Impact of the COVID-19-pandemic on patients with gynecological malignancies undergoing surgery: A Dutch population-based study using data from the 'Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit'

Time to Diagnosis and Treatment for Ovarian Cancer and Associations with Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Background: Ovarian cancer is commonly diagnosed symptomatically at an advanced stage. Better survival for early disease suggests improving diagnostic pathways may increase survival. This study examines literature assessing diagnostic intervals and their association with clinical and psychological outcomes. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and EmCare databases were searched for studies including quantitative measures of at least one interval, published between January 1, 2000 and August 9, 2022. Interval measures and associations (interval, outcomes, analytic strategy) were synthesized. Risk of bias of association studies was assessed using the Aarhus Checklist and ROBINS-E tool. Results: In total, 65 papers (20 association studies) were included and 26 unique intervals were identified. Interval estimates varied widely and were impacted by summary statistic used (mean or median) and group focused on. Of Aarhus-defined intervals, patient (symptom to presentation, n = 23; range [median]: 7-168 days) and diagnostic (presentation to diagnosis, n = 22; range [median]: 7-270 days) were most common. Nineteen association studies examined survival or stage outcomes with most, including five low risk-of-bias studies, finding no association. Conclusions: Studies reporting intervals for ovarian cancer diagnosis are limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Greater utilization of the Aarhus statement to define intervals and appropriate analytic methods is needed to strengthen findings from future studies.

Oncofertility and Fertility Preservation for Women with Gynecological Malignancies: Where Do We Stand Today?

Oncofertility is a growing medical and research field that includes two main areas: oncology and reproductive medicine. Nowadays, the percentage of patients surviving cancer has exponentially increased, leading to the need for intervention for fertility preservation in both men and women. Specifically, gynecological malignancies in women pose an additional layer of complexity due to the reproductive organs being affected. In the present review, we report fertility preservation options with a cancer- and stage-specific focus. We explore the drawbacks and the necessity for planning fertility preservation applications during emergency statuses (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) and comment on the importance of repro-counseling for multifaceted patients during their oncological and reproductive journey.

The impact of the COVID-19 public health response on service demand and patient perceptions in a tertiary Australian gynaecology oncology unit

INTRODUCTION

The public health response (PHR) to the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted healthcare services worldwide. Our hospital, a major tertiary centre, is a unique two-state service across Queensland and New South Wales (NSW).

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to describe changes in service demand and delivery in our hospital resulting from the COVID-19 PHR. The secondary objective is to investigate patient perceptions of this impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective interrupted time series analysis and a population-based survey to examine patient perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 PHR. The study periods were demarcated by the initiation of the COVID-19 PHR on 1 March 2020 with the 'pre' and 'during' COVID-19 periods defined as the 12 months before and after this date respectively.

RESULTS

More patients were seen during the COVID-19 PHR period. The number or stage of cancer diagnoses was not different (P > 0.05). There was evidence (P = 0.03) of an increase in overall occasions of service and fewer failed attendances (P = 0.005). Fewer surgeries were performed on NSW patients (P = 0.005). The survey response rate was 19.3% (n = 185) with 48% stating that COVID-19 had negatively affected their emotional wellbeing. More participants from NSW than Queensland identified border closures as the most significant impact of the COVID-19 PHR.

DISCUSSION

The COVID-19 PHR resulted in an unexpected increase in unit service demand and delivery. The necessary implementation of telephone appointments, while less preferred by patients, sustained service requirements. Cross-border tertiary healthcare services should consider the significant impact of border restrictions on patient wellbeing.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Time to Treatment in Surgical Oncology: A National Registry Study in The Netherlands

To avoid delay in oncological treatment, a 6-weeks norm for time to treatment has been agreed on in The Netherlands. However, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems resulted in reduced capacity for regular surgical care. In this study, we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to treatment in surgical oncology in The Netherlands.

METHODS

A population-based analysis of data derived from five surgical audits, including patients who underwent surgery for lung cancer, colorectal cancer, upper gastro-intestinal, and hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) malignancies, was performed. The COVID-19 cohort of 2020 was compared to the historic cohorts of 2018 and 2019. Primary endpoints were time to treatment initiation and the proportion of patients whose treatment started within 6 weeks. The secondary objective was to evaluate the differences in characteristics and tumour stage distribution between patients treated before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

A total of 14,567 surgical cancer patients were included in this study, of these 3292 treatments were started during the COVID-19 pandemic. The median time to treatment decreased during the pandemic (26 vs. 27 days, p < 0.001) and the proportion of patients whose treatment started within 6 weeks increased (76% vs. 73%, p < 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusting for patient characteristics, no significant difference in post-operative outcomes between patients who started treatment before or after 6 weeks was found. Overall, the number of procedures performed per week decreased by 8.1% during the pandemic. This reduction was most profound for patients with stage I lung carcinoma and colorectal carcinoma. There were fewer patients with pulmonary comorbidities in the pandemic cohort (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite pressure on the capacity of the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic, a larger proportion of surgical oncological patients started treatment within six weeks, possibly due to prioritisation of cancer care and reductions in elective procedures. However, during the pandemic, a decrease in the number of surgical oncological procedures performed in The Netherlands was observed, especially for patients with stage I disease.

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in patients diagnosed with epithelial type ovarian cancer

Introduction

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic posed critical challenges in providing care to ovarian cancer (OC) patients, including delays in OC diagnosis and treatment initiation. To accommodate for delays in OC surgery, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) recommended preferential use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy during the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in patients diagnosed with OC.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with stage II-IV ovarian cancer of epithelial subtype between 01/01/2017-06/30/2021 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large integrated healthcare system in the United States. Ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 2017-2020 were identified from KPSC's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-affiliated cancer registry. Patients diagnosed in 2021 were identified from the electronic medical records (EMR) using ICD-10 diagnosis codes, followed by medical chart review to validate diagnosis and extract information on histology and stage at diagnosis. March 4, 2020 was used as the cut-off to define pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between OC diagnosis and treatment completion were excluded. Data on neoadjuvant chemotherapy use were extracted from the cancer registry and EMR, supplemented by chart review. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association of the pandemic with neoadjuvant chemotherapy use.

Results

Of 566 OC patients, 160 (28.3%) were diagnosed in the pandemic period. Patients diagnosed in the pandemic period were slightly younger (mean age 62.7 vs 64.9 years, p=0.07) and had a higher burden of Charlson comorbidities (p=0.05) than patients diagnosed in pre-pandemic period. No differences in time to treatment initiation were observed by pandemic periods. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use was documented in 58.7% patients during the pandemic period compared to 47.3% in pre-pandemic period (p=0.01). After adjusting for covariates, patients diagnosed in the pandemic period were 29% more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy than patients diagnosed in pre-pandemic period [RR(95%CI): 1.29(1.12-1.49)].

Discussions

Ovarian cancer patients diagnosed in the COVID-19 pandemic were more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy than patients diagnosed before the pandemic. Future research on patient outcomes and trends in the post-pandemic period are warranted.

Access to Surgery for Endometrial Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on endometrial cancer stage and surgical treatment in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

This descriptive study identified cases from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 from endometrial cancer hysterectomy specimens in the Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario, ePath system. Endometrial biopsy records from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2021 were matched to surgical specimens by provincial health card number. Time to surgery and surgical stage were compared before (2017-2019) and during (2020-2021) the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

There were 10 446 women treated with hysterectomy for endometrial cancer in Ontario from 2017-2021. In April and May 2020, corresponding with the provincial state of emergency, there was a 56% relative reduction in endometrial biopsies. Despite this 2-month reduction in endometrial biopsy volume, there was no change in surgical volume for endometrial cancer treatment. The median time from endometrial biopsy to surgery was 56 days (IQR 40, 80) during the pandemic (2020-2021) compared to 58 days (IQR 43, 82) prior to the pandemic (2017-2019) (P < 0.001). There was no upstaging of endometrial cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ontario healthcare system continued to prioritize service delivery to endometrial cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the increase in virtual care and decrease in operating room time. There were no significant surgical delays or upstaging of endometrial cancer.

Radical hysterectomy case volume and cervical cancer treatment in the era of COVID-19: A multi-site analysis of National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

OBJECTIVE

To compare radical hysterectomy case volume, cancer stage, and biopsy-to-treatment time of invasive cervical cancer diagnosed before and after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

In a multi-institution retrospective cohort study conducted at 6 large, geographically diverse National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers, patients treated for newly diagnosed invasive cervical cancer were classified into 2 temporal cohorts based on date of first gynecologic oncology encounter: (1) Pre-Pandemic: 3/1/2018-2/28/2020; (2) Pandemic & Recovery: 4/1/2020-12/31/2021. The primary outcome was total monthly radical hysterectomy case volume. Secondary outcomes were stage at diagnosis and diagnosis-to-treatment time. Statistical analyses used chi-squared and two sample t-tests.

RESULTS

Between 3/1/2018-12/31/2021, 561 patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer. The Pre-Pandemic and Pandemic & Recovery cohorts had similar age, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and Body Mass Index (BMI). During Pandemic & Recovery, the mean monthly radical hysterectomy case volume decreased from 7[SD 2.8] to 5[SD 2.0] (p = 0.001), the proportion of patients diagnosed with Stage I disease dropped from 278/561 (49.5%) to 155/381 (40.7%), and diagnosis of stage II-IV disease increased from 281/561 (50.1%) to 224/381 (58.8%). Primary surgical management was less frequent (38.3% Pandemic & Recovery versus 46.7% Pre-Pandemic, p = 0.013) and fewer surgically-treated patients received surgery within 6 weeks of diagnosis (27.4% versus 38.9%; p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower radical hysterectomy case volume, a shift to higher cervical cancer stage, and delay in surgical therapy were observed across the United States following the COVID-19 outbreak. Decreased surgical volume may result from lower detection of early-stage disease or other factors.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of Endometrial Cancer: A Monocentric Retrospective Comparative Study

Endometrial cancer represents an ideal target to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 being the most frequent gynecological malignancy in Italy, generally detected at early stages and correlated with favorable oncological outcomes. The present comparative retrospective study carried out at Campus Bio-medico University Foundation in Rome aims to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation, diagnosis and treatment of EC. All women with a histological diagnosis of non-endometrioid and endometrioid endometrial cancer between 1 March 2018 and 31 October 2022 were included. The number of cases was higher in period 2 (95 vs. 64 cases). Time to diagnosis did not show statistically significant differences but in period 2, 92.06% of the diagnoses were made following abnormal uterine bleeding, while in period 1, only 67.02% were. The waiting time for the intervention was significantly shorter in period 2. Definitive histology, FIGO staging, surgical technique and adjuvant therapy did not show significant differences between the two periods. The study demonstrates that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic did not have a direct effect on the diagnostic delay, tumor staging and type of therapy but rather on the presentation pattern of endometrial cancer.

Incidence of gynaecological cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown on the number of diagnoses of gynaecological malignancies in the Netherlands.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on women of 18 years and older diagnosed with invasive endometrial, ovarian, cervical or vulvar cancer in the period 2017-2021. Analyses were stratified for age, socioeconomical status (SES) and region.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of gynaecological cancer was 67/100.000 (n = 4832) before (2017-2019) and 68/100.000 (n = 4833) during (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparing the number of diagnoses of the two periods for the four types of cancer separately showed no significant difference. During the first wave of COVID-19 (March-June 2020), a clear decrease in number of gynaecological cancer diagnoses was visible (20-34 %). Subsequently, large increases in number of diagnoses were visible (11-29 %). No significant differences in incidence were found between different age groups, SES and regions. In 2021 an increase of 5.9 % in number of diagnoses was seen.

CONCLUSION

In the Netherlands, a clear drop in number of diagnoses was visible for all four types of gynaecological cancers during the first wave, with a subsequent increase in number of diagnoses in the second part of 2020 and in 2021. No differences between SES groups were found. This illustrates good organisation of and access to health care in the Netherlands.

Groin Hernia Repair during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Romanian Nationwide Analysis

Background and Objectives: Groin hernia repair surgery (GHRS) is among the most common elective interventions. The aim of this three-year nationwide study on GHRS is to provide a thorough analysis of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on the Romanian Health System in regard to elective procedures. Materials and Methods: 46,795 groin hernia cases obtained between 2019 and 2021 from the DRG database using ICD-10 diagnostic codes. The data were collected from all 261 GHRS performing hospitals nationwide, including 227 public hospitals (PbH) and 34 private hospitals (PvH). The 42 variables taken into account were processed using Microsoft Excel 2021, applying Chi square, F-Test Two-Sample for variances, and Two Sample t-Test. The significance threshold considered was p < 0.001. Results: Of the grand total of cases, 96.2% were inguinal hernias, 86.8% were performed on men, 15.2% were laparoscopic procedures, and 6.88% were in PvH. Overall, due to the pandemic, the total number of GHRS decreased with 44.45% in 2020 and with 29.72% in 2021 compared to pre-pandemic year 2019. April 2020 shows the steepest decrease in GHRS (91 procedures nationwide). In the private sector, there was an opposite trend with increases in the number of cases by 12.21% and a 70.22% in both pandemic years. The mean admission period (MAP) for all procedures was 5.5 days. There was a significant difference between PbH and PvH (5.75 vs. 2.8 days, p < 0.0001). During the pandemic, the MAP in PbH decreased (6.02 in 2019, 5.82 in 2020 and 5.3 in 2021), remaining stable for PvH (2.9 days in 2019, 2.85 days in 2020 and 2.74 days in 2021). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced the overall number of GHRS performed in Romania in 2020 and 2021, compared to 2019. However, the private sector thrived with an actual increase in the number of cases. There was a significant lower MAP in the PvH compared to PbH throughout the three-year period.

Cervical cancer during the covid pandemic: Are patients presenting with more advanced or larger tumours?

OBJECTIVES

Concerns were raised by clinicians at the Oxford Gynaecological Cancer MDT that there was an increasing number of women presenting with large cervical tumours requiring chemo-radiotherapy, possibly due to delays associated with the COVID pandemic. This audit was undertaken to assess whether this was a real event.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study collated the data from the central pathology service covering Oxfordshire, in the Oxford Gynaecological cancer centre. The control population consisted of patients treated during the 2 years pre-pandemic (1st Jan 2018-31 Dec 2019) and the study group the 2-year pandemic period (1st Jan 2020 until 31st December 2021). A total of 153 patients (74 control and 79 study) were diagnosed of cervical cancer during the study period. Variables included in the analysis were age, pathway of referral and diagnosis (cytology or clinical), FIGO stage, tumour histology, tumour size (using maximum diameter on MRI) and treatment. Student's t-test was used for continuous and discrete variables, respectively. The X² test was used for the statistical analysis of proportions.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant differences was noted in the referral pathways during both periods. Statistically significant stage migration from FIGO stage II to III was detected (p < 0.05), though no statistically significant change in tumour size. However, the pattern of tumour volume on case-to-case comparison elicited more cases with larger volumes during the pandemic periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Referral pathways of diagnosed cancer cervix was not affected during the pandemic in Oxfordshire. Therapeutic treatment numbers were unchanged - but some changes in tumour volume were likely the reason for the impression more such cases. Whether the stage shift noted here is representative of the wider population requires further studies.

Trends in Hysterectomy Rates Associated With the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To compare nationwide trends in the rate of inpatient and outpatient hysterectomy between 2019 and 2020 during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

Using weighted data from the National Inpatient Sample and the National Ambulatory Surgery Sample, we examined the number of hysterectomies performed by month from 2019 through 2020. Monthly trends were compared between years overall, stratified by the route of surgery (abdominal, laparoscopic, and vaginal) and by indication for surgery (benign, preinvasive, cancer). Trends analyses were conducted using Joinpoint regression and reported as average monthly percentage change (AMPC). Differences in demographic characteristics between the years were compared using χ 2 tests.

RESULTS

From January 2019 through December 2020, after weighting, 1,029,792 hysterectomies were performed, including 548,802 (53.2%) in 2019 and 480,990 (46.7%) in 2020. Starting in January 2020, monthly cases declined significantly, from 40,240 to a nadir of 10,566 hysterectomies in April 2020 (AMPC -29.2%, 95% CI -39.8% to -16.8%) ( P <.001). The subsequent months saw a significant increase in cases, from the nadir in April 2020 to 40,023 cases in July 2020 (AMPC 39.4%, 95% CI 18.6-63.9%) ( P =.001), which then stabilized to the end of the year (AMPC -1.3%, 95% CI -4.8% to 2.4%) ( P =.46). In March 2020 there was a 24.0% decrease, in April 2020 a 74.2% decrease, and in May 2020 a 35.1% decrease compared with the respective months in 2019. The rates of vaginal hysterectomy declined more than the rates of other routes of surgery, and procedures performed for benign and preinvasive disease decreased more than those for cancer.

CONCLUSION

The rate of hysterectomy in the United States decreased in 2020 compared with 2019, with the greatest decrease from March to May of 2020, corresponding with the initial wave of COVID-19.

Risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding after major surgery for ovarian cancer: standard in-hospital versus extended duration of thromboprophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in patients with ovarian cancer after major surgery. Based on limited data, international guidelines recommend extended thromboprophylaxis for up to 28 days.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of VTE and bleeding within 30 days following major surgery in patients with ovarian cancer and to evaluate the association between VTE and thromboprophylaxis duration.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, "before-after" cohort study in patients with ovarian cancer undergoing major surgery. Before July 2019, the local protocol mandated a standard course of thromboprophylaxis during hospital stay only. From July 2019 onward, patients received extended thromboprophylaxis for 28 days. The cumulative incidences of VTE and major bleeding within 30 days after surgery were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between thromboprophylaxis duration and VTE incidence.

RESULTS

Between January 2018 and December 2020, 250 women were included, of which 118 (47.2%) received extended and 132 (52.8%) standard thromboprophylaxis. During follow-up, 12 patients developed VTE (cumulative incidence, 4.8%; 95% CI, 2.1-7.4) and 2 major bleeding (cumulative incidence 0.8%; 95% CI, 0.0-1.9). Compared with standard thromboprophylaxis, VTE incidence was numerically lower with extended duration of thromboprophylaxis (5/118 [4.2%] vs 7/132 [5.3%]) but not significantly different (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.25-2.52). The risk of major bleeding was similar in both groups (1/118 [0.8%] vs 1/132 [0.8%]; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.07-17.89).

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative VTE incidence in patients with ovarian cancer following major surgery was considerable. Extended thromboprophylaxis was safe and associated with a numerically lower risk of VTE but not significantly different.

Association between COVID-19 and Postoperative Neurological Complications and Antipsychotic Medication Use after Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Millions of Americans infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) need oncologic surgery. Patients with acute or resolved COVID-19 illness complain of neuropsychiatric symptoms. How surgery affects postoperative neuropsychiatric outcomes such as delirium is unknown. We hypothesize that patients with a history of COVID-19 could have an exaggerated risk of developing postoperative delirium after undergoing major elective oncologic surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study to determine the association between COVID-19 status and antipsychotic drugs during postsurgical hospitalization as a surrogate of delirium. Secondary outcomes included 30 days of postoperative complications, length of stay, and mortality. Patients were grouped into pre-pandemic non-COVID-19 and COVID-19-positive groups. A 1:2 propensity score matching was used to minimize bias. A multivariable logistic regression model estimated the effects of important covariates on the use of postoperative psychotic medication.

RESULTS

A total of 6003 patients were included in the study. Pre- and post-propensity score matching demonstrated that a history of preoperative COVID-19 did not increase the risk of antipsychotic medications postoperatively. However, respiratory and overall 30-day complications were higher in COVID-19 individuals than in pre-pandemic non-COVID-19 patients. The multivariate analysis showed that the odds of using postoperative antipsychotic medication use for the patients who had COVID-19 compared to those who did not have the infection were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

A preoperative diagnosis of COVID-19 did not increase the risk of postoperative antipsychotic medication use or neurological complications. More studies are needed to reproduce our results due to the increased concern of neurological events post-COVID-19 infection.

How SARS-CoV-2 Infection Impacts the Management of Patients with Vulvar Cancer: Experience in a Third-Level Hospital of Southern Italy

Background: Since February 2020, the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Italy has induced the government to call for lockdown of any activity apart from primary needs, and changing the lives of each of us. All that has dramatically impacted the management of patients affected by cancer. Patients with vulvar cancer (VC) represent a particularly frail population because they are elderly and affected by multiple comorbidities. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical impact of the SARS-CoV-2 infection on VC patients in terms of delay or impossibility of carrying out the scheduled treatment. Methods: The medical records of patients affected by vulvar tumors, referred to "DAI Materno-Infantile" of AOU Federico II of Naples between February 2020 and January 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The presence of a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in nasopharyngeal swab defined the positivity to SARS-CoV-2. Results: Twenty-four patients with VC were analyzed and scheduled for treatment. The median age was 70.7 years (range: 59-80). Seven (29.2%) patients were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection: In three (42.8%) patients, the treatment was delayed with no apparent consequences, in four (57.2%), the treatment was delayed or changed due to cancer progression and, of these four, one died due to respiratory complications of COVID-19, and one died due to oncologic disease progression. Conclusion: COVID-19 caused, in most cases, significant delays in oncologic treatments and high mortality in our series of patients affected by VC.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Diagnosis and Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted health systems worldwide, particularly cancer care. Because the actual implications of these changes on gynecological oncology healthcare are still unclear, we aim to evaluate the impact of this pandemic on the diagnosis and management of gynecological cancer. Materials and Methods: This is a single-center retrospective observational study, including patients diagnosed with gynecological malignancies between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were included into three groups based on the timing of cancer diagnosis: pre-pandemic (2019), pandemic with high restrictions (2020) and pandemic recovery (2021). Results: Overall, 234 patients were diagnosed with gynecological cancer during the period of study. A decrease in the number of newly diagnosed cervical cancers and other rare tumors (leiomyosarcoma, invasive hydatidiform mole) was apparent in 2020. Some aggressive histological types of endometrial and ovarian cancer were more commonly diagnosed in the pandemic recovery group (p < 0.05), although no differences were demonstrated concerning tumor staging in all gynecological cancers. The median time between the first multidisciplinary team meeting and the treatment initiation was higher after the COVID-19 pandemic in endometrial cancer (23.0 vs. 34.0 vs. 36.0 days, p < 0.05). Patients with ovarian cancer were more frequently proposed for neoadjuvant therapy in 2020 compared to the other periods (33.3% vs. 55.0% vs. 10.0% p < 0.05). A significant reduction in the laparoscopic approach was observed during 2020 in endometrial cancer (32.1% vs. 14.3% vs. 36.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were registered regarding median hospitalization days or intra- and post-operative complications between these periods. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the diagnosis and management of most gynecological malignancies, namely, on time to first treatment, chosen oncological therapies and surgical approaches. These results suggest important clinical and healthcare implications that should be addressed in future prospective studies.

Areas of Uncertainty in SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination for Cancer Patients

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was recognized that infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer; therefore, preventive vaccination in cancer survivors is expected to be particularly impactful. Heterogeneity in how a neoplastic disease diagnosis and treatment interferes with humoral and cellular immunity, however, poses a number of challenges in vaccination strategies. Herein, the available literature on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among patients with cancer is critically appraised under the lens of anti-neoplastic treatment optimization. The objective of this review is to highlight areas of uncertainty, where more research could inform future SARS-CoV-2 immunization programs and maximize benefits in the high-risk cancer survivor population, and also minimize cancer treatment deviations from standard practices.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Gyne-Oncological Treatment-A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis of a German University Hospital with 30,525 Patients

The study pursues the objective of drawing a comparison between the data of gyne-oncology, gynecology, and obstetrics patient collectives of a German university hospital regarding the progression of patient number and corresponding treatment data during the five-year period of 2017-2021 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gyne-oncological treatment. Descriptive assessment is based on data extracted from the database of the hospital controlling system QlikView^® for patients hospitalized at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics of Marburg University Hospital. Gynecology and gyne-oncology experience a maintained decline in patient number (n_Gynecology: -6% 2019 to 2020, -5% 2019 to 2021; n_{Gyne-Oncology}: -6% 2019 to 2020, -2% 2019 to 2021) with varying effects on the specific gyne-oncological main diagnoses. Treatment parameters remain unchanged in relative assessment, but as gyne-oncology constitutes the dominating revenue contributor in gynecology (35.1% of patients, 52.9% of revenue, 2021), the extent of the decrease in total revenue (-18%, 2019 to 2020, -14%, 2019 to 2021) surpasses the decline in patient number. The study displays a negative impact on the gynecology care situation of a German university hospital for the entire pandemic, with an even greater extent on gyne-oncology. This development not only endangers the quality of medical service provision but collaterally pressurizes gynecology service providers.