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.

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.

[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.

Experiences of a "COVID protected" robotic surgical centre for colorectal and urological cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic led to the cancellation of elective surgery across the United Kingdom. Re-establishing elective surgery in a manner that ensures patient and staff safety has been a priority. We report our experience and patient outcomes from setting up a "COVID protected" robotic unit for colorectal and renal surgery that housed both the da Vinci Si (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and the Versius (CMR Surgical, Cambridge, UK) robotic systems. "COVID protected" robotic surgery was undertaken in a day-surgical unit attached to the main hospital. A standard operating procedure was developed in collaboration with the trust COVID-19 leadership team and adapted to national recommendations. 60 patients underwent elective robotic surgery in the initial 10-weeks of the study. This included 10 colorectal procedures and 50 urology procedures. Median length of stay was 4 days for rectal cancer procedures, 2 days less than prior to the COVID period, and 1 day for renal procedures. There were no instances of in-patient coronavirus transmission. Six rectal cancer patients waited more than 62 days for their surgery because of the initial COVID peak but none had an increase T-stage between pre-operative staging and post-operative histology. Robotic surgery can be undertaken in "COVID protected" units within acute hospitals in a safe way that mitigates the increased risk of undergoing major surgery in the current pandemic. Some benefits were seen such as reduced length of stay for colorectal patients that may be associated with having a dedicated unit for elective robotic surgical services.

Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Same-day Discharge After Robotic Urologic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of same-day discharge (SDD) after robotic surgery METHODS: We reviewed our robotic surgeries during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020 and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. We followed our formerly described protocol in use since 2016 offering the option of SDD to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure type or patient-specific factors. RESULTS: During COVID-19 restrictions (COV), 89 robotic surgeries were performed and compared with 1667 of the same procedures performed previously (pre-COV) and 42 during the following month (post-COV). Among COV patients 98% (87/89 patients) opted for same-day discharge after surgery versus 52% in the historical pre-COV group (P < .00001). Post-COV, the higher rate of SDD was maintained at 98% (41/42 patients). There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients with only 2 COV (2%) and no post-COV 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: SDD after robotic surgery was safely applied during the COVID-19 crisis without increasing complications or readmissions. SDD may allow continuation of robotic surgery despite limited hospital beds and when minimizing hospital stay is important to protect postoperative patients from infection. Our experience suggests that patient attitude is a major factor in SDD after robotic surgery since the proportion of patients opting for SDD was much higher during COV and continued post-COV. Consideration of SDD long-term may be warranted for cost savings even in the absence of a crisis.

Management of urologic cancers during the pandemic and potential impact of treatment deferrals on outcomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic-related constraints on healthcare access have raised concerns about adverse outcomes from delayed treatment, including the risk of cancer progression and other complications. Further, concerns were raised about a potentially significant backlog of patients in need of cancer care due to the pandemic-related delays in healthcare, further exacerbating any potential adverse outcomes. Delayed access to surgery is particularly relevant to urologic oncology since one-third of new cancers in men (20% overall) arise from the genitourinary (GU) tract and surgery is often the primary treatment. Herein, we summarize the prepandemic literature on deferred surgery for GU cancers and risk of disease progression. The aforementioned data on delayed surgery were gathered in the context of systemic delays present in certain healthcare systems, or occasionally, due to planned deferral in suboptimal surgical candidates. These data provide indirect, but sufficient insight to develop triage schemas for prioritization of uro-oncological cases. Herein, we outline the extent to which the pandemic-related triage guidelines had influenced urologic practice in various regions. To study the adverse outcomes in the pandemic-era, a survey of urologic oncologists was conducted regarding modifications in their initial management of urologic cancers and any delay-related adverse outcomes. While the adverse effects directly from COVID-19 related delays will become apparent in the coming years, the results showing short-term outcomes are quite instructive. Since cancer care was assigned a higher priority at most centers, this strategy may have avoided significant delays in care and limited the anticipated negative impact of pandemic-related constraints.

Design of an assistance protocol for the restart of scheduled urologic surgery in a COVID-19 epidemic period. / Diseño de un protocolo asistencial para el reinicio de la cirugía urológica programada en periodo de epidemia COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Design a care protocol to restart scheduled surgical activity in a Urology service of a third level hospital in the Community of Madrid, in a safe way for our patients and professionals in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus epidemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary group reviewed the different recommendations of the literature, national and international health organizations and scientific societies, as well as their application to our environment. Once scheduled surgery has restarted, the patients undergoing surgery for complications related to COVID-19 are being followed up. RESULTS: Since the resumption of surgical activity, 19 patients have been scheduled, of which 2 have been suspended for presenting COVID-19, one diagnosed by positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, and another by laboratory and imaging findings compatible with this infection. With a median follow-up of 10 days (4-14 days), no complications related to COVID-19 were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results indicate that the protocol designed to ensure the correct application of preventive measures against the transmission of coronavirus infection is being safe and effective.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Health-Related Quality of Life in Uro-oncologic Patients: What Should We Wait For?

PURPOSE: To investigate the health-related quality of life of uro-oncologic patients whose surgery was postponed without being rescheduled during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the March 1 to April 26, 2020, major urologic surgeries were drastically reduced at our tertiary-care referral hospital. In order to evaluate health-related quality-of-life outcomes, the SF-36 questionnaire was sent to all patients scheduled for major surgery at our department 3 weeks after the cancellation of the planned surgical procedures because of the COVID-19 emergency. RESULTS: All patients included in the analysis had been awaiting surgery for a median (interquartile range) time of 52.85 (35-72) days. The SF-36 questionnaire measured 8 domains: physical functioning (PF), role limitations due to physical health (PH), role limitations due to emotional problems (RE), energy/fatigue (EF), emotional well-being (EWB), social functioning (SF), bodily pain (BP), general health perceptions (GHP). When considering physical characteristics as measured by the SF-36 questionnaire, PF was 91.5 (50-100) and PH was 82.75 (50-100) with a BP of 79.56 (45-90). For emotional and social aspects, RE was 36.83 (0-100) with a SF of 37.98 (12.5-90). Most patients reported loss of energy (EF 35.28 [15-55]) and increased anxiety (EWB 47.18 [interquartile range, 20-75]). All patients perceived a reduction of their health conditions, with GHP of 49.47 (15-85). Generally, 86% of patients (n = 43) noted an almost intact physical function but a significant emotional alteration characterized by a prevalence of anxiety and loss of energy. CONCLUSION: The lockdown due to the novel coronavirus that has affected most operating rooms in Italy could be responsible for the increased anxiety and decrement in health status of oncologic patients. Without any effective solution, we should expect a new medical catastrophe-one caused by the increased risk of tumor progression and mortality in uro-oncologic patients.

Clinical pathways for urology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The public health emergency caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a significant reallocation of health resources with a consequent reorganization of the clinical activities also in several urological centers. A panel of Italian urologists has agreed on a set of recommendations on pathways of pre-, intra- and post-operative care for urological patients undergoing urgent procedures or non-deferrable oncological interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Simplification of the diagnostic and staging pathway has to be prioritized in order to reduce hospital visits and consequently the risk of contagion. In absence of strict uniform regulations that impose the implementation of nasopharyngeal swabs, we recommend that an accurate triage for COVID-19 symptoms be performed both by telephone at home before hospitalization and at the time of hospitalization. We recommend that during hospital stay patients should be provided with as many instructions as possible to facilitate their return to, and stay at, home. Patients should be discharged under stable good conditions in order to minimize the risk of readmission. It is advisable to reduce or reschedule post-discharge controls and implement an adequate system of communication for telemonitoring discharged patients.

A Systematic Review on Guidelines and Recommendations for Urology Standard of Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: The first case of the new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), was identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Since then, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reclassified as a pandemic, and health systems around the world have faced an unprecedented challenge. OBJECTIVE: To summarize guidelines and recommendations on the urology standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Guidelines and recommendations published between November 2019 and April 17, 2020 were retrieved using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the web pages of international urology societies. Our inclusion criteria were guidelines, recommendations, or best practice statements by international urology organizations and reference centers about urological care in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of 366 titles identified, 15 guidelines met our criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 15 guidelines, 14 addressed emergency situations and 12 reported on assessment of elective uro-oncology procedures. There was consensus on postponing radical prostatectomy except for high-risk prostate cancer, and delaying treatment for low-grade bladder cancer, small renal masses up to T2, and stage I seminoma. According to nine guidelines that addressed endourology, obstructed or infected kidneys should be decompressed, whereas nonobstructing stones and stent removal should be rescheduled. Five guidelines/recommendations discussed laparoscopic and robotic surgery, while the remaining recommendations focused on outpatient procedures and consultations. All recommendations represented expert opinions, with three specifically endorsed by professional societies. Only the European Association of Urology guidelines provided evidence-based levels of evidence (mostly level 3 evidence). CONCLUSIONS: To make informed decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are multiple national and international guidelines and recommendations for urologists to prioritize the provision of care. Differences among the guidelines were minimal. PATIENT SUMMARY: We performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provide guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care.

Assessing the Burden of Nondeferrable Major Uro-oncologic Surgery to Guide Prioritisation Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from Three Italian High-volume Referral Centres.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an unprecedented emergency scenario for all aspects of health care, including urology. At the time of writing, Italy was the country with the highest rates of both infection and mortality. A panel of experts recently released recommendations for prioritising urologic surgeries in a low-resource setting. Of note, major cancer surgery represents a compelling challenge. However, the burden of these procedures and the impact of such recommendations on urologic practice are currently unknown. To fill this gap, we assessed the yearly proportion of high-priority major uro-oncologic surgeries at three Italian high-volume academic centres. Of 2387 major cancer surgeries, 32.3% were classified as high priority (12.6% of radical nephroureterectomy, 17.3% of nephrectomy, 33.9% of radical prostatectomy, and 36.2% of radical cystectomy cases). Moreover, 26.4% of high-priority major cancer surgeries were performed in patients at higher perioperative risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3), with radical cystectomy contributing the most to this cohort (50%). Our real-life data contextualise ongoing recommendations on prioritisation strategies during the current COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for better patient selection for surgery. We found that approximately two-thirds of elective major uro-oncologic surgeries can be safely postponed or changed to another treatment modality when the availability of health care resources is reduced. PATIENT SUMMARY: We used data from three high-volume Italian academic urology centres to evaluate how many surgeries performed for prostate, bladder, kidney, and upper tract urothelial cancer can be postponed in times of emergency. We found that approximately two-thirds of patients with these cancers do not require high-priority surgery. Conversely, of patients requiring high-priority surgery, approximately one in four is considered at high perioperative risk. These patients may pose challenges in allocation of resources in critical scenarios such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.