Background
The ongoing COVID-19 crisis due to the SARS-Cov-2 virus gained a pandemic status on March 11th, 2020 [1]. Although India did well during the first wave in the last year but the ongoing second wave and the triple mutated virus has devastated the whole nation and exposed the unpreparedness to fight this deadly disease. The death toll in the second wave has crossed 2 lakhs already [2]. We must also be aware that with the ongoing pandemic, care of another grave epidemic called cancer care has been severely affected. The reasons may be already overburdened health care system, fear of contracting the viral disease while visiting cancer care facilities, confusion surrounding the vaccination drive, and the travel restrictions due to the government enforced lockdown. Ranganathan et al. in their recently published cohort study in Lancet Oncology involving 41 hospitals in India have reported that, during the first wave last year about 70% of cancer patients in India were unable to undergo life saving surgeries and treatment and only 1/5th of the cancer surgeries was performed in March-May,2020 as compared to the same time frame in 2019. About 51,100 cancer surgeries were cancelled in India during the same time period [3]. It led to the cessation of cancer screening programs and increase in cancer stage migration, which will have a significant bearing in the cancer outcome in these patients in the future. In India, genitourinary cancers are the most common cancers in both sexes [4]. Genitourinary cancers in male comprises of cancers in the prostate 77.6%, urinary bladder, kidney, penis 11.6% and testis 10.5% [5]. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak the care of genitourinary cancer patients have also been compromised and several national and international bodies have come up with best practice guidelines to triage and treat urological cancer patients in a timely manner without putting undue stress upon already exhausted healthcare system [6-14]. Table 1 summarizes the triage protocol to be followed in Urological cancer patients for optimal cancer care.
Table 1.
Simplified summary of the triage protocol to be followed in the management of Urological cancers during COVID-19
Site of Cancer | Cancer stage | Management |
---|---|---|
Kidney | cT1a | Postpone Sx for 6 months |
≥cT1b | Postpone Sx for 3 months | |
Any T, Hematuria/ symptomatic/Renal vein/IVC involvement |
Immediate Sx | |
Metastatic RCC IMDC Good and Intermediate risk | TTX, CN after 3-6 month | |
Metastatic RCC IMDC poor risk | TTX | |
NMIBC | Low risk | Postpone Sx for 3 months |
Intermediate risk | Prefer Sx | |
High risk | Sx | |
Any tumor with hematuria | Sx | |
MIBC | cT2N0 | Trimodal therapy/Sx |
≥cT/ any N+ | Sx within 3 months | |
pT3/T4, p N1-N3 | Defer adjuvant CT after Sx, Immuno preferred | |
Metastatic bladder cancer | Defer CT, Immuno preferred | |
Metastatic bladder cancer with hematuria | Hemostatic RT/Endoscopic fulguration | |
Prostate | Low risk | AS/Defer treatment for 6 months |
Intermediate risk | Defer treatment for 3-6 months | |
High risk | Neoadjuvant ADT for 3-6 months followed by Sx/RT | |
Metastatic | LHRH agonist preferred | |
CRPC | Abiraterone/Enzalutamide preferred. Avoid Docetaxel CT. | |
Penis | cTis, cTa, cT1 | Postpone Sx for 3 months |
cT2/cT3 | Sx | |
cT4 | Sx + adjuvant CT | |
B/l negative groin | ||
Low risk | Surveillance | |
Intermediate risk | Surveillance | |
High risk | Sx postponed for 3 months | |
Positive mobile nodes | Sx | |
Positive fixed nodes/>4cm | Neoadjuvant CT followed by Sx | |
Metastatic disease | Palliative CT | |
Testis | Seminoma | |
CS I Low risk | Surveillance | |
CS I High risk | Surveillance/CT | |
CS II A, IIB | CT/RT | |
CS IIC, III | CT | |
Non Seminoma | ||
CS I A | Surveillance | |
CS IB | Surveillance | |
CS IS | CT | |
CS IIA, IIB | CT | |
CS II C, III | ||
Good risk | CT | |
Intermediate risk | CT | |
High risk | CT |
Sx: Surgery, TTx: Targeted therapy, CN: Cytoreductive nephrectomy, NMIBC: Non muscle invasive bladder cancer, MIBC: Muscle invasive balader cancer, CT: Chemotherapy, RT: Radiotherapy, AS: Active surveillance,
The dawn of Robotic surgery
Robot assisted laparoscopic surgeries (RAS) have revolutionized urological cancer care. The da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) was approved by US FDA on July 2000 and the first robotic surgery for Urological cancers in India was performed in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi way back in July 2006 in the form of a Robotic Radical prostatectomy [15]. Since then, more than 85 da Vinci surgical systems have been installed in India till date (Intuitive unpublished data). With other surgical robots (Medtronic Hugo, SSI Mantra, Korean robot Revo etc) also being introduced in India and Health insurance companies coming up with plans that will cover these expensive surgeries, the future of robotics is looking great. There are certain advantages for the patients if they undergo robotic surgeries. There will be smaller incision and scars, less pain, minimum blood loss and patients can go home early. For the surgeons, the robots offer better 3 dimensional magnified (10-12x) HD vision, improved dexterity due to “endowrist” movements of the robotic arms and the robots can reach to the areas which are very difficult or even impossible to reach by conventional laparoscopy [16].
Robotic surgery during COVID-19 pandemic
There are some major concerns surrounding minimally invasive surgeries that include laparoscopy and robotics during the pandemic. These surgeries involve abdominal insufflation with CO2, which increase intra-abdominal pressure and thus may increase the generation of aerosol leading to the risk of contamination with COVID-19 virus to the surgical team. The robotic surgeries can safely be performed with intra-abdominal pressure at 5mm of Hg using an intelligent integrated flow system (AirSeal ® system), as compared to traditional laparoscopy, which requires a pressure of 10-15 mm of Hg thus RAS can reduce contamination risk by reduced aerosol generation [17]. However, there is no proof that the aerosol released during minimally invasive surgery contains COVID-19 virus [9]. Apart from this advantage, robotic surgery needs fewer personnel in the operating room as compared to open surgery, lesser surgical instruments and thus faster cleaning and rapid turn over time. The surgeons’ console may be placed outside the operating room, thus safeguarding exposure to the surgeons. In most of the robotic urological cancer surgeries (except radical cystectomy for bladder cancer) same day or next day discharge is possible, which limits exposure for the patients and is relevant in the time of acute shortage of hospital beds [18]. Keeping these advantages in mind robot assisted surgeries can be a real game changer for managing complex urological cancer surgeries during the ongoing pandemic. Table 2 summarizes the precautions taken during robotic surgeries to prevent COVID-19 contamination.
Table 2.
Steps enumerating precautions to be taken during Robotic surgery in Urological Cancer patients to prevent contamination from COVID-19 infection
Workflow | Action to be taken |
---|---|
1.Scheduling patients for surgery |
|
2. Pre-operative office workup and screening of patients |
|
3.OR set up and Anesthesiology team |
|
4.Robotic surgery team |
|
HRCT: High resolution CT, HEPA: High efficiency particulate air, OR: Operating room
The future of Robotic surgery beyond the pandemic in India
Machine learning and AI platform from the data generated from the newer surgical robotic systems may pave in the way for autonomous robotic system in the future [19]. Research is ongoing to incorporate eye tracking, voice commands, tactile feedback and centralizing vital information to improve a surgeon’s experience [20-24]. The ultimate goal in a pandemic situation would be remote access no-contact robotic surgery under direct supervision of the surgeon. This may be a reality in the near future soon. The 5G internet service scheduled to be launched in India will permit real time signal transmission and thus allowing telesurgery in remote places [21]. With the launch of newer surgical robots, the initial purchase cost will come down and robotic surgeries will become more cost effective and tailor made for Indian patients.
Conclusion
The mortality from COVID-19 infection is around 2-3%, but due to the delay in diagnosis and treatment the mortality from different cancers have increased significantly during the pandemic [25]. We know that the pandemic is going to stay a little longer, but the cancers will continue to kill even when the pandemic is over. Hence, to fight against cancer during this pandemic we should protect the health care workers, judiciously use telehealth, restrict the number of family members to accompany with the patient, use the resources wisely, have a well-planned outlook to treat different cancers and rely on newer technologies to tide over the crisis.
Acknowledgement
None
References
- 1.Banerjee I, Robinson J, Kashyap A, Mohabeer P, Shukla A, Leclézio A. The changing pattern of COVID-19 in Nepal: A Global concern- A Narrative Review. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2020. June 30;10(2):845-855. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v10i2.29769 10.3126/nje.v10i2.29769 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bhattacharya A. COVID-19: Deaths in 2nd wave cross 2 lakh at daily average of over 2,000. The times of India. [online] 2021. [cited 2021 June 28]. Available from URL: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/covid-19-deaths-in-2nd-wave-cross-2-lakh-at-daily-average-of-over-2000/articleshow/83414459.cms
- 3.Ranganathan P, Sengar M, Chinnaswamy G, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in India: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2021. May 27:S1470-2045(21)00240-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00240-0 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00240-0 PMid: ; PMCid: . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Sharma RG, Kumar R, Jain S, et al. Distribution of malignant neoplasms reported at different pathology centers and hospitals in Jaipur, Rajasthan. Indian J Cancer. 2009. Oct-Dec;46(4):323-30. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-509X.55553 10.4103/0019-509X.55553 PMid: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Yuvaraja TB, Waigankar S, Bakshi G, Prakash G. Genitourinary cancers: Summary of Indian data. South Asian J Cancer. 2016. Jul-Sep;5(3):122-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-330X.187577 10.4103/2278-330X.187577 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Puliatti S, Eissa A, Eissa R, et al. COVID-19 and urology: a comprehensive review of the literature. BJU Int. 2020. June;125(6):E7-E14. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15071 10.1111/bju.15071 PMid: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ficarra V, Novara G, Abrate A, et al. Urology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020. June;72(3):369-375. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03846-1 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03846-1 PMid: . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Nowroozi A, Amini E. Urology practice in the time of COVID-19. Urol J. 2020. May 16;17(3):326. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.6065 10.22037/uj.v0i0.6065 PMid: . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mottrie A. ERUS (EAU robotic urology section) guidelines during COVID-19 emergency. [online] 2020. [cited 2021 June 28]. Available from URL: https://uroweb.org/eau-robotic-urology-section-erus-guidelines-during-covid-19-emergency/
- 10.Porter J, Blau E, Gharagozloo F, et al. Society of Robotic Surgery review: recommendations regarding the risk of COVID-19 transmission during minimally invasive surgery. BJU Int. 2020. August;126(2):225-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15105 10.1111/bju.15105 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sobel D, Gn M, O'Rourke TK, Jr, et al. Personal Protective Equipment for Common Urologic Procedures Before and During the United States COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single Institution Study. Urology. 2020. July;141:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.04.083 10.1016/j.urology.2020.04.083 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Narain TA, Gautam G, Seth A, et al. Uro-oncology in times of COVID-19: The available evidence and recommendations in the Indian scenario. Indian J Cancer. 2020. Apr-Jun;57(2):129-138. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijc.IJC_356_20 10.4103/ijc.IJC_356_20 PMid: . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ouzzane A, Colin P. Cost-Effective Filtrating Suction to Evacuate Surgical Smoke in Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2020. October;30(5):e28-e29. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000811 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000811 PMid: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Moschovas MC, Mazzone E, Puliatti S, Mottrie A, Patel V. Selecting the Most Appropriate Oncological Treatment for Patients with Renal Masses During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations from a Referral Center. Eur Urol Focus. 2020. September 15;6(5):1130-1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.05.005 10.1016/j.euf.2020.05.005 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jain S, Gautam G. Robotics in urologic oncology. J Minim Access Surg. 2015. Jan-Mar;11(1):40-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.147687 10.4103/0972-9941.147687 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rassweiler JJ, Autorino R, Klein J, et al. Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int. 2017. December;120(6):822-841. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13851 10.1111/bju.13851 PMid: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Angioli R, Terranova C, Plotti F, et al. Influence of pneumoperitoneum pressure on surgical field during robotic and laparoscopic surgery: a comparative study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015. April;291(4):865-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3494-z 10.1007/s00404-014-3494-z PMid: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Abaza R, Kogan P, Martinez O. Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Same-day Discharge After Robotic Urologic Surgery. Urology. 2021. March;149:40-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.012 10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.012 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Dunkin B, Adrales GL, Apelgren K, Mellinger JD. Surgical simulation: a current review. Surg Endosc. 2007. March;21(3):357-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9072-0 10.1007/s00464-006-9072-0 PMid: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Visarius H, Gong J, Scheer C, Haralamb S, Nolte LP. Man-machine interfaces in computer assisted surgery. Comput Aided Surg. 1997;2(2):102-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0150(1997)2:2<102::AID-IGS3>3.0.CO;2-3 PMid: . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Stephan D, Sälzer H, Willeke F. First Experiences with the New Senhance® Telerobotic System in Visceral Surgery. Visc Med. 2018. February;34(1):31-36. https://doi.org/10.1159/000486111 10.1159/000486111 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.O'Hara K, Gonzalez G, Sellen A, et al. Touchless interaction in surgery. Communications of the ACM 57(1):70-77 https://doi.org/10.1145/2541883.2541899 10.1145/2541883.2541899 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Banerjee I, Robinson J, Kashyap A, Mohabeer P, Sathian B. COVID-19 and Artificial Intelligence: the pandemic pacifier. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2020. December 31;10(4):919-922. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v10i4.33334 10.3126/nje.v10i4.33334 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.van Teijlingen A, Tuttle T, Bouchachia H, Sathian B, van Teijlingen E. Artificial Intelligence and Health in Nepal. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2020. September 30;10(3):915-918. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v10i3.31649 10.3126/nje.v10i3.31649 PMid: PMCid: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Maringe C, Spicer J, Morris M, Purushotham A, Nolte E, Sullivan R, Rachet B, Aggarwal A. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study. Lancet Oncol. 2020. August;21(8):1023-1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30388-0 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30388-0 PMid: ; PMCid: . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]