The pandemic caused by COVID‐19 has caused significant strain on healthcare professionals
across the globe. Without downplaying the devastating effects of the virus itself,
the collateral damage, specifically in cancer care, has only compounded an already
difficult time in medicine [1]. Previously protected by cancer treatment targets,
cancer patients across the country found their care halted by coronavirus as hospitals
cancelled elective clinics and operating lists to redeploy staff. Resources aside,
a second challenge for those that continued with services was how to minimize the
patient’s risk of spreading or contracting coronavirus. Almost half of patients with
concurrent COVID‐19 infection experienced postoperative pulmonary complications, and
so it is imperative that we shield our patients as best as we can [2].
At the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, we implemented a number of steps to ensure
both the safety of our patients and the care of our cancer patients in a difficult
time. After the lifting of the first lockdown we registered the present audit to critique
our outcomes in pelvic oncology in accordance with local governance protocols. Our
renal cancer patients are referred to a local tertiary centre and therefore were not
included in this audit.
Like other centres, we utilized a local private hospital in order to deliver our elective
surgical service. We acknowledge, however, that a key factor in our favour was the
proximity of our local private Nuffield hospital (GN), which is directly connected
to the primary trust day‐case operating theatres. From 6 April 2020, at the beginning
of the pandemic, two Xi Da Vinci robots were relocated to GN which was to be used
as a ‘COVID‐19‐clean’ site at which to deliver elective robotic surgery, alongside
other procedures.
Staff
Staff to patient transmission was an acute concern throughout. To combat this, non‐surgeon
staff were divided between the two sites, with those working at GN having a weekly
PCR swab test. Results were available within 48–72 h. All theatre staff were dedicated
to GN and did not work at the main hospital. Surgeons' work was divided, with a weekly
alternating pattern of working at GN or at the main hospital site. All surgeons were
also swabbed weekly on Fridays in preparation for their week at the ‘COVID‐19‐clean’
GN site. None of our staff members received positive swab results during this time.
Outpatient Care
All outpatient care was diverted to telephone consultations as of 23 March 2020. For
those that required clinical examination or flexible cystoscopy, face‐to‐face review
remained available, with staff wearing standard personal protective equipment (PPE).
Patients attending appointments were advised to wait in their car before being contacted
to attend the appointment, to reduce numbers in the department. Patients completed
COVID‐19 screening questionnaires by telephone prior to attending, as well as a questionnaire
on arrival. Face‐to‐face outpatient care took place in the urology centre, which has
a separate entrance to the main hospital.
Elective Care
National guidelines were followed for patients, such as COVID‐19 symptom screening
(by telephone and on arrival), two‐week isolation, and preoperative nasopharyngeal
swabs within 72 h of surgery [3].
On admission each patient had a separate side room. Both morning and afternoon surgery
patients were admitted at 08:00 h. No holding bay in theatre was used and patients
were wheeled directly into theatre for their anaesthetic. As per Public Health England
COVID‐19 infection control policy, minimal staff numbers were present in theatre and
all theatre staff wore PPE for the duration of each procedure. Where appropriate,
an airseal port confined carbon dioxide plume.
As a tertiary robotic centre, our enhanced recovery pathway is well established and,
where possible, we continued to adhere to it. Patients undergoing robot‐assisted radical
cystectomy undertook prehabilitation to optimize cardiorespiratory function. Patients
were optimized preoperatively, including management of anaemia and encouraging exercise.
For stoma education a video was produced for patients who were unable to meet face
to face with the stoma nurse preadmission. As standard, carbohydrate preload was given
preoperatively, with early mobilization and removal of drains postoperatively in order
to ensure a safe and timely discharge.
To audit our outcomes we reviewed all operations performed from March to June 2020
and August to November 2019. This was registered as a local audit in accordance with
local governance protocols. We also collected cancer targets data for bladder and
prostate.
Table 1 provides the operative and referral data for the aforementioned timelines.
Table 1
Prostate and bladder referrals in the two audit periods
Prostate
August–November 2019
March–June 2020
P
Number of referrals
150
79
Days to MRI
Median
4
4.5
0.363
IQR
3–6
3–5
Time from referral to diagnosis, days
Median
13
9
0.017
IQR
7–22
6.25–16.75
Bladder
August–November 2019
March–June 2020
P
Number of referrals
81
134
Days to OPA
Median
8
7
0.013
IQR
7–10
4–8
Time to flexible cystoscopy, days
Median
24
11
<0.001
IQR
20–28
8–16
IQR, interquartile range; OPA, outpatient appointment.
A Mann–Whitney U‐test was used to compare means for bladder and prostate data. P values < 0.05
were taken to indicate statistical significance.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the
COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research
re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original
source, for the duration of the public health emergency.
Prostate
In total, we received 80 referrals for possible prostate malignancies between March
and June 2020, and 150 between August and November 2019. The number of days to MRI
was slightly reduced in March to June, but we did not find a statistical difference.
We found a statistically significant decrease in the number of days it took for a
patient to go from referral to diagnosis. Furthermore, we also improved on the proportion
of patients who had their diagnosis told to them within 28 days, from 74% to 87%.
Bladder
In total, we received 134 referrals for possible bladder malignancies between March
and June 2020, and 81 between August and November 2019. We improved on days to outpatient
appointment (OPA) for patients and time to flexible cystoscopy, with both results
carrying statistical significance; we were able to reduce time to OPA from 8 to 6
days, and time to flexible cystoscopy from 26 to 12 days.
Discussion
There were a total of 369 cancer operations performed at our trust between March and
June 2020. These can be broken down into 120 robot‐assisted, 36 endoscopic cases and
seven open surgeries. In addition, 106 biopsies were performed, and 100 patients had
brachytherapy seeds implanted.
To offer a comparison, in the same time frame from August until November 2019, we
performed 407 cancer operations: 124 robot‐assisted, 24 endoscopic and six open surgeries.
During that period, 117 patients had biopsies, and 136 had brachytherapy seeds implanted.
Whilst we acknowledge that a comparison between March and June 2019 would have been
preferable, the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust formally opened its dedicated urology
unit on 5 March 2019, offering both a dedicated brachytherapy theatre as well as additional
outpatient capacity. It was felt that an audit that did not take into account the
new facilities at their prime would not offer a fair comparison.
No patient was readmitted with symptomatic COVID‐19 after discharge for elective surgery.
Unfortunately, no data regarding COVID‐19 infection that did not result in admission
are available, as widespread community testing was not available for the entirety
of the period audited.
Interestingly, there were significantly more bladder referrals during the 'COVID‐19'
period, with the opposite true for prostate referrals. We do not yet have the data
to establish how that compares with other centres. Regardless, there was a statistically
significant reduction in the time from referral to diagnosis for prostate referrals,
and a similar finding in reduction for days to OPA and time to flexible cystoscopy
for bladder referrals. This is probably attributable to increased clinician availability
for outpatient activity, due to limitation in the number of theatre lists dedicated
to benign cases. At our trust, both flexible cystoscopy and prostate biopsies are
performed under local anaesthetic in an outpatient setting. This would explain the
reduction in time to diagnosis.
We acknowledge that our cystectomy numbers did decrease during the COVID‐19 period.
Whilst our ‘in‐house’ bladder cancer referrals for cystectomy did increase, the number
from our feeding hospitals declined significantly. We did not explore our data for
referrals from other hospitals but we can speculate that there were potentially delays
in the 2‐week wait processing at these centres. It appears at the time of writing
that we are now seeing a subsequent increase in referrals from these centres, likely
to compensate for this.
This retrospective study demonstrates that, with appropriate re‐allocation of resources,
we can continue to safely meet cancer targets. Our findings reflect those published
by Paramore et al. [4], who studied their cohort of 52 patients in a similar time
frame. Similar findings were identified by the COVIDSurg collaborative [5]. That international
multicentre paper also concluded that COVID‐19‐free surgical sites offered safer elective
surgery.
Our experience demonstrates that, by regular staff and patient testing, maintaining
a ‘COVID‐19‐clean’ site for surgery, and utilising appropriate PPE, hospitals can
continue to provide safe and timely care to their cancer patients. We understand that
we were fortunate to be in such close proximity to a private hospital, but by early
utilisation in a constantly changing environment we were able to uphold the high standards
that we continuously strive for. As we head towards a second wave, it is more important
than ever that cancer care continues throughout to prevent the very real risk of cancer
patients becoming the second cohort of victims in this pandemic.
Conflict of Interest
None declared.