ObjectivesWhile numerous medical facilities have been forced to suspend oncological surgery due to system overload, debate has emerged on using non-surgical options on cancer cases during the pandemic. The goal of our study was to analyze, in a retrospective cohort study, the results of gynecological cancer surgery and evaluate postoperative complications in a single center in one of the most affected areas in Europe.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the records of patients who were referred between March 2020 and May 2020 for primary surgical treatment of breast, endometrial, ovarian, cervical, or vulvar cancer.ResultsThe study included a total of 126 patients. Median age was 60 years (range 29–89). Patients were referred with breast (76/126, 60.3%), endometrial (29/126, 23%), ovarian (14/126, 11.1%), cervical (5/126, 4%), or vulvar cancer (2/126, 1.6%). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) was only conducted in 50% of cases due to the low availability of tests during the first phase of our study, and was indicated only in suspected cases according to the healthcare authorities' protocol. Median hospital stay was 1 day (range 0–18). Excluding breast surgery, laparoscopy was the most used procedure (43/126, 34.1%). 15 patients had a postoperative complication (15/126, 11.9%); only in 2 patients (2/15 13.3%) were there reports of Clavien–Dindo grade 3 or 4 complications. 6 patients tested positive for COVID-19 following a PCR diagnostic test, and these surgeries were cancelled.ConclusionsAdequate protective measures in the setting of COVID-19 free institutions enabled the continuity of cancer surgery without significant compromise of the safety of patients or healthcare workers.

None.

Background: How diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) perform in relevant patient subgroups defined by sex, age, cancer, and previous venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown.Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells and revised Geneva scores combined with fixed and adapted D-dimer thresholds, as well as the YEARS algorithm, for ruling out acute PE in these subgroups.

Background The Wells score and D-dimer testing can safely rule out pulmonary embolism (PE). A simplification of the Wells score has been proposed to improve clinical applicability, but evidence on its performance is scarce. Objectives To compare the performances of the original and simplified Wells scores alone and in combination with age-adjusted D-dimer testing. Methods Individual patient data from 7268 patients with suspected PE enrolled in six management studies were used to evaluate the discriminatory performances of the original and simplified Wells scores. The efficiency and failure rate of the dichotomized original and simplified scores combined with age-adjusted D-dimer testing were compared by use of a one-stage random effects meta-analysis. Efficiency was defined as the proportion of patients in whom PE could be considered to be excluded on the basis of a 'PE unlikely' Wells score and a negative age-adjusted D-dimer test result. Failure rate was defined as the proportion of patients with symptomatic venous thromboembolism during a 3-month follow-up. Results The discriminatory performances of the original and simplified Wells scores were comparable (c-statistic 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.75] versus 0.72 [95% CI 0.70-0.73]). When combined with age-adjusted D-dimer testing, the original and simplified Wells rules had comparable efficiency (3% [95% CI 25-42%] versus 30% [95% CI 21-40%]) and failure rates (0.9% [95% CI 0.6-1.5%] versus 0.8% [95% CI 0.5-1.3%]). Conclusion The original and simplified Wells rules combined with age-adjusted D-dimer testing have similar performances in ruling out PE. Given its ease of use in clinical practice, the simplified Wells rule is to be preferred.

Background The challenging clinical dilemma of detecting pulmonary embolism (PE) in suspected patients is encountered in a variety of healthcare settings. We hypothesized that the optimal diagnostic approach to detect these patients in terms of safety and efficiency depends on underlying PE prevalence, case mix, and physician experience, overall reflected by the type of setting where patients are initially assessed. The objective of this study was to assess the capability of ruling out PE by available diagnostic strategies across all possible settings. Methods and findings We performed a literature search (MEDLINE) followed by an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA; 23 studies), including patients from self-referral emergency care (n = 12,612), primary healthcare clinics (n = 3,174), referred secondary care (n = 17,052), and hospitalized or nursing home patients (n = 2,410). Multilevel logistic regression was performed to evaluate diagnostic performance of the Wells and revised Geneva rules, both using fixed and adapted D-dimer thresholds to age or pretest probability (PTP), for the YEARS algorithm and for the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC). All strategies were tested separately in each healthcare setting. Following studies done in this field, the primary diagnostic metrices estimated from the models were the “failure rate” of each strategy—i.e., the proportion of missed PE among patients categorized as “PE excluded” and “efficiency”—defined as the proportion of patients categorized as “PE excluded” among all patients. In self-referral emergency care, the PERC algorithm excludes PE in 21% of suspected patients at a failure rate of 1.12% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.70), whereas this increases to 6.01% (4.09 to 8.75) in referred patients to secondary care at an efficiency of 10%. In patients from primary healthcare and those referred to secondary care, strategies adjusting D-dimer to PTP are the most efficient (range: 43% to 62%) at a failure rate ranging between 0.25% and 3.06%, with higher failure rates observed in patients referred to secondary care. For this latter setting, strategies adjusting D-dimer to age are associated with a lower failure rate ranging between 0.65% and 0.81%, yet are also less efficient (range: 33% and 35%). For all strategies, failure rates are highest in hospitalized or nursing home patients, ranging between 1.68% and 5.13%, at an efficiency ranging between 15% and 30%. The main limitation of the primary analyses was that the diagnostic performance of each strategy was compared in different sets of studies since the availability of items used in each diagnostic strategy differed across included studies; however, sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were robust. Conclusions The capability of safely and efficiently ruling out PE of available diagnostic strategies differs for different healthcare settings. The findings of this IPD MA help in determining the optimum diagnostic strategies for ruling out PE per healthcare setting, balancing the trade-off between failure rate and efficiency of each strategy.