Literature DB >> 32841386

Mandatory preoperative COVID-19 testing for cancer patients-Is it justified?

Sri Siddhartha Nekkanti1,2, Sudhir Vasudevan Nair2,3, Vani Parmar2,3, Avanish Saklani1,2, Shailesh Shrikhande1,2, Nitin Sudhakar Shetty2,4, Amit Joshi2,5, Vedang Murthy2,6, Nikhil Patkar2,7, Navin Khattry2,5, Sudeep Gupta2,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has caused substantial disruptions in routine clinical care. Emerging data show that surgery in coronavirus disease (COVID)-positive cases can be associated with worsening of clinical outcomes and increased postoperative mortality. Hence, preoperative COVID-19 testing for all patients before elective surgery was implemented in our institution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-two asymptomatic cancer patients were preoperatively tested for COVID-19 using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction technique with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabbing. All negative patients were operated within 72 hours, and positive patients were quarantined for a minimum 14 days before re-swabbing.
RESULTS: In our cohort, 21 of 262 (8.0%) asymptomatic preoperative patients, who were otherwise fit for surgery, tested positive. After adequate quarantine and a negative follow-up test report, 12 of 21 (57%) had an operation. No major postoperative morbidity due to COVID-19 was noted during the immediate postoperative period before discharge from the hospital.
CONCLUSION: Routine preoperative COVID-19 testing was successful in identifying asymptomatic viral carriers. There was no incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 disease in the postoperative period, and there was no incidence of morbidity attributable to COVID-19. These data suggested a beneficial role for mandatory preoperative COVID-19 testing.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; COVID-19 and cancer surgery; cancer and COVID-19; preoperative COVID testing

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32841386      PMCID: PMC7461513          DOI: 10.1002/jso.26187

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0022-4790            Impact factor:   2.885


INTRODUCTION

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has caused substantial disruptions in the routine clinical care in most countries. As a cancer center, our hospital decided to continue providing essential cancer care including routine procedures with adequate consideration for safety of staff and patients, though in reduced numbers. Due to the high prevalence of asymptomatic cases in our geographic region, preoperative coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) testing was implemented for all patients before elective surgery. This decision was based on factors associated with this pandemic. First, it was known that a substantial percentage of patients with COVID‐19 are asymptomatic and can be missed by routine symptom‐based screening. Second, preliminary data from China and other countries demonstrated that surgery in COVID‐positive cases can be associated with worse clinical outcomes and increased postoperative mortality. Finally, the impact of asymptomatic COVID‐19 positive cases on health care providers and other patients in the hospital was not clear. Moreover, the shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the initial phase of the pandemic also caused resource constraints and restrictions of usage. Though a universal protection policy was adopted in managing all patients visiting the hospital, COVID‐19‐positive cases required additional stringent protective measures and stricter isolation protocols. In this short report, we analyzed our preoperative COVID‐19 testing strategy, its impact on staff and patient safety, and the outcomes after definitive cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our hospital started preoperative testing for COVID‐19 on 18 April 2020. From that date to 20 June 2020, we tested 262 patients with cancer. The majority of these patients had cancers of the breast (n = 142), gastro‐intestinal tract (n = 85) or head and neck (n = 35), and 114 of 262 (55.7%) were in stage III. (Table 1). All patients were previously evaluated by the respective cancer surgeons and planned for elective radical procedures. The COVID‐19 testing was done by a standard real‐time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test approved by the Indian Council for Medical Research. Samples were collected by the nasal and oropharyngeal swabbing of each patient. After swabbing, the patients were sent back to their homes and requested to stay isolated till the availability of the results.
Table 1

Distribution of various clinical factors

Number (%), total = 262
Age
Mean48.5
Median50.0
Gender
Female175 (66.7)
Male87 (33.2)
Cancer sites
Head and neck35 (13.4)
Breast142 (54.2)
Gastrointestinal85 (32.1)
Cancer stage
I/II65 (24.8)
III146 (55.7)
IV43 (16.4)
Non‐cancerousa 8 (3.1)

Procedures like stoma closure, revision mastectomy, and neck node biopsies.

Distribution of various clinical factors Procedures like stoma closure, revision mastectomy, and neck node biopsies.

RESULTS

Of the 262 patients who underwent initial preoperative COVID 19 testing, 230 (87.9%) were negative, 18 (6.8%) were positive and 14 were inconclusive. All the inconclusive cases underwent a second testing, where eleven patients became negative, two became positive and one remained inconclusive. The last patient was considered as a positive case per our institutional protocol. Therefore, the final COVID19 status before surgery was negative in 241 (92.1%) and positive in 21 (8.0%). It is important to note that all these patients were initially deemed fit to undergo surgery and were asymptomatic at the time of testing (Table 2). We did not observe any gender difference in COVID‐19 infectivity.
Table 2

Preoperative COVID‐19 status

Number (%)
Initial COVID‐19 report
Negative230 (87.9)
Positive18 (6.8)
Inconclusive14 (5.3)
Total262
Final report after re‐swabbing for inconclusive cases
Negative241 (92.0)
Positive21 (8.0)
Total262

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; COVID‐19, coronavirus disease 2019.

Preoperative COVID‐19 status Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; COVID‐19, coronavirus disease 2019. Of the 241 COVID‐19 negative patients, 237 (98.3%) were admitted within 24 hours after the results were available (within 48 hours after swabbing), and they underwent the pre‐planned cancer surgery during the same admission. All patients were postoperatively monitored for specific COVID‐19 symptoms like cough, respiratory difficulty or persistent unexplained fever not responding to antibiotics. We were able to discharge all these patients without any significant postoperative events or any signs of COVID‐19. The 21 patients who tested positive for COVID‐19 were reported to the local health authorities, as per our national guidelines. Since these patients were asymptomatic, 17 were managed by home quarantine only. Four patients were transferred to local corona care centers, as health authorities felt that sufficient safety precautions could not be instituted in their residential areas. Of the 21 patients who were initially positive, all remained asymptomatic except one patient who developed respiratory complications, required hospitalization, and succumbed to COVID‐19 infection. After a minimum quarantine period of 15 days, patients had repeat testing for COVID‐19. Thirteen patients became negative on repeat testing at periods varying from 16 to 60 days (mean: 35.4; median: 34). A test‐based strategy was adopted for these patients in which two consecutive negative swabs ≥24 hours apart were required before admission to the hospital for surgery. At the time of this writing, 12 of 20 patients (60%) already had the planned surgical procedure. One patient developed malaria, hence surgery was postponed. Five patients were unable to return from their hometown due to the nation‐wide lock down and travel restrictions. Among them, two are seeking cancer treatment at a local hospital. A patient with cancer of buccal mucosa is currently undergoing radiotherapy in his hometown. Another patient, originally planned for a colostomy closure, decided to delay the procedure for some months and refused to be admitted (Figure 1).
Figure 1

CONSORT diagram explaining the flow of patients

CONSORT diagram explaining the flow of patients

DISCUSSION

The COVID‐19 pandemic has been a challenge for hospitals. The long established processes for admitting and treating patients has been revised to accommodate the new challenges. While many hospitals discontinued elective procedures, Tata Memorial Center decided to continue with elective cancer surgeries, though in reduced numbers. A screening counter and fever clinic was established to screen and isolate patients with symptoms of COVID‐19 infection, along with implementation of administrative reforms to address the new challenges. A dedicated COVID‐19 ward and intensive care unit were established using existing infrastructure, though that resulted in reduced bed strength for routine cancer care. Our hospital was also successful in establishing an approved COVID‐19 testing laboratory early on, and we were able procure adequate supply of the testing kits. However, as soon as several reports of asymptomatic COVID‐19 positive cases began to emerge, the routine symptom‐based screening was deemed insufficient. The asymptomatic proportion was between 1.6% to 56.5%, and there were conflicting reports regarding infectivity of these patients. Patients who are positive but devoid of symptoms can be in two categories: some will never develop significant symptoms during the entire course of the illness and they are called as “asymptomatic” patients; many patients eventually develop some symptoms and if the test had detected virus before they develop symptoms, they are called as “presymptomatic” patients. It is believed that the latter of these patients spread virus during the presymptomatic and symptomatic phases of the illness. However, the role of asymptomatic patients in the viral transmission is still not clear. The percentage of COVID‐19‐positive cases in our preoperative cohort was 8.0%, and all except one patient remained asymptomatic. The interval to turn negative from the initial positive swab ranged from 16 to 60 days. Since this cohort included only the asymptomatic patients who were otherwise fit for surgery, the proportion of asymptomatic COVID‐19 positive cases was higher (20/21 [95%]) compared with community studies in which the proportion of asymptomatic patients ranges between 40% and 45%. , Some might opine that asymptomatic COVID‐19‐positive patients could undergo regular procedures in the hospital, citing experience with previous corona virus infections. However, there are multiple problems associated with asymptomatic patients with COVID‐19. First, this is a new virus, and the scientific community is not clear about its characteristics including the disease transmission from asymptomatic carriers. It is also difficult to classify patients as asymptomatic or presymptomatic by a single swab. Multiple swabbing and close follow‐up of patients are required to classify them as asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Early reports from China and Italy noted that most common symptoms of COVID‐19 were fever (90%), cough (75%), and dyspnea (50%). However, these are proportions from symptomatic cohorts since initial focus targeted symptom‐based screening. Later on, asymptomatic cases were identified, and the initial estimate was around 18% as demonstrated by the study of cases on board Diamond Princess cruise ship. In a study on residents of the northern Italian town of Vo', researchers noted that 41% to 44% of COVID‐19 positive cases were asymptomatic, and they remained symptom free between two nasopharyngeal swabs 14 days apart. They also confirmed through contact tracing that several new cases of COVID‐19 detected in the second sampling had been caused by exposure to previously positive asymptomatic cases. COVID‐19 severity also depends on patient characteristics like age, gender, and presence of co‐morbidities like diabetes or hypertension. Even in cancer patients, these factors are associated with increased mortality risk, though cytotoxic chemotherapy or radiotherapy did not increase the risk of mortality. However, in the case of surgery, pulmonary complications and mortality rates were significantly higher when COVID‐19 positive cases had surgery. In our cohort, though we observed a few major postoperative complications (16/249 [6.4%]; (Table 3)), none were attributable to COVID‐19 infection. One patient succumbed to myocardial infarction on the 4th postoperative period and had surgical complications. Though we have adopted universal precautions and enforced compulsory wearing of high‐quality masks, social distancing, and personal hygiene for patients and staff, managing a COVID‐19 positive case, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic added many more challenges. The appropriate types of PPE in these situations will be different, isolation beds are needed, and more stringent waste disposal measures are required per health authority guidelines. These are labor intensive measures that can cause substantial financial burden on the hospital. Moreover, in the initial stages, there was a scarcity for PPEs, and the available resources were reserved for COVID‐19 positive cases. The policy of preoperative screening has reduced the necessity of using scarce PPEs and additional infrastructure requirements.
Table 3

Postoperative complications

Postoperative complicationsn = 249 (%)
None198 (79.5)
Minor34 (13.7)
Major16 (6.4)
Death1 (0.4)

Note: Grading using Clavien‐Dindo classification (grade I/II: minor; grade III/IV: major; grade V: death).

Postoperative complications Note: Grading using Clavien‐Dindo classification (grade I/II: minor; grade III/IV: major; grade V: death). Delay in elective cancer surgery can lead to disease progression and impact overall survival. However, we need to do a risk and benefit analysis in such situations. We feel that it is beneficial for the patient and the community to treat COVID‐19 first and then treat the cancer. Considering the increased mortality, additional burden on hospital infrastructure, and associated social problems for patients and relatives, an approach based on testing COVID‐19 status before elective surgery was our optimal choice. We were able to operate on twelve patients out of thirteen who had turned negative during the follow‐up tests and in one case the surgery was deferred as it was not an urgent procedure, and the patient opted to undergo surgery after few months. Only three patients could not come back to the hospital due to travel restrictions, and we expect them to return for treatment. There can be chances of false positivity in apparently negative cases, and we might have missed those cases. However, we did not have any postoperative complications suggestive of COVID‐19 infection, except in one patient who had fever and tachypnea on the third postoperative day, for which we repeated the COVID‐19 testing that turned out to be negative.

CONCLUSION

Routine preoperative COVID‐19 testing was successful in identifying asymptomatic patients with COVID‐19. There was no incidence of symptomatic COVID‐19 disease in the postoperative period and there was no morbidity attributable to COVID‐19. In our opinion, these data supported a beneficial role associated with mandatory preoperative COVID testing.

SYNOPSIS

A retrospective review of preoperative COVID‐19 testing was done at our institution for all patients who were planned for elective cancer surgery. Due to the high prevalence of asymptomatic COVID‐19 infections, such a strategy was adopted in our institute. This audit analyzed the benefits and problems of such an approach.
  13 in total

1.  Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Authors:  Daniel P Oran; Eric J Topol
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Asymptomatic SARS coronavirus infection among healthcare workers, Singapore.

Authors:  Annelies Wilder-Smith; Monica D Teleman; Bee H Heng; Arul Earnest; Ai E Ling; Yee S Leo
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 6.883

3.  Review of the Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Authors:  Fang Jiang; Liehua Deng; Liangqing Zhang; Yin Cai; Chi Wai Cheung; Zhengyuan Xia
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  COVID-19 mortality in patients with cancer on chemotherapy or other anticancer treatments: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Lennard Yw Lee; Jean-Baptiste Cazier; Vasileios Angelis; Roland Arnold; Vartika Bisht; Naomi A Campton; Julia Chackathayil; Vinton Wt Cheng; Helen M Curley; Matthew W Fittall; Luke Freeman-Mills; Spyridon Gennatas; Anshita Goel; Simon Hartley; Daniel J Hughes; David Kerr; Alvin Jx Lee; Rebecca J Lee; Sophie E McGrath; Christopher P Middleton; Nirupa Murugaesu; Thomas Newsom-Davis; Alicia Fc Okines; Anna C Olsson-Brown; Claire Palles; Yi Pan; Ruth Pettengell; Thomas Powles; Emily A Protheroe; Karin Purshouse; Archana Sharma-Oates; Shivan Sivakumar; Ashley J Smith; Thomas Starkey; Chris D Turnbull; Csilla Várnai; Nadia Yousaf; Rachel Kerr; Gary Middleton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2020-05-28       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Outcomes of Elective Major Cancer Surgery During COVID 19 at Tata Memorial Centre: Implications for Cancer Care Policy.

Authors:  Shailesh V Shrikhande; Prathmesh S Pai; Manish S Bhandare; Ganesh Bakshi; Devendra A Chaukar; Pankaj Chaturvedi; Mahesh Goel; Ashish Gulia; Sajid S Qureshi; Amita Maheshwari; Aliasgar Moiyadi; Sudhir Nair; Nita S Nair; George Karimundackal; Avanish P Saklani; Vinay K Shankhadhar; Vani Parmar; Jigeeshu V Divatia; Pramesh Cs; Ajay Puri; Rajendra A Badwe
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 6.  A systematic review of asymptomatic infections with COVID-19.

Authors:  Zhiru Gao; Yinghui Xu; Chao Sun; Xu Wang; Ye Guo; Shi Qiu; Kewei Ma
Journal:  J Microbiol Immunol Infect       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 4.399

7.  Cancer Management in India during Covid-19.

Authors:  C S Pramesh; Rajendra A Badwe
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Nicolas Demartines; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Mandatory preoperative COVID-19 testing for cancer patients-Is it justified?

Authors:  Sri Siddhartha Nekkanti; Sudhir Vasudevan Nair; Vani Parmar; Avanish Saklani; Shailesh Shrikhande; Nitin Sudhakar Shetty; Amit Joshi; Vedang Murthy; Nikhil Patkar; Navin Khattry; Sudeep Gupta
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 2.885

10.  Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020.

Authors:  Kenji Mizumoto; Katsushi Kagaya; Alexander Zarebski; Gerardo Chowell
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2020-03
View more
  8 in total

1.  Meta-analysis of COVID-19 prevalence during preoperative COVID-19 screening in asymptomatic patients.

Authors:  Ellen de Bock; Mando D Filipe; Roger K J Simmermacher; A Christiaan Kroese; Menno R Vriens; Milan C Richir
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Short Term Outcomes of Head and Neck Oncology Surgery During Covid-19 Pandemic: Experience from a Tertiary Cancer Care Centre in North India.

Authors:  Sumeet Jain; Sumit Gupta; Tejinder Pal Singh; Kavita Chhabra; Richa Jain; Akashdeep Singh Sohi; Deepender Kaur Chhina; Gurpreet Singh Brar; Rajinder Kumar Mittal; Parshotam Lal Gautam
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2021-01-08

3.  Pharmacological Prophylaxis and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Practices in Gynecological Cancer Surgery During COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Pooja Singh; Geetu Bhandoria; Amita Maheshwari
Journal:  Indian J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-01-30

4.  Continuing cancer surgery through the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic at an academic university hospital in India: A lower-middle-income country experience.

Authors:  Naseem Akhtar; Shiv Rajan; Deep Chakrabarti; Vijay Kumar; Sameer Gupta; Sanjeev Misra; Arun Chaturvedi; Tashbihul Azhar; Shirin Parveen; Sumaira Qayoom; Palavalasa Niranjan; Shashwat Tiwari
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 5.  [Results of preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing in the coronavirus pandemic].

Authors:  M-C Rassweiler-Seyfried; T Miethke; K-P Becker; F Siegel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among asymptomatic patients undergoing preoperative COVID testing prior to cancer surgery: ASPECT study.

Authors:  Shraddha Patkar; Saiesh R Voppuru; Shivakumar Thiagarajan; Devayani Niyogi; Hemant S Niranjan; Shravan Nadkarni; Tejpratap Singh; Manish Bhandare; Purvi Thakkar; Jitender Rohila; Sanjay Biswas; Sridhar Epari; Omshree Shetty; Mamta Gurav; Prachi Bapat; Ajay Puri; C S Pramesh
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 2.885

7.  Oncological Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effectiveness of Preoperative Screening and Factors Associated with Postoperative SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Authors:  André Lopes; Caroline B P Pastore; Paula Deckers; Izabela K M W Halla; Ana Luiza Rezende Dias; Marcos Vinicius Maia da Mata; Adriana do Nascimento Martins; Micaela Mazutti Viu; Rossana Veronica Mendoza Lopez; Alayne Domingues Yamada
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-01-09       Impact factor: 4.339

8.  Mandatory preoperative COVID-19 testing for cancer patients-Is it justified?

Authors:  Sri Siddhartha Nekkanti; Sudhir Vasudevan Nair; Vani Parmar; Avanish Saklani; Shailesh Shrikhande; Nitin Sudhakar Shetty; Amit Joshi; Vedang Murthy; Nikhil Patkar; Navin Khattry; Sudeep Gupta
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 2.885

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.