoscopic examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic has been delayed. Our aim was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis rate of digestive tract malignancies in the context of a health crisis management that generates an ethical dilemma regarding the balance of utilitarianism versus deontology. Our study shows that the decrease in the number of newly diagnosed gastrointestinal cancers by endoscopy and biopsy during the pandemic restrictions and the delay in diagnosis have hads a clear impact on stage migration due to disease progression.

Changes in Urologic Cancer Surgical Volume and Length of Stay During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Pennsylvania.

Importance: Disruptions in cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread deferrals and cancellations, creating a surgical backlog that presents a challenge for health care institutions moving into the recovery phase of the pandemic. Objective: To describe patterns in surgical volume and postoperative length of stay for major urologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study identified 24 001 patients 18 years or older from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council database with kidney cancer, prostate cancer, or bladder cancer who received a radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, radical prostatectomy, or radical cystectomy between the first quarter (Q1) of 2016 and Q2 of 2021. Postoperative length of stay and adjusted surgical volumes were compared before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adjusted surgical volume for radical and partial nephrectomy, radical prostatectomy, and radical cystectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary outcome was postoperative length of stay. Results: A total of 24 001 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [9.4] years; 3522 women [15%], 19 845 White patients [83%], 17 896 living in urban areas [75%]) received major urologic cancer surgery between Q1 of 2016 and Q2 of 2021. Of these, 4896 radical nephrectomy, 3508 partial nephrectomy, 13 327 radical prostatectomy, and 2270 radical cystectomy surgical procedures were performed. There were no statistically significant differences in patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, urban or rural status, or Elixhauser Comorbidity Index scores between patients who received surgery before and patients who received surgery during the pandemic. For partial nephrectomy, a baseline of 168 surgeries per quarter decreased to 137 surgeries per quarter in Q2 and Q3 of 2020. For radical prostatectomy, a baseline of 644 surgeries per quarter decreased to 527 surgeries per quarter in Q2 and Q3 of 2020. However, the likelihood of receiving radical nephrectomy (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28), partial nephrectomy (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.27), radical prostatectomy (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.22-3.22), or radical cystectomy (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.31-1.53) was unchanged. Length of stay for partial nephrectomy decreased from baseline by a mean of 0.7 days (95% CI, -1.2 to -0.2 days) during the pandemic. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests that partial nephrectomy and radical prostatectomy surgical volume decreased during the peak waves of COVID-19, as did postoperative length of stay for partial nephrectomy.

Estimation of Oncologic Surgery Case Volume Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic in France.

Importance: COVID-19 has had a major effect on health care activities, especially surgery. At first, comparisons were proposed using 2019 activities as the highest standard. However, while such an approach might have been suitable during the first months of the pandemic, this might no longer be the case for a longer period. Objective: To examine approaches that may better assess the use of cancer surgeries. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cross-sectional design, the nationwide French hospital facility data (Medicalised Information System Program) were used to assess cancer surgery for 6 cancer site categories in adults from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021. Exposure: Estimated cancer surgery activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three models were proposed to assess the expected number of surgical procedures between 2020 and 2021 and make a comparison with those observed in earlier years. Results: In France, cancer removal surgeries account for approximately 7000 hospitalizations per year for liver cancer; 4000 for pancreatic cancer; 7700 for ovarian cancer; 1300 for esophagus cancer; 23 000 for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) cancer; 78 000 for breast cancer; and 16 600 for thoracic cancers. For most cancer sites, the number of surgical procedures increased from 2010 to 2019: liver, 14%; pancreas, 38%; ovary, 14%; esophagus, 18%; breast, 8%; and thoracic, 29%. Assuming stability, these values underestimate the gap in activity observed in 2020-2021. For other procedures, a decrease was observed: stomach, -10%, and ENT, -6%. Assuming stability, these values overestimate the gap in activity observed in 2020-2021. At the end of 2021, according to the model, the gap in activity observed in 2020-2021 was estimated at between -1.4% and 1.7% for breast, -6.6% and -7.3% for thoracic, -3.1% and -2.5% for ovarian, -4.2% and -1.7% for pancreas, -6.7% and 5.9% for stomach, and -13.0% and -13.9% for esophageal cancers. For ENT, liver, and urologic cancers, because the trend was different before and after 2015, it was necessary to opt for modeling using only the most recent period. The cumulative gap in activity observed in 2020-2021 was estimated at -1.0% for ENT cancers, -5.3% for liver cancers, and -2.9% for urologic cancers. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that short- and medium-term trends must be considered to estimate COVID-19 cancer surgery activities. Breast cancer is the site for which the activity showed the smallest decrease during the pandemic, with almost full recovery in 2021.

The Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Genitourinary Cancers Stage and Grade.

INTRODUCTION: Our study aims to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of uro-oncological surgeries (cystectomy, nephrectomy, prostatectomy, orchiectomy, and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT)) and pathological staging and grading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study is a retrospective study on patients with genitourinary cancers treated from 2018 to 2021 in a referral tertiary center. The data were obtained from the hospital records with lengths of 22 and 23 months, labeled hereafter as non-COVID and COVID pandemic, respectively (2018/3/21-2020/1/20 and 2020/1/21-2021/12/21). The total number of registered patients, gender, age, stage, and grade were compared in the targeted periods. Moreover, all the pathologic slides were reviewed by an expert uropathologist before enrolling in the study. The continuous and discrete variables are reported as mean (standard deviation (SD)) and number (percent) and the χ2 test for the comparison of the discrete variables' distribution. RESULTS: In this study total number of 2077 patients were enrolled. The number of procedures performed decreased during the Covid pandemic. The tumors' distribution stage and grade and patients' baseline characteristics were not significantly different in non-COVID and COVID pandemic periods for Radical Nephrectomy, Radical Cystectomy, Radical Prostatectomy, and orchiectomy. For TURBT only, the tumor stage was significantly different (P-value<.001) from the higher stages in the COVID pandemic period. CONCLUSION: Among urinary tract cancers, staging of bladder cancer and TURBT are mainly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic with higher stages compared to the non-COVID period. We evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of uro-oncological surgeries based on pathological staging and grading. Total number of 2077 patients were enrolled. Among urinary tract cancers, staging of bladder cancer and TURBT are mainly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic with higher stages compared to the non-COVID period.

Delayed urologic cancer care in the COVID-19 pandemic: Patients' experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To understand experiences of patients with genitourinary cancer who experienced delayed cancer care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory sequential design. Qualitative findings are reported here. Patients with muscle invasive bladder, advanced prostate or kidney cancer were eligible. Participants were selected for interviews if they self-reported low (0-3/10) or high (6-10/10) levels of distress on a previous survey. Participants were interviewed about their experiences. Interviews were transcribed, coded and categorised using thematic data analysis methodology. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were interviewed. Seven had prostate cancer, six bladder cancer and five kidney cancer. Six themes were derived from the interviews: (1) arriving at cancer diagnosis was hard enough, (2) response to treatment delay, (3) labelling cancer surgery as elective, (4) fear of COVID-19 infection, (5) quality of patient-provider relationship and communication and (6) what could have been done differently. CONCLUSION: These findings offer insight into the concerns of patients with genitourinary cancers who experienced treatment delays due to COVID-19. This information can be applied to support patients with cancers more broadly, should treatment delays occur in the future.

Safe provision of systemic anti-cancer treatment for urological cancer patients during COVID-19: a tertiary centre experience in the first wave of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Safe provision of systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) during the COVID-19 pandemic remains an ongoing concern amongst clinicians. METHODS: Retrospective analysis on uro-oncology patients who continued or started SACT between 1st March and 31st May 2020 during the pandemic (with 2019 as a comparator). RESULTS: 441 patients received SACT in 2020 (292 prostate, 101 renal, 38 urothelial, 10 testicular) compared to 518 patients in 2019 (340 prostate, 121 renal, 42 urothelial, 15 testicular). In 2020, there were 75.00% fewer patients with stage 3 cancers receiving SACT (p < 0.0001) and 94.44% fewer patients receiving radical treatment (p = 0.00194). The number of patients started on a new line of SACT was similar between both years (118 in 2019 vs 102 in 2020; p = 0.898) but with 53.45% fewer patients started on chemotherapy in 2020 (p < 0.001). Overall, 5 patients tested positive for COVID-19 (one asymptomatic, one mild, two moderate, one severe resulting in death). Compared to 2019, 30-day mortality was similar (1.69% in 2019 vs 0.98% in 2020; p = 0.649) whereas 6-month mortality was lower (9.32% in 2019 vs 1.96% in 2020; p = 0.0209) in 2020. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that delivery of SACT to uro-oncology patients during COVID-19 pandemic may be safe in high-incidence areas with appropriate risk-reduction strategies.

Urologic oncology patient perspectives during COVID-19 treatment delays.

PURPOSE: We sought to describe patient experiences during COVID-19 related delays in urologic cancer treatment. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory-sequential design. Survey findings are presented here. Patients from a Midwestern Cancer Center and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) self-reported via survey their experience of treatment delay, patient-provider communication, and coping strategies. We quantified patient distress with an ordinal scale (0-10), based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT). RESULTS: Forty-four patients with bladder, prostate, and kidney cancers consented to the survey. Most individuals were male (n = 29; 66%) and older than 61 years of age (n = 34; 77%). Median time since diagnosis was 6 months. Dominant reactions to treatment delay included fear that cancer would progress (n = 22; 50%) and relief at avoiding COVID-19 exposure (n = 19; 43%). Most patients reported feeling that their providers acknowledged their emotions (n = 31; 70%), yet 23 patients (52%) did not receive follow-up phone calls and only 24 (55%) felt continually supported by their providers. Patients' median distress level was 5/10 with 68% (n = 30) of patients reaching a clinically significant level of distress (≥ 4). Thematically grouped suggestions for providers included better communication, more personalized support, and better patient education. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a high proportion of urologic cancer patients reached a clinically significant level of distress. While they felt concern from providers, they desired more engagement and personalized care.

Influence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine on Drug Therapy for Urological Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: We investigated whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and its adverse events would cause cancer treatment of patients with urological cancer to be postponed or changed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected COVID-19 vaccination information including adverse events from the medical records of 214 patients with urological cancer receiving cancer drug therapy. RESULTS: The cancer types were renal cancer in 40 cases (18.7%), upper urinary tract cancer in 10 cases (4.7%), bladder cancer in 21 cases (9.8%), prostate cancer in 140 cases (65.4%), and others in 3 cases (1.4%). Of the 214 patients, 178 (83.2%) had received the second dose of the vaccine. Out of 180 vaccinated patients, some adverse events were observed in 69 (38.3%). Vaccination rates for males and females were 85.4% (169/198) and 68.8% (11/16), respectively, and were not significantly different (p=0.081). The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in females [72.7% (8/11)] than in males [36.1% (61/169)]; p=0.015. Treatment was modified in 11 vaccinated patients; postponed or changed at the discretion of the attending physician in 8 cases, skipped at the discretion of the patient in 1 case, and postponed due to side effects of the immune checkpoint inhibitor in 1 case. Treatment for one patient with upper urinary tract cancer on pembrolizumab was postponed for three weeks due to adverse events of the vaccine. CONCLUSION: Only 0.6% of the adverse events of the vaccine required postponement of treatment, suggesting that vaccination is safe even during cancer drug therapy.

Urologic Oncology Patient Perspectives During COVID-19 Treatment Delays (preprint)

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic led to delays in urologic cancer treatment. We sought the patient perspective on these delays. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory-sequential design. Survey findings are presented here. Patients from a Midwestern Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network provided demographic and clinical data and responded to statements asking them to characterize their experience of treatment delay, patient-provider communication and coping strategies. We quantified patient distress with an ordinal scale (0-10), based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT). Results Forty-four consenting patients responded to the survey. Most were older than 61 years (77%) and male (66%). Their diagnoses included bladder (45%), prostate (30%) and kidney (20%) cancers. Median time since diagnosis was 6 months, 95% had plans for surgical treatment. Dominant reactions to treatment delay included fear that cancer would progress (50%) and relief at avoiding COVID-19 exposure (43%). Most patients reported feeling that their providers acknowledged their emotions (70%), yet 52% did not receive follow up phone calls and only 55% felt continually supported by their providers. Patients’ median distress level was 5/10 with 68% of patients reaching a clinically significant level of distress (≥4). Thematically grouped suggestions for providers included better communication (18%), more personalized support (14%), and better patient education (11%). Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, a high proportion of urologic cancer patients reached a clinically significant level of distress. While they felt concern from providers, they desired more engagement and personalized care.

[Urologic cancer care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic : Role of federal cancer registration in Germany]. / Uroonkologische Therapie in der ersten Welle der COVID-19-Pandemie : Was sagen uns die Krebsregister der deutschen Bundesländer?

Urologic cancer care needs to be prioritized despite multiple health care restrictions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, therapies and procedures may be delayed and complicated. In Germany, analysis of the multiple cancer registries provides insights into the actual numbers of treated patients. We provide a review on the registration of urologic cancer care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany and on potential surgical complications of urologic interventions. We found that during the year 2020 there were generally fewer registrations of newly diagnosed patients with major urologic neoplasms in a representative federal database. The number of surgical interventions in patients with renal cell carcinoma and urothelial bladder cancer decreased, whereas equal numbers of radical prostatectomies were performed when compared to the year 2019. COVID-19 may increase non-urological postoperative complications following surgical treatment of urologic malignancies; however, available data are still very limited.

COVID-19 pandemic impact on uro-oncological disease outcomes at an Italian tertiary referral center.

PURPOSE: To assess differences in referral and pathologic outcomes for uro-oncology cases prior to and during the COVID pandemic, comparing clinical and pathological data of cancer surgeries performed at an academic referral center between 2019 and 2020. METHODS: We collected data of 880 prostate biopsies, 393 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP) for prostate cancer (PCa), 767 trans-urethral resections of bladder tumor (TURB) and 134 radical cystectomies (RC) for bladder cancer (BCa), 29 radical nephro-ureterectomies (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma, 130 partial nephrectomies (PN) and 12 radical nephrectomies (RN) for renal cancer, and 41 orchifunicolectomies for testicular cancer. Data of patients treated in 2019 (before COVID-19 pandemic) were compared to patients treated in 2020 (during pandemic). RESULTS: No significant decline in uro-oncological surgical activity was seen between 2019 and 2020. No significant increase in time between diagnosis and surgery was observed for all considered cancers. No differences in terms of main pathologic features were observed in patients undergoing RARP, TURB, RNU, RN/PN, or orchifunicolectomy. A higher proportion of ISUP grade 3 and 4 PCa were diagnosed in 2020 at biopsy (p = 0.001), but this did not translate into worse pathological grade/stage at RARP. In 2020, more advanced disease features were seen after RC, including lymph node involvement (p = 0.01) and non-organ confined disease (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Neither decline in uro-oncologic activity nor delay between diagnosis and treatment was observed at our institution during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic. No significant worsening of cancer disease features was found in 2020 except for muscle-invasive BCa.

Uro-oncologic patient management during the COVID-19 pandemic: survey findings from an Italian oncologic hub.

Aim: Patient and worker satisfaction at an oncologic hub during the COVID-19 pandemic has never been reported. We addressed this topic. Methods: We conducted a survey to test the views of patients (n = 64) and healthcare professionals (n = 52) involved with our operative protocol. Results: A moderate/severe grade of concern due to the COVID-19 emergency was recorded in 63% of patients versus 75% of hospital staff. High/very high versus low satisfaction grade about preventive strategies to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 contagion was identified in the patients compared with the hospital staff group. Conclusion: Surgical treatment at a hub center of uro-oncologic patients coming from spoke centers is well accepted and should, therefore, be recommended. Preventive strategies to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in hospital staff members should be implemented.

Lay abstract We provide robust evidence that an oncologic hub center during COVID-19 pandemic represents a credible solution for management of non-deferrable uro-oncologic patients. Specifically, surgical treatment at a hub center of patients coming from spoke centers is well accepted by both patients and hospital staff members. Moreover, collaboration between healthcare workers from spoke and hub centers generates minimal levels of anxiety, while potentially being associated with clinical, surgical and scientific improvement. This said, a more specific focus on recommended strategies to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 contagion at oncologic hub hospitals is warranted.

Urologic surgery in a safe hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic scenario.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic induced a global emergency that overwhelmed most hospitals around the world. Access to hospitals has been restricted to selective oncological and urgent patients to minimize surgeries requiring Intensive Care Unit care. All other kind of non-urgent and benign surgeries have been rescheduled. The burden of oncological and urgent cases on the healthcare system has increased. METHODS: We have been asked to become the referral center for major oncological and urgent urological surgeries, increasing our surgical volume. Through meticulous hospital protocols on PPE, use of nasopharyngeal swabs, controlled hospital access and the prompt management of suspected/positive cases, we were able to perform 31% more urological surgical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period in 2019. RESULTS: We observed a 72% increase in oncological surgical procedures and 150% in urgent procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience shows how the management of oncological and urgent cases can be maintained during unexpected, global emergencies, such as COVID-19.

Is Uro-oncological Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Comparative Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Surgery 2019-2020.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 infection has resulted in an unprecedented pandemic. Patients undergoing surgery are a group at risk of exposure. Also, patients with ongoing infection undergoing surgery may be more susceptible to developing complications. There is no significant data on surgical safety in the pandemic period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational study based in a prospective database of urological oncological surgery. Data were obtained during the 2020 mandatory confinement period compared to the same period in 2019. The records were reviewed 45 days post-surgery. The objective was to compare surgical morbidity and mortality during the pandemic versus an average year in urological cancer surgery. RESULTS: During confinement period (2020), 85 patients underwent uro-oncology surgery, while in 2019, during the same period, 165. The Clavien-Dindo morbidity ≥3 in 2020 was 2.3% (n=2), and in 2019, it reached 6% (n=10). In 2020, 9 patients were readmitted (10.5%). One patient (1.1%) was re-interfered, with a perioperative mortality of 1.1%. In 2019, 21 patients (12.7%) were readmitted. Seventeen patients (10.3%) were re-interfered, with a perioperative mortality of 1.8%. The median number of days hospitalized was 2 (IQR=2) in 2020 and 3 (IQR=3) in 2019. No significant differences were found in population or morbimortality, except for reoperation in a normal year. CONCLUSION: Postoperative morbidity and mortality reported are lower than those shown in the literature concerning COVID-19 and similar to that historically reported by our centers. This study suggests that it is safe to operate patients with urological cancer following the appropriate protocols during a pandemic.

Oncology and complications.

This collection of cases describes some unusual urological tumors and complications related to urological tumors and their treatment. Case 1: A case of uretero-arterial fistula in a patient with long-term ureteral stenting for ureteral oncological stricture and a second case associated to retroperitoneal fibrosis were described. Abdominal CT, pyelography, cystoscopy were useful to show the origin of the bleeding. Angiography is useful for confirming the diagnosis and for subsequent positioning of an endovascular prosthesis which represents a safe approach with reduced post-procedural complications. Case 2: A case of patient who suffered from interstitial pneumonitis during a cycle of intravesical BCG instillations for urothelial cancer. The patient was hospitalized for more than two weeks in a COVID ward for a suspected of COVID-19 pneumonia, but he did not show any evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during his hospital stay. Case 3: A case of a young man with a functional urinary bladder paraganglioma who was successfully managed with complete removal of the tumor, leaving the urinary bladder intact. Case 4: A case of a 61 year old male suffering from muscle invasive bladder cancer who was admitted for a radical cystectomy and on the eighth postoperative day developed microangiopathic hemolytic anemia and thrombocytopenia, which clinically defines thrombotic microangiopathy.

[Outcomes following the triage of patients for urological cancer and non-cancer surgery during Covid-19 pandemic peak]. / Évaluation des mesures de triages de la première vague pandémique Covid-19 pour sélectionner les patients à opérer pour cancers et urgences urologiques.

INTRODUCTION: Faced with the first wave of Covid-19 pandemic, guidelines for surgical triage were developed to free up healthcare resources. The aim of our study was to assess clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of triaged patients during the first Covid-19 crisis. METHOD: We conducted a cohort-controlled, non-randomized, study in a University Hospital of south-eastern France. Data were collected prospectively from consecutive patients after triage during the period from March 15th to May 1st and compared with control data from outside pandemic period. Primary endpoint was intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for surgery-related complications. Rates of surgery-specific death, postponed operations, positive PCR testing and Clavien-Dindo complications and data from cancer and non- cancer subgroups were assessed. RESULTS: After triage, 96 of 142 elective surgeries were postponed. Altogether, 71 patients, median age 68 y.o (IQR: 56-75 y.o), sex ratio M/F of 4/1, had surgery, among whom, 48 (68%) had uro-oncological surgery. No patients developed Covid-19 pneumonia in the post-surgery period. Three (4%) were admitted to the ICU, one of whom died from multi-organ failure due to septic shock caused by klebsiella pneumonia following a delay in treatment. Three Covid-19 RT-PCR were done and all were negative. There was no difference in mortality rates or ICU admission rates between control and Covid- era patients. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery after triage during the first Covid-19 pandemic was not associated with worse short-term outcomes. Urological cancers could be operated on safely in our context but delays in care for aggressive genitourinary diseases could be life threatening. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

How uro-oncology has been affected by COVID-19 emergency? Data from Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta Oncological Network, Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically hit all Europe and Northern Italy in particular. The reallocation of medical resources has caused a sharp reduction in the activity of many medical disciplines, including urology. The restricted availability of resources is expected to cause a delay in the treatment of urological cancers and to negatively influence the clinical history of many cancer patients. In this study, we describe COVID-19 impact on uro-oncological management in Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, estimating its future impact. METHODS: We performed an online survey in 12 urological centers, belonging to the Oncological Network of Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, to estimate the impact of COVID-19 emergency on their practice. On this basis, we then estimated the medical working capacity needed to absorb all postponed uro-oncological procedures. RESULTS: Most centers (77%) declared to be "much"/"very much" affected by COVID-19 emergency. If uro-oncological consultations for newly diagnosed cancers were often maintained, follow-up consultations were more than halved or even suspended in around two out of three centers. In-office and day-hospital procedures were generally only mildly reduced, whereas major uro-oncological procedures were more than halved or even suspended in 60% of centers. To clear waiting list backlog, the urological working capacity should dramatically increase in the next months; delays greater than 1 month are expected for more than 50% of uro-oncological procedures. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 emergency has dramatically slowed down uro-oncological activity in Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta. Ideally, uro-oncological patients should be referred to COVID-19-free tertiary urological centers to ensure a timely management.