The experience of surgical cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large cancer centre in London.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on the experiences of patients across all health disciplines, especially those of cancer patients. The study aimed to understand the experiences of cancer patients who underwent surgery during the first two waves of the pandemic at Guy's Cancer Centre, which is a large tertiary cancer centre in London. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted for this study. Firstly, a survey was co-designed by the research team and a patient study group. Patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were invited to take part in this survey. Results were analysed descriptively. Three discussion groups were then conducted to focus on the main themes from the survey findings: communication, COVID-19 risk management and overall experience. These discussion groups were transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis using the NVivo software package. RESULTS: Out of 1657 patients invited, a total of 250 (15%) participants took part in the survey with a mean age of 66 (SD 12.8) and 52% females. The sample was representative of a wide range of tumour sites and was reflective of those invited to take part. Overall, the experience of the cancer patients was positive. They felt that the safety protocols implemented at the hospital were effective. Communication was considered key, and patients were receptive to a change in the mode of communication from in-person to virtual. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the immense challenges faced by our Cancer Centre, patients undergoing surgery during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had a generally positive experience with minimal disruptions to their planned surgery and ongoing care. Together with the COVID-19 safety precautions, effective communication between the clinical teams and the patients helped the overall patient experience during their surgical treatment.

Real-world data evaluating Guy's rapid diagnostic clinic as an alternate pathway for patients with FIT levels below 10.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic clinics (RDCs) as an alternative pathway for patients with concerning symptoms and a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) result <10. Our primary endpoint was rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Second endpoints were rates of other cancers and gastrointestinal (GI) serious benign conditions. Finally, we analysed the specific pathway followed by FIT <10 patients with cancer at Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) RDC. DESIGN: A retrospective and prospective cohort study. SETTING: GSTT RDC, one of England's largest single-centre RDCs. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of FIT <10 patients were analysed descriptively. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an FIT result <10, seen at GSTT RDC between 1 January 2020 and 5 May 2023. RESULTS: A total of 1299 patients with an FIT<10 were seen at GSTT RDC between January 2020 and May 2023. Of these, 66% (n=861) reported weight loss, 62% (n=805) pain, 37% (n=481) fatigue, 34% (n=444) were anaemic and 23% (n=301) had nausea and vomiting. Among these patients, 7% (n=88) received a cancer diagnosis, 36% (n=462) were identified as having a serious benign condition. Within the patients with cancer, 9% (n=8) were diagnosed with CRC. Among patients with serious benign conditions, 7% (n=31) were referred to colorectal, hepatopancreatobiliary, or upper GI specialists. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of RDCs as an alternate pathway for FIT <10 patients with ongoing clinical concerns. These results contribute to enhancing patient care and optimising resource allocation within the healthcare system.

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.

Long-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients: the experience from Guy's Cancer Centre.

Background: Few studies have investigated the long-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients. Materials & methods: The authors conducted a telephone survey on the long-term symptoms of cancer patients from Guy's Cancer Centre. They compared patients whose symptoms occurred/got worse over 4 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis (classified as long COVID) with patients who did not develop symptoms or whose symptoms occurred/got worse in the first 4 weeks after diagnosis. Results: The authors analyzed responses from 80 patients with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis; 51.3% (n = 41) developed long COVID. The most common symptoms were fatigue, breathlessness and cognitive impairment. Conclusion: Findings suggest that over half of the cancer population will experience long-term effects after their initial COVID-19 diagnosis. Further studies are required to validate the findings of this study.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urological cancers: The surgical experience of two cancer hubs in London and Milan.

Objective: To report on the outcomes of urological cancer patients undergoing radical surgery between March-September 2020 (compared with 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Materials and Methods: Since March 2020, both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal 'green' pathway, whereby patients were required to isolate for 14 days prior to admission and report a negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test within 3 days of surgery. COVID-19 positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. Surgical outcomes assessed were: American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade; surgery time; theatre time; intensive care unit (ICU) stay >24 h; pneumonia; length of stay (LOS); re-admission. Postoperative COVID-19 infection rates and associated mortality were also recorded. Results: At IEO, uro-oncological surgery increased by 4%, as compared with the same period in 2019 (n = 515 vs. 534). The main increase was observed for renal (16%, n = 98 vs. 114), bladder (24%, n = 45 vs. 56) and testicular (27%, n = 26 vs. 33). Patient demographics were all comparable between 2019 and 2020. Only one bladder cancer patient developed COVID-19, reporting mild/moderate disease. There was no COVID-19 associated mortality. In the SELCA cohort, uro-oncological surgery declined by 23% (n = 403 vs. 312) compared with the previous year. The biggest decrease was seen for prostate (-42%, n = 156 vs. 91), penile (-100%, n = 4 vs. 0) and testicular cancers (-46%, n = 35 vs. 24). Various patient demographic characteristics were notably different when comparing 2020 versus 2019. This likely reflects the clinical decision of deferring COVID-19 vulnerable patients. One patient developed COVID-19, with no COVID-19 related mortality. Conclusion: The COVID-19 minimal 'green' pathways that were put in place have shown to be safe for uro-oncological patients requiring radical surgery. There were limited complications, almost no peri-operative COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19-related mortality in either cohort.

Radical cancer treatment is safe during COVID-19: the real-world experience of a large London-based Comprehensive Cancer Centre during the first wave.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, there was a paucity of data to support clinical decision-making for anticancer treatments. We evaluated the safety of radical treatments which were delivered whilst mitigating the risks of concurrent COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Using descriptive statistics, we report on the characteristics and short-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing radical cancer treatment during the first COVID-19 wave compared to a similar pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, the number of patients undergoing radical treatment in 2020 reduced by: 28% for surgery; 18% for SACT; and 10% for RT. Within SACT, 36% received combination therapy, 35% systemic chemotherapy, 23% targeted treatments, 5% immunotherapy and 2% biological therapy. A similar proportion of RT was delivered in 2019 and 2020 (53% vs. 52%). Oncological outcomes were also similar to pre-COVID-19. The COVID-19 infection rates were low: 12 patients were positive pre surgery (1%), 7 post surgery (<1%), 17 SACT patients (2%) and 3 RT patients (<1%). No COVID-19-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst there were fewer patients receiving radical anticancer treatments, those who did receive treatment were treated in a safe environment. Overall, cancer patients should have the confidence to attend hospitals and be reassured of the safety measures implemented.

Association between COVID-19 burden and delays to diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients in England.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive for cancer care. Here, we examined the effect COVID-19 had on performance of the 62-day Cancer Waiting Time (CWT) target set by the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: Data were retrospectively obtained on COVID-19 hospitalisations and CWT for NHS hospitals in England (n = 121). We produced a 'COVID-19 burden' to describe the proportion of each provider's beds occupied with COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 burden was examined against CWT performance for 1st April - 30th May 2020 (Wave 1), and 1st October - 30th November 2020 (Wave 2). Two-tailed Spearman correlations were used to identify relationships between COVID-19 burden and CWT performance amongst different referral (i.e., 2-week-wait (2 W W) and internal specialist) and tumour types. Significantly correlated variables were further examined using linear regression models. RESULTS: COVID-19 burden was negatively associated with the percentage of 2 W W pathway referrals that met the CWT target in Wave 1 (r= -0.30, p = 0.001) and Wave 2 (r= -0.21, p = 0.02). These associations were supported by the results from our linear regression models (B for wave 1: -0.71; 95 %CI: -1.03 to -0.40; B for wave 2: -0.38; 95 %CI: -0.68 to -0.07). No associations were found between COVID-19 burden and internal specialist referrals or tumour type. CONCLUSION: Increased COVID-19 burden was associated with lower compliance with CWT targets amongst urgent referrals from primary care in England. This will likely be an ongoing issue due to the backlog of patients awaiting investigations and treatment. POLICY SUMMARY: As the number of cancer referrals improve, we highlight the need for changes to primary and secondary care to manage the backlog within cancer diagnostic services to alleviate the impact of COVID-19.

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.

Cancer staff in an NHS cancer center: infections, vaccination, stress and well-being support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the well-being of cancer staff and determine the uptake of opt-in mitigation strategies. Materials & methods: Staff at Guy's Cancer Centre (London, UK) participated in an anonymized survey between May and August 2021. Results: Of 1182 staff, 257 (21.7%) participated. Ethnicity (p = 0.020) and comorbidity burden (p = 0.022) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Of 199 respondents, seven (3.6%) were vaccine-hesitant, which was associated with low flu vaccine uptake (p < 0.001). Greater stress was associated with younger age (p = 0.030) and redeployment (p = 0.012). Lack of time and skepticism were barriers to using mental well-being resources. Conclusion: Albeit cautious, numerous trends the authors observed echo those in the published literature. Improved accessibility, awareness and utility of mental well-being resources are required.

COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The pandemic has applied immense pressure to healthcare workers, putting their physical and mental well-being at risk. However, the impact for cancer staff, specifically, is less known. In a survey of 257 cancer staff at Guy's Cancer Centre (London, UK; May­August 2021), the authors found that staff of particular ethnic groups, or with pre-existing illnesses, appeared more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. Few staff were hesitant about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, appearing more common among those not receiving the flu vaccine. For many, stress increased over time. However, barriers prevent staff from using mental well-being resources. With findings from larger studies, this work will be useful for strategies protecting cancer staff well-being.

Antibodies as biomarkers for cancer risk: a systematic review.

Increasing evidence has linked the humoral immune response with the development of various cancers. Therefore, there is growing interest in investigating the predictive value of antibodies to assess overall and tissue site-specific cancer risk. Given the large amount of antibody types and the broad scope of the search (i.e. cancer risk), the primary aim of this systematic review was to present an overview of the most researched antibodies (i.e. immunoglobulin (Ig) isotypes (IgG, IgM, IgA, and IgE), tumour and self-antigen-reactive antibodies, infection-related antibodies) in relation to overall and site-specific cancer risk. We identified various antibody types that have been associated with the risk of cancer. While no significant associations were found for IgM serum levels, studies found an inconsistent association among IgE, IgA, and IgG serum levels in relation to cancer risk. When evaluating antibodies against infectious agents, most studies reported a positive link with specific cancers known to be associated with the specific agent recognized by serum antibodies (i.e. helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer, hepatitis B virus and hepatocellular carcinoma, and human papillomavirus and cervical cancer). Several reports identified autoantibodies, as single biomarkers (e.g. anti-p53, anti-MUC1, and anti-CA125) but especially in panels of multiple autoantibodies, to have potential as diagnostic biomarkers for specific cancer types. Overall, there is emerging evidence associating certain antibodies to cancer risk, especially immunoglobulin isotypes, tumour-associated antigen-specific, and self-reactive antibodies. Further experimental studies are necessary to assess the efficacy of specific antibodies as markers for the early diagnosis of cancer.

Serum Total Bilirubin and Risk of Cancer: A Swedish Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis.

Bilirubin has strong antioxidant properties that have been hypothesized to be preventive against the development of cancer. Thus, we aimed to investigate the association between serum total bilirubin (STB) and risk of overall and site-specific cancers in the large Swedish Apolipoprotein Mortality Risk (AMORIS) cohort. We also performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for specific cancer types (colorectal, breast and lung). We found no association between high levels of STB and risk of overall cancer. Regarding site-specific cancer, there was an inverse association between increased STB and lung cancer (Hazard Ratio (HR) for the 4th quartile (Q4) vs. Q1: 0.50; 95%CI: 0.44-0.59) and gynecological cancer (HR for Q4 vs. Q1: 0.86; 95%CI: 0.76-0.99). A positive association was found with melanoma (HR for Q4 vs. Q1: 1.25; 95%CI: 1.06-1.47) and breast cancer (HR for Q4 vs. Q1: 1.13; 95%CI: 1.01-1.25) risk. The meta-analysis showed an inverse association between high levels of STB and risk of lung cancer (Relative risk (RR): 0.69; 95%CI: 0.55-0.86). No associations were seen for colorectal and breast cancer risk. Further studies are required to establish if bilirubin can be used as a biomarker for risk assessment and/or as a novel therapeutic target.

Risk of COVID-19 death in cancer patients: an analysis from Guy's Cancer Centre and King's College Hospital in London.

BACKGROUND: Using an updated dataset with more patients and extended follow-up, we further established cancer patient characteristics associated with COVID-19 death. METHODS: Data on all cancer patients with a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) at Guy's Cancer Centre and King's College Hospital between 29 February and 31 July 2020 was used. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to identify which factors were associated with COVID-19 mortality. RESULTS: Three hundred and six SARS-CoV-2-positive cancer patients were included. Seventy-one had mild/moderate and 29% had severe COVID-19. Seventy-two patients died of COVID-19 (24%), of whom 35 died <7 days. Male sex [hazard ratio (HR): 1.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-3.38)], Asian ethnicity [3.42 (1. 59-7.35)], haematological cancer [2.03 (1.16-3.56)] and a cancer diagnosis for >2-5 years [2.81 (1.41-5.59)] or ≥5 years were associated with an increased mortality. Age >60 years and raised C-reactive protein (CRP) were also associated with COVID-19 death. Haematological cancer, a longer-established cancer diagnosis, dyspnoea at diagnosis and raised CRP were indicative of early COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (<7 days from diagnosis). CONCLUSIONS: Findings further substantiate evidence for increased risk of COVID-19 mortality for male and Asian cancer patients, and those with haematological malignancies or a cancer diagnosis >2 years. These factors should be accounted for when making clinical decisions for cancer patients.

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Cancer Patients: A Single Centre Experience.

Emergency approval of vaccines against COVID-19 provides an opportunity for us to return to pre-pandemic oncology care. However, safety data in cancer patients is lacking due to their exclusion from most phase III trials. We included all patients aged less than 65 years who received a COVID-19 vaccine from 8 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 at our London tertiary oncology centre. Solicited and unsolicited vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) were collected using telephone or face-to-face consultation. Within the study period, 373 patients received their first dose of vaccine: Pfizer/BioNTech (75.1%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (23.6%), Moderna (0.3%), and unknown (1.1%). Median follow-up was 25 days (5-85). Median age was 56 years (19-65). Of the patients, 94.9% had a solid malignancy and 76.7% were stage 3-4. The most common cancers were breast (34.0%), lung (13.4%), colorectal (10.2%), and gynaecological (10.2%). Of the patients, 88.5% were receiving anti-cancer treatment (36.2% parenteral chemotherapy and 15.3% immunotherapy), 76.1% developed any grade VRAE of which 2.1% were grade 3. No grade 4/5 or anaphylaxis were observed. The most common VRAEs within 7 days post-vaccination were sore arm (61.7%), fatigue (18.2%), and headaches (12.1%). Most common grade 3 VRAE was fatigue (1.1%). Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines in oncology patients have mild reactogenicity.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of vascularised lymph node transfer in reducing limb volume and cellulitis episodes in patients with cancer treatment-related lymphoedema.

BACKGROUND: Lymphoedema after cancer treatment is a chronic and disabling complication that presents a significant health care burden during survivorship with limited treatment options. Vascularised lymph node transfer (VLNT) can reconstruct lymphatic flow to reduce limb volumes, but limited higher-order evidence exists to support its effectiveness. AIM: The aim of the study was to systematically review and meta-analyse the effectiveness of VLNT in reducing upper limb (UL) or lower limb (LL) volume and cellulitis episodes in patients with cancer treatment-related lymphoedema (CTRL). METHODS: PubMed, Medline (Ovid) and Embase databases were searched between January 1974 and December 2019. Full-length articles where VLNT was the sole therapeutic procedure for CTRL, reporting volumetric limb, frequency of infection episodes and/or lymphoedema-specific quality-of-life data, were included in a random-effects meta-analysis of circumferential reduction rate (CRR). Methodological quality was assessed using STROBE/CONSORT, and a novel, lymphoedema-specific scoring tool was used to assess lymphoedema-specific methodological reporting. Sensitivity analyses on the site of VLNT harvest and recipient location were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies (581 patients) were eligible for inclusion. VLNT led to significant limb volume reductions in UL (above elbow pooled CRRs [CRRP] = 42.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 36.5-48.8]; below elbow CRRP = 34.1% [95% CI: 33.0-35.1]) and LL (above knee CRRP = 46.8% [95% CI: 43.2-50.4]; below knee CRRP = 54.6% [95% CI: 39.0-70.2]) CTRL. VLNT flaps from extra-abdominal donor sites were associated with greater volume reductions (CRRP = 49.5% [95% CI: 46.5-52.5]) than those from intra-abdominal donor sites (CRRP = 39.6% [95% CI: 37.2-42.0]) and synchronous autologous breast reconstruction/VLNT flaps (CRRP = 32.7% [95% CI: 11.1-54.4]) (p < 0.05). VLNT was also found to reduce the mean number of cellulitis episodes by 2.1 episodes per year (95% CI: -2.7- -1.4) and increased lymphoedema-specific quality-of-life scores (mean difference in Lymphoedema-Specific Quality of Life (LYMQOL) "overall domain" = +4.26). CONCLUSIONS: VLNT is effective in reducing excess limb volume and cellulitis episodes in both UL and LL lymphoedema after cancer treatment. However, significant heterogeneity exists in outcome reporting, and standardisation of reporting processes is recommended.

COVID-19 Risk Factors for Cancer Patients: A First Report with Comparator Data from COVID-19 Negative Cancer Patients.

Very few studies investigating COVID-19 in cancer patients have included cancer patients as controls. We aimed to identify factors associated with the risk of testing positive for SARS CoV2 infection in a cohort of cancer patients. We analyzed data from all cancer patients swabbed for COVID-19 between 1st March and 31st July 2020 at Guy's Cancer Centre. We conducted logistic regression analyses to identify which factors were associated with a positive COVID-19 test. Results: Of the 2152 patients tested for COVID-19, 190 (9%) tested positive. Male sex, black ethnicity, and hematological cancer type were positively associated with risk of COVID-19 (OR = 1.85, 95%CI:1.37-2.51; OR = 1.93, 95%CI:1.31-2.84; OR = 2.29, 95%CI:1.45-3.62, respectively) as compared to females, white ethnicity, or solid cancer type, respectively. Male, Asian ethnicity, and hematological cancer type were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 (OR = 3.12, 95%CI:1.58-6.14; OR = 2.97, 95%CI:1.00-8.93; OR = 2.43, 95%CI:1.00-5.90, respectively). This study is one of the first to compare the risk of COVID-19 incidence and severity in cancer patients when including cancer patients as controls. Results from this study have echoed those of previous reports, that patients who are male, of black or Asian ethnicity, or with a hematological malignancy are at an increased risk of COVID-19.

Continuity of Cancer Care: The Surgical Experience of Two Large Cancer Hubs in London and Milan.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a large effect on the management of cancer patients. This study reports on the approach and outcomes of cancer patients receiving radical surgery with curative intent between March and September 2020 (in comparison to 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal pathway where patients were required to self-isolate prior to admission and were swabbed for COVID-19 within 72 h of surgery. Positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. At IEO, radical surgeries declined by 6% as compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 1477 vs. 1560, respectively). Readmissions were required for 3% (n = 41), and <1% (n = 9) developed COVID-19, of which only one had severe disease and died. At SELCA, radical surgeries declined by 34% (n = 1553 vs. 2336). Readmissions were required for 11% (n = 36), <1% (n = 7) developed COVID-19, and none died from it. Whilst a decline in number of surgeries was observed in both centres, the implemented COVID-19 minimal pathways have shown to be safe for cancer patients requiring radical treatment, with limited complications and almost no COVID-19 infections.

Pancreatic Cancer Exposome Profile to Aid Early Detection and Inform Prevention Strategies.

Pancreatic cancer (PCa) is associated with a poor prognosis and high mortality rate. The causes of PCa are not fully elucidated yet, although certain exposome factors have been identified. The exposome is defined as the sum of all environmental factors influencing the occurrence of a disease during a life span. The development of an exposome approach for PCa has the potential to discover new disease-associated factors to better understand the carcinogenesis of PCa and help with early detection strategies. Our systematic review of the literature identified several exposome factors that have been associated with PCa alone and in combination with other exposures. A potential inflammatory signature has been observed among the interaction of several exposures (i.e., smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and inflammatory markers) that further increases the incidence and progression of PCa. A large number of exposures have been identified such as genetic, hormonal, microorganism infections and immune responses that warrant further investigation. Future early detection strategies should utilize this information to assess individuals' risk for PCa.

Metabolic syndrome biomarkers and prostate cancer risk in the UK Biobank.

We investigated the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components and risk of prostate cancer (PCa) in a cohort of men enrolled in the UK Biobank. Our study cohort included 220 622 PCa-free men with baseline measurements of triglycerides (TGs), HDL-cholesterol (HDL), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), and waist circumference (WC). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyze associations with PCa for: individual metabolic components (TG, HDL, HbA1c, BP, WC), combinations of two and three components, and MetS overall (three or more components). We conducted mediation analyses to examine potential hormonal and inflammatory pathways (total testosterone [TT], C-reactive protein [CRP], insulin-like growth factor 1 [IGF-1]) through which MetS components may influence PCa risk. A total of 5409 men in the study developed PCa during a median follow-up of 6.9 years. We found no significant association between MetS and PCa risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.92-1.06). No associations were found with PCa risk and individual measurements of TG, HDL, BP, or WC. However, an inverse association was observed with elevated HbA1c (≥42 mmol/mol) (HR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.79-0.98). Consistent inverse associations were observed between HbA1c and risk of PCa. Mediation analysis revealed TT, CRP, and IGF-1 as potential mediating factors for this association contributing 10.2%, 7.1%, and 7.9% to the total effect, respectively. Overall MetS had no association with PCa risk. However, a consistent inverse association with PCa risk was found for HbA1c. This association may be explained in part through hormonal and inflammatory pathways.