It has been suggested that cancer patients are at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and at higher risk of developing a severe form of the disease and fatality. This study’s objectives were to measure the excess risk of mortality and morbidity of patients with cancer among patients hospitalized for a SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to identify factors associated with the risk of death and morbidity among cancer patients. All first cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the two main hospitals of the Lyon area were included. These patients were matched based on age, gender, and comorbidities with non-cancer control patients. A total of 108 cancer patients and 193 control patients were included. The severity at admission and the symptoms were similar between the two groups. The risk of early death was higher among cancer patients, while the risk of intubation, number of days with oxygen, length of stay in ICU, and length of hospital stay were reduced. The main factors associated with early death among cancer patients was the severity of COVID-19 and the number of previous chemotherapy lines. The outcomes appear to be driven by the severity of the infection and therapeutic limitations decided at admission.

PurposeTo assess the diagnostic weight of sequence-specific magnetic resonance features in characterizing clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa).Materials and methodsWe used a prospective database of 262 patients who underwent T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging before prostatectomy. For each lesion, two independent readers (R1, R2) prospectively defined nine features: shape, volume (V_Max), signal abnormality on each pulse sequence, number of pulse sequences with a marked (S_Max) and non-visible (S_Min) abnormality, likelihood of extracapsular extension (ECE) and PSA density (dPSA). Overall likelihood of malignancy was assessed using a 5-level Likert score. Features were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). csPCa was defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer (csPCa-A), Gleason ≥7(4+3) cancer (csPCa-B) or Gleason ≥7 cancer with histological extraprostatic extension (csPCa-C),ResultsFor csPCa-A, the Signal1 model (S_Max+S_Min) provided the best combination of signal-related variables, for both readers. The performance was improved by adding V_Max, ECE and/or dPSA, but not shape. All models performed better with DCE findings than without.When moving from csPCa-A to csPCa-B and csPCa-C definitions, the added value of V_Max, dPSA and ECE increased as compared to signal-related variables, and the added value of DCE decreased.For R1, the best models were Signal1+ECE+dPSA (AUC = 0,805 [95%CI:0,757–0,866]), Signal1+V_Max+dPSA (AUC = 0.823 [95%CI:0.760–0.893]) and Signal1+ECE+dPSA [AUC = 0.840 (95%CI:0.774–0.907)] for csPCa-A, csPCA-B and csPCA-C respectively. The AUCs of the corresponding Likert scores were 0.844 [95%CI:0.806–0.877, p = 0.11], 0.841 [95%CI:0.799–0.876, p = 0.52]) and 0.849 [95%CI:0.811–0.884, p = 0.49], respectively.For R2, the best models were Signal1+V_Max+dPSA (AUC = 0,790 [95%CI:0,731–0,857]), Signal1+V_Max (AUC = 0.813 [95%CI:0.746–0.882]) and Signal1+ECE+V_Max (AUC = 0.843 [95%CI: 0.781–0.907]) for csPCa-A, csPCA-B and csPCA-C respectively. The AUCs of the corresponding Likert scores were 0. 829 [95%CI:0.791–0.868, p = 0.13], 0.790 [95%CI:0.742–0.841, p = 0.12]) and 0.808 [95%CI:0.764–0.845, p = 0.006]), respectively.ConclusionCombination of simple variables can match the Likert score’s results. The optimal combination depends on the definition of csPCa.

This article presents the protective measures put in place at the “Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices de Lyon” (IC-HCL) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in France (spring 2020) and how they impacted IC-HCL clinical activity. Spring 2020 activities were compared to winter 2019–2020. Results showed a decrease of activity of 9% for treatment dispensations, 17% for multidisciplinary team meetings, 20% for head and neck and thoracic surgeries, and 58% for new patient enrolment in clinical trials. Characteristics of patients treated for solid cancer and hospitalized for COVID-19 during spring 2020 were collected in a retrospective study. Mortality was attributed to COVID-19 for half of the cases, 82% being patients above 70 and 73% being stage IV. This is in concordance with current findings concluding that the risk of developing severe or critical symptoms of COVID-19 is correlated with factors co-occurring in cancer patients and not to the cancer condition per se. While a number of routines and treatment regimens were changed, there was no major decline in numbers of treatments conducted at the IC-HCL during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that hit France between March and May 2020, except for clinical trials and some surgery activities.

No abstract

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been developed in liver surgery. The program is recognized in reducing postoperative length of hospital stay and patients' stress response to surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate its efficacy and feasibility in Hong Kong. Methods: This is a prospective feasibility study carried out in a tertiary academic hospital in Hong Kong. A multidisciplinary ERAS protocol had been implemented to both open and laparoscopic liver resection. The clinical outcomes of patients underwent liver resection with ERAS peri-operative program were compared with those received conventional peri-operative program in the same period. Propensity score matching method was used to minimize background differences. Results: From Sept 2015 to Jul 2016, a total of 20 patients underwent liver resection were recruited to ERAS program. Their clinical outcomes were compared with another 20 patients received hepatectomy under conventional perioperative program after propensity score matching. ERAS program was associated with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (p =0.041) without an increase in complication rate in patients received open liver resection. There was no significance in hospital stay in the laparoscopic group. No patient required readmission in this cohort. Conclusion: ERAS perioperative program for liver resection is safe and feasible. It significantly shortened the hospital stay in open liver resection but not in laparoscopic liver resection.