Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Oct 4;45:101859. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2022.101859

Systematic review and meta-analysis determining the effect of implemented COVID-19 guidelines on surgical oncology volumes and clinical outcomes

Ellen de Bock 1,∗, Eline S Herman 1, Okan W Bastian 1, Mando D Filipe 1, Menno R Vriens 1, Milan C Richir 1
PMCID: PMC9529677  PMID: 36242979

Abstract

Background

To provide for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) healthcare capacity, (surgical oncology) guidelines were established, forcing to alter the timing of performing surgical procedures. It is essential to determine whether these guidelines have led to disease progression. This study aims to give an insight into the number of surgical oncology procedures performed during the pandemic and provide information on short-term clinical outcomes.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search was performed on all COVID-19 articles including operated patients, published before March 21, 2022. Meta-analysis was performed to visualize the number of performed surgical oncology procedures during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period. Random effects models were used for evaluating short-term clinical outcomes.

Results

Twenty-four studies containing 6762 patients who underwent a surgical oncology procedure during the pandemic were included. The number of performed surgical procedures for an oncological pathology decreased (−26.4%) during the pandemic. The number of performed surgical procedures for breast cancer remained stable (+0.3%). Moreover, no difference was identified in the number of ≥T2 (OR 1.00, P = 0.989), ≥T3 (OR 0.95, P = 0.778), ≥N1 (OR 1.01, P = 0.964) and major postoperative complications (OR 1.55, P = 0.134) during the pandemic.

Conclusion

The number of performed surgical oncology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic decreased. In addition, the number of performed surgical breast cancer procedures remained stable. Oncological staging and major postoperative complications showed no significant difference compared to pre-pandemic practice. During future pandemics, the performed surgical oncology practice during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic seems appropriate for short-term results.

Keywords: Surgical oncology, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2

1. Introduction

During the pandemic Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), the non-COVID-19 healthcare system was adjusted through newly developed measures, including the identification of surgical prioritization in the oncological field to deliver adequate Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity and available healthcare providers [[1], [2], [3], [4]]. Due to the sudden emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its rapid spread, the above-mentioned measures were developed with limited knowledge of SARS-CoV-2's viral behavior [5]. In addition, in the Netherlands, several guidelines were developed based on expert advice and limited knowledge of COVID-19, including in the field of surgical oncology [6]. The Dutch oncology-oriented guideline consisted of surgical prioritization recommendations. Identifying levels of surgical priority is necessary to determine if procedures can be postponed, balancing the risk between viral exposure and disease progression. The consequences of these implemented measures were noticeable in surgical and non-surgical oncological practice [7,8].

Currently, various vaccines are available to reduce the risk of mortality or severe illness caused by COVID-19 [[9], [10], [11]]. However, as long as COVID-19 continues to spread, there is a risk that new variants will emerge. In addition to the mutating nature of viruses, several factors contribute to an increased risk of developing new variants, including people's reluctance to receive COVID-19 vaccinations and limited or no access to vaccinations [[12], [13], [14]]. The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic may be extensive, and future pandemics are plausible, resulting in additional pressure on healthcare, and a subsequent scale reduction in surgical care may be insurmountable. Therefore, it is essential to determine whether surgical oncology decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to disease progression and associated additional care. A revision of surgical oncology measures may be possible, if necessary, by evaluating this clinical surgical data. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide insight into the number and clinical outcomes of the performed surgical oncology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Search strategy

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the guidelines of the PRISMA Checklist for meta-analysis [15]. A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases, including all articles published before March 21, 2022. The search strategy contained a combination of keywords (and their synonyms), including “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, and “surgical”. The complete search strategy is available in the supplementary data (Supplementary Table 1).

2.2. Study selection

After removing duplicates, four reviewers (EB, OB, EH, and MF) independently screened articles by title and abstract for eligibility. The four reviewers discussed discordant judgments until consensus was reached. All articles meeting the following inclusion criteria were selected for full-article review: surgical procedures involving oncological surgery which provided data on oncological outcomes and/or the number of performed surgical procedures. Studies were excluded from the systematic review for the following reasons: articles including recommendations only based on opinions and guidelines; articles without comparison to pre-COVID-19 cohort, non-human biological sample usage; non-English language articles, case reports, case series, editorials, commentaries, short communications, letters, review articles, conference abstracts; no full text available. The reviewers (EB, MF) reviewed the retrieved full-text articles. Agreement for eligibility was obtained for all articles.

2.3. Data extraction and definitions

The following data were extracted from each eligible study: first author's surname, publication year, type of malignancy, study period (pre-)pandemic cohort, number of performed surgical procedures, waiting time in days between operation-indication and surgical procedure, if possible.

The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on performed surgical oncology procedures was evaluated by comparing the total number of performed pre-pandemic surgical procedures to the total number of performed pandemic surgical procedures. To compare as reliably as possible between pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups, most studies cover the same pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 study period or consist of the same number of days. The author of the included study determined the timeframe of the (pre-)pandemic cohort. To compare the studies as reliable as possible, studies were only included if the COVID-19 cohort underwent a surgical procedure during the first wave of the pandemic.

Of the included studies, data of the most commonly shared clinical outcomes were determined. These clinical outcomes included the pathological T- and N-stages of the TNM classification and the complication rate [16]. Pathological T-stage cut-offs were ≥T2 and ≥T3 to provide inside into short-term disease progression. In addition, for the pathological N-stage, ≥N1 was used as the cut-off for evaluating the difference in clinical outcomes. Moreover, the Clavien-Dindo classification was used to classify the severity of reported major postoperative complications [17]. For this meta-analysis, major postoperative complications Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3 was used as the cut-off for evaluating the clinical outcomes.

2.4. Bias assessment

The risk of bias for each eligible study was evaluated by two reviewers (EB, MF) using the ROBINS-I Tool [18]. The tool consists of seven domains; confounding, selection of participants, classification of interventions, deviations from intended interventions, missing data, measurement of outcomes, and selection of the reported result. Each domain was rated on three levels of bias: low risk, intermediate/unclear risk, or high risk of bias. The two authors discussed discordant judgments until consensus was reached. The summary of the risk of bias is shown in the supplementary data (Supplementary Fig. 1). The full risk of bias assessment is displayed in the supplementary data as well (Supplementary Table 2).

2.5. Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics. Meta-analysis was performed to visualize the number of performed surgical oncology procedures before and during the COVID-19 pandemic using the ggplot2 package in R. The effect of heterogeneity was quantified using I2, where a p-value < 0.05 indicated significant heterogeneity across the studies. In addition, a random-effects model was used to assess pooled oncological outcomes. The odds ratio (OR) was estimated with its variance and 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical significance was defined as a p-value <0.05. Statistical analyses were carried out using the meta package in the R statistical software (version 4.0.2).

3. Results

A total of 12,782 articles were identified after duplicate removal. Of these, 12,406 were excluded during the titles and abstract screening, 376 articles were screened in full text (Fig. 1 ).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Flow chart showing literature search and study selection with fourteen relevant studies included.

Overall, 24 studies were included, 6762 surgical oncology procedures were reviewed. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the included studies. Study publication dates ranged from 2020 to 2022, with most studies being published in 2020 and 2021.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies.

Author Country Malignancy Pre-COVID-19 study period COVID-19 study period No. of performed surgical procedures pre-COVID-19 No. of performed surgical procedures COVID-19 Difference in percentages Waiting time in days pre-COVID-19 Waiting time in days COVID-19
Akhtar et al., 2021 [16] India Head and neck, GI, hepatobiliary, genitourinary, thorax, breast, sarcoma, skin April–September 2019 April–September 2020 598 410 −31% NR NR
Amoo et al., 2021 [17] Ireland Glial tumors 1 March – 31 May 2019 1 March – 31 May 2020 56 60 +7% 2.89 2.39
Araujo et al., 2020 [18] Brazil Not specified March–May 2019 March–May 2020 607 242 −60% NR NR
Blache et al., 2021 [19] France Gynecology 21 January – 16 March 2020 17 March – 12 May 2020 127 85 −33% NR NR
Cadili et al., 2020 [20] Canada Breast 16 March – 30 April 2019 16 March – 30 April 2020 99 162 +64% 23 27
Drysdale et al., 2020 [21] Australia Upper GI, Breast, colorectal, endocrine 1 April – 19 May 2019 30 March – 17 May 2020 51 44 +0% 14.7 11.7
Fancelllu et al., 2020 [22] Italy Breast 1 March – 30 Apr 2019 1 March – 30 Apr 2020 41 42 +2% 46.4 49.1
Hübner et al., 2020 [23] Switzerland Major visceral, not specified 3 Feb – 13 March 2020 16 March – 24 April 2020 52 38 −27% NR NR
Kiong et al. [24] USA Head and neck 23 March – 9 April 2019 23 March – 9 April 2020 111 59 −47% NR NR
Leung et al., 2021 [25] UK Gynecology 1 January - 12 August 2019 1 January - 12 August 2020 296 289 −2% NR NR
McLean et al., 2020 [27] UK GI 16 Feb – 15 March 2020 16 March – 15 April 2020 7 9 +29% NR NR
Perrone et al., 2021 [28] Italy Gynecology 9 March – 4 May 2019 9 March – 4 May 2020 55 51 −7% NR NR
Piketty et al., 2022 [29] France Gynecology and breast 14 March - 11 May 11, 2019 14 March - 11 May 11, 2020 23 20 −13% NR NR
Salzano et al., 2021 [30] Italy Head and neck 21 Feb – 25 March 2019 21 Feb – 25 March
2020		 101 113 +12% NR NR
Santambrogio et al., 2020 [31] Italy Hepatocellular 28 Feb – 14 April 2019 28 Feb – 14 April 2020 9 11 +22% NR NR
Shah et al., 2021 [32] USA Head and neck February–May 2019 February–May 2020 60 66 +10% NR NR
Stevens et al., 2022 [33] USA Head and neck March–July 2019 March–July 2020 79 69 −13% NR NR
Subbiah et al., 2021 [34] India Head and neck, breast, GI, STS, gynecology and others October 2019–February 2020 March–July 2020 234 151 −35% NR NR
Tan et al., 2021 [35] Australia Head and neck 6 August 2019–15 March 2020 16 March - 27 October 2020 33 26 −21% NR NR
Vanni et al., 2020 [36] Italy Breast 11 March – 30 March 2019 11 March – 30 March 2020 172 203 +18% 56 42
Vanni et al., 2021 [37] Italy Breast 30 January - 29 February 2020 1 March - 30 March 2020 39 37 −5% 11.8 12.2
Vissio et al., 2021 [38] Italy Breast, CNS, colorectal, lung, ovary, pancreas, prostate, uterus and thyroid 9 March – 8 May 2019 9 March – 8 may 2020 420 372 −11% NR NR
Yiğit et al., 2020 [39] Turkey Breast, thyroid, colon, gastric, hepatocellular 11 March – 31 May 2019 11 March – 31 May 2020 143 57 −60% NR NR
Zhang et al., 2020 [40] China, South Korea, Iran, Italy Thyroid 26 Feb – 20 April 2019 26 Feb – 20 April 2020 531 293 −45% NR NR
Total difference surgical oncology procedures −26.4%
Total difference surgical breast cancer procedures +0.3%
Open in a new tab

COVID-19 = Coronavirus disease 2019, No. = Number, CNS = Central nervous system, GI = Gastrointestinal, STS = Soft tissue sarcomas, UK = United Kingdom, NR = Not reported.

The eligible studies delivered data on variant oncological disciplines including central nervous system (CNS), thyroid, thoracic, breast, colorectal, hepatocellular, endocrine, genitourinary, prostate cancer, skin and soft tissue sarcomas [[19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28],[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]]. Of these included studies, eight evaluated surgical procedures for breast cancer [23,25,32,37,[39], [40], [41], [42]]. In addition, six studies described the waiting time between pathological examination or diagnosis of cancer and the date the surgical procedure was performed [20,[23], [24], [25],39,40]. Of these studies, three described shorter waiting times compared to pre-pandemic practice, of 0.5, 3 and 14 days, respectively [20,24,39]. The remaining three studies showed minimally prolonged waiting times compared to pre-pandemic practice, of 4.0, 2.7 and 0.4 days, respectively [23,25,40]. In addition, all of these studies reported information regarding performed breast cancer procedures [23,25,40].

All studies were classified as overall methodological sufficient quality according to ROBINS-I Tool. The more comprehensive risk assessment of all included studies is presented in supplementary table 2.

4. Surgical oncology volumes

The total number of performed surgical oncology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic was 2867, compared to 3895 during pre-pandemic practice (total decrease 26.4%) (Table 1).

Moreover, 614 oncological breast procedures were performed during the pandemic, compared to 612 before the pandemic (total increase 0.3%) (Fig. 2 and Table 1).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Bar chart of the number of surgical breast cancer procedures performed during and before the COVID-19 pandemic.

5. Clinical oncological outcomes

Five studies with a total of 2608 patients included data on pathological ≥ T2 staged tumors [28,36,39,41,43]. No difference was identified in the proportion of ≥T2 in the pandemic group compared to the pre-pandemic group (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.72–1.38, P = 0.989) (Fig. 3 A, Table 2 ).

Fig. 3A.

Fig. 3A

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the odds ratio of ≥T2 stage during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic control group.

Table 2.

Odds ratios of oncological outcomes and major postoperative complications during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic practice. OR = Odds ratio, CI = Confidence interval, T = Tumor, N = Node.

Parameter OR 95% CI p-value
≥T2 1.00 0.72–1.38 0.989
≥T3 0.95 0.69–1.32 0.778
≥N1 1.01 0.68–1.50 0.964
Postoperative complications
Clavien-Dindo ≥3		 1.55 0.87–2.74 0.134
Open in a new tab

Four studies describing 1986 patients included pathological ≥ T3 data [36,39,41,43]. No difference was observed in the number of ≥T3 tumors during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic practice (OR 0.95; 95%CI 0.69–1.32, P = 0.778) (Fig. 3 B, Table 2).

Fig. 3B.

Fig. 3B

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the odds ratio of ≥T3 stage during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic control group.

Furthermore, four studies with a total of 1951 patients included data on a pathological ≥ N1 stage [36,39,41,43]. No difference in ≥N1 during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic group was observed. (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.68–1.50, P = 0.964) (Fig. 3 C, Table 2).

Fig. 3C.

Fig. 3C

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the odds ratio of ≥N1 stage during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic control group.

In addition, five studies describing 1901 patients included the number of major postoperative complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3 during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic cohort [19,22,28,34,40]. No significant difference in the number of major postoperative complications was identified (OR 1.55; 95% CI 0.87–2.74, P = 0.134) (Fig. 3 D, Table 2).

Fig. 3D.

Fig. 3D

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the odds ratio of major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic control group.

6. Discussion

The current meta-analysis analyzed the number of performed surgical procedures for oncological pathologies during the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, the number of performed surgical procedures for an oncological pathology decreased (2867 vs. 3895, −26.4%) during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic practice. In addition, the number of performed surgical procedures for breast cancer remained stable during the pandemic (578 vs. 569, +1.6%). Furthermore, no difference was identified in the proportion of ≥T2, ≥T3, ≥N1 during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic practice, with OR's 1.00, 0.95, and 1.01, respectively. Finally, the number of major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) was slightly, however not significantly, higher during the pandemic (OR 1.55, P = 0.134) compared to pre-pandemic performance.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several guidelines have been established to triage the performance of (surgical oncology) procedures to determine within which time frame surgical procedures should occur. Different triage methods were used for the clinical implementation of non-COVID care, including the stratification of acute, semi-acute, and elective procedures, or by emergency-, urgent-, elective with the expectation of cure and elective with no predictive harmful outcome procedures or by low-, intermediate- or high acuity [1,[44], [45], [46]]. In addition, some guidelines specifically described deferrable- or prioritizing surgical oncology procedures [4,6]. The common denominator in these guidelines was to provide the maximal care capacity for the COVID-19 patient with as little disease progression as possible in non-COVID-19 pathologies. It is essential to investigate whether these guidelines are implemented in daily surgical practice and if short-term clinical outcomes are reported. This enables to determine whether disease progression may occur during possible future changes in operating room capacities, for example, if new pandemics arise.

This current systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the number of performed surgical oncology procedures declined (2867 vs. 3895, 26.4% total decrease) during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic clinical practice. This is in line with the Dutch Integral Cancer Registration (IKNL), which showed a decrease in the number of performed surgical oncology procedures during the first pandemic wave in the Netherlands [47]. In contrast to the overall number of performed surgical oncology procedures and the IKNL data, this meta-analysis showed a stable number of performed surgical breast cancer procedures during the pandemic compared to previous pre-pandemic volumes (614 vs. 612, 0.3% total increase). Therefore, this study's decreased number of performed surgical oncology procedures may not be attributed to breast cancer practice. It is possible that, in order to reduce the pressure on healthcare, the operating time freed up by postponed elective surgical procedures was more easily filled by breast cancer procedures, in which patients are discharged faster postoperatively than by complex oncological procedures requiring intensive care unit admission. Moreover, postponement in surgical oncology procedures may or may not lead to disease progression; however, this depends on multiple factors [[48], [49], [50]]. IKNL has estimated that due to stable chemotherapy performances, catch-up in cancer diagnosis, and surgical procedures, enough (non-)surgical patients have received cancer treatment in the Netherlands [47].

This systematic review and meta-analysis included six studies reporting the waiting time between histological- or cytological-examination or diagnosis of cancer and date of performed surgical procedure, or time between surgical consult and surgical procedure. Of these studies, three showed a minimally longer waiting time during the pandemic than before the pandemic (mean difference 2.4 days, range 0.4–4.0). The tumors are not expected to have grown clinically relevant in this short time [51]. Additional data is necessary to inventory each hospital's waiting time since previous literature states that increased waiting time for oncological procedures may lead to a lower overall survival rate [49,52]. Moreover, this meta-analysis showed no significantly increased number of patients presenting with pathological ≥ T2, ≥T3, ≥N1 tumors or major postoperative complications during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to pre-pandemic cohorts. These results may indicate that no disease progression occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic in the included oncological studies, a possible conclusion also seen in a recent Dutch COVID-19 study focusing on stage distribution of colorectal cancers [53]. This may be explained by some solid cancers being years old when noticed and requiring a surgical procedure [54]. However, caution is advised as calculations anticipate diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic may increase the number of preventable cancer deaths [55].

This systematic review and meta-analysis has some limitations. First, separating surgical oncology volumes by type of oncology discipline was only possible for breast cancer. In addition, the majority of the breast cancer studies included data from Italy. Therefore, extrapolating the number of performed surgical breast cancer procedures to other countries may be difficult. Further research is necessary to determine the net summary of the number of performed surgical procedures for each country to allow for a more realistic representation of the delayed healthcare. Second, the current meta-analysis is limited by the data's heterogeneity. The COVID-19 pandemic severity differed between countries and regions, leading to heterogenic approach of oncological guidelines. As a result, inevitable variation is observed in chosen pre-pandemic and pandemic phases, chronology and management between the included studies. Specifically, some studies determined the start date of their COVID-19 cohort before the official WHO declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be explained by the varying incidence of COVID-19 between countries and/or regions [56,57]. Third, this study was unable to review whether the observed reduction in surgical volumes was related to the deferral of surgical procedures due to altered hospital approach or patient-driven avoidance of care. Finally, more research is essential to determine whether people have been treated on time to have well-founded information for possible future pandemics.

In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed a decrease (−26.4%) in the number of performed surgical oncology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic (3895 vs. 2867). In addition, the number of performed surgical breast cancer procedures remained stable (+0.3%). Moreover, reported short-term oncological staging and major postoperative complications showed no significantly increased disease progression compared to pre-pandemic practice. In the event future pandemics, the performed surgical oncology care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic appears appropriate regarding short-term outcomes. Further research should determine long-term and country-specific clinical outcomes.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Data presentation

Research data is available upon reasonable request.

Author contributions

E. de Bock: conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing the article, critical revision of the article, E.S. Herman: conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing the article, critical revision of the article, O.W. Bastian: conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing the article, critical revision of the article, M.D. Filipe: conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing the article, critical revision of the article, M.R. Vriens: conception and design, analysis and interpretation, writing the article, critical revision of the article, M.C. Richir: conception and design, analysis and interpretation, writing the article, critical revision of the article.

Declarations of competing interest

None.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2022.101859.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:

Multimedia component 1
mmc1.docx (26KB, docx)
Multimedia component 2
mmc2.docx (13.5KB, docx)
Multimedia component 3
mmc3.docx (15.4KB, docx)

References

  • 1.American College of Surgeons https://www.facs.org/covid-19/clinical-guidance/elective-case COVID-19: Elective Case Triage Guidelines for Surgical Care [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from:
  • 2.National Health Service . Londen; 2020. Next Steps on NHS Response to COVID-19.https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/03/urgent-next-steps-on-nhs-response-to-covid-19-letter-simon-stevens.pdf [Internet] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Al-Jabir A., Kerwan A., Nicola M., Alsafi Z., Khan M., Sohrabi C., et al. Impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical practice - Part 1. Int. J. Surg. 2020 Jul;79:168–179. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.05.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Al-Jabir A., Kerwan A., Nicola M., Alsafi Z., Khan M., Sohrabi C., et al. Impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical practice - Part 2 (surgical prioritisation) Int. J. Surg. 2020 Jul;79:233–248. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.05.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Moletta L., Pierobon E.S., Capovilla G., Costantini M., Salvador R., Merigliano S., et al. International guidelines and recommendations for surgery during Covid-19 pandemic: a Systematic Review. Int. J. Surg. 2020 Jul;79:180–188. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.05.061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Handle N.V.V.H. https://heelkunde.nl/nieuws/nieuwsbericht?newsitemid=23658500 for surgical procedures during Corona crisis [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from:
  • 7.Filipe M., de Bock E., Geitenbeek R., Boerma D., Pronk A., Heikens J., et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical colorectal cancer care in The Netherlands: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2021;25(11):2948–2950. doi: 10.1007/s11605-021-04936-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.https://iknl.nl/persberichten/aantal-nieuwe-kankerpatienten-in-2020-gedaald-door Integral cancer center the netherlands. Number of new cancer patients decreased in 2020 due to corona crisis, first decrease in thirty years. [Internet]. [cited 2022 May 12]. Available from:
  • 9.Polack F.P., Thomas S.J., Kitchin N., Absalon J., Gurtman A., Lockhart S., et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA covid-19 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020 Dec 31;383(27):2603–2615. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Baden L.R., El Sahly H.M., Essink B., Kotloff K., Frey S., Novak R., et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021 Feb 4;384(5):403–416. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Thomas S.J., Moreira E.D., Kitchin N., Absalon J., Gurtman A., Lockhart S., et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA covid-19 vaccine through 6 months. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021 Nov 4;385(19):1761–1773. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2110345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nachega J.B., Sam-Agudu N.A., Masekela R., van der Zalm M.M., Nsanzimana S., Condo J., et al. Addressing challenges to rolling out COVID-19 vaccines in African countries. Lancet Global Health. 2021 Jun;9(6):e746–e748. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00097-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hopkins Medicine John. COVID variants: what you should know. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-know [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 May 10]. Available from:
  • 14.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention What you need to know about variants. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant.html [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 May 8]. Available from:
  • 15.Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gotzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P.A., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009 Dec;339(jul21 1):b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. b2700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.National Institutes of Health https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/diagnosis-staging/staging Cancer Staging [Internet]. [cited 2022 May 6]. Available from:
  • 17.Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205–213. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sterne J.A., Hernán M.A., Reeves B.C., Savović J., Berkman N.D., Viswanathan M., et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016 Oct:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Akhtar N., Rajan S., Chakrabarti D., Kumar V., Gupta S., Misra S., et al. 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. J. Surg. Oncol. 2021 Apr;123(5):1177–1187. doi: 10.1002/jso.26419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Amoo M., Horan J., Gilmartin B., Nolan D., Corr P., MacNally S., et al. The provision of neuro-oncology and glioma neurosurgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a single national tertiary centre experience. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2021 Aug;190(3):905–911. doi: 10.1007/s11845-020-02429-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Araujo S.E.A., Leal A., Centrone A.F.Y., Teich V.D., Malheiro D.T., Cypriano A.S., et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on care of oncological patients: experience of a cancer center in a Latin American pandemic epicenter. Einstein (São Paulo) 2020 Dec 17:19. doi: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2021AO6282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Blache G., El Hajj H., Jauffret C., Houvenaeghel G., Sabiani L., Barrou J., et al. Care as usual: an acceptable strategy to apply during the COVID-19 pandemic in a French tertiary gynecologic oncology department. Front. Oncol. 2021;11 doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.653009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cadili L., DeGirolamo K., McKevitt E., Brown C.J., Prabhakar C., Pao J.-S., et al. COVID-19 and breast cancer at a Regional Breast Centre: our flexible approach during the pandemic. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2020 Nov;1–7 doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-06008-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Drysdale H.R.E., Ooi S., Nagra S., Watters D.A., Guest G.D. Clinical activity and outcomes during Geelong's general surgery response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. ANZ J. Surg. 2020 Sep;90(9):1573–1579. doi: 10.1111/ans.16207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fancellu A., Sanna V., Rubino C., Ariu M.L., Piredda C., Piana G.Q., et al. The COVID-19 outbreak may Be associated to a reduced level of care for breast cancer. A comparative study with the pre-COVID era in an Italian breast unit. Healthc (Basel, Switzerland) 2020 Nov;8(4) doi: 10.3390/healthcare8040474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hübner M., Zingg T., Martin D., Eckert P., Demartines N. Surgery for non-Covid-19 patients during the pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15(10) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kiong K.L., Guo T., Yao C.M.K.L., Gross N.D., Hanasono M.M., Ferrarotto R., et al. Changing practice patterns in head and neck oncologic surgery in the early COVID-19 era. Head Neck. 2020 Jun;42(6):1179–1186. doi: 10.1002/hed.26202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Leung E., Pervaiz Z., Lowe-Zinola J., Cree S., Kwong A., Marriott N., et al. Maintaining surgical care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparative cohort study at a tertiary gynecological cancer centre. Gynecol. Oncol. 2021 Mar;160(3):649–654. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.12.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Leung S., Al-Omran M., Greco E., Qadura M., Wheatcroft M., Mamdani M., et al. Monitoring the evolving impact of COVID-19 on institutional surgical services: imperative for quality improvement platforms. Br. J. Surg. 2021 Jan;108(1):e7–e8. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaa016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McLean R.C., Young J., Musbahi A., Lee J.X., Hidayat H., Abdalla N., et al. A single-centre observational cohort study to evaluate volume and severity of emergency general surgery admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic: is there a “lockdown” effect? Int. J. Surg. 2020 Nov;83:259–266. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.09.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Perrone A.M., Dondi G., Giunchi S., De Crescenzo E., Boussedra S., Tesei M., et al. COVID-19 free oncologic surgical hub: the experience of reallocation of a gynecologic oncology unit during pandemic outbreak. Gynecol. Oncol. 2021 Apr;161(1):89–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.09.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Piketty J., Carbonnel M., Murtada R., Revaux A., Asmar J., Favre-Inhofer A., et al. Collateral damage of COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on a gynecologic surgery department. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2022 Jan;51(1) doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Salzano G., Maglitto F., Guida A., Perri F., Maglione M.G., Buonopane S., et al. Surgical oncology of the head and neck district during COVID-19 pandemic. Eur Arch oto-rhino-laryngology Off J Eur Fed Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Soc Affil with Ger Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head Neck Surg. 2021 Aug;278(8):3107–3111. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06517-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Santambrogio R., Farina G., D’Alessandro V., Iacob G., Gemma M., Zappa M.A. Guidelines adaptation to the COVID-19 outbreak for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2021;31(3):266–272. doi: 10.1089/lap.2020.0559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Shah A., Sumer B.D., Schostag K., Balachandra S., Sher D.J., Gordin E.A., et al. Institutional patterns of head and neck oncology care during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective, pooled cross-sectional analysis. Oral Oncol. 2021 Nov;122 doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Stevens M.N., Patro A., Rahman B., Gao Y., Liu D., Cmelak A., et al. Impact of COVID-19 on presentation, staging, and treatment of head and neck mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2022;43(1) doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Subbiah S., Hussain S.A., Samanth Kumar M. Managing cancer during COVID pandemic - experience of a tertiary cancer care center. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. : J. Eur. Soc. Surg. Oncol. Brit. Assoc. Surg. Oncol. 2021;47:1220–1224. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.09.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tan H., Preston J., Hunn S., Kwok M., Borschmann M. COVID-19 did not delay time from referral to definitive management for head and neck cancer patients in a regional Victorian centre. ANZ J. Surg. 2021 Jul;91(7–8):1364–1368. doi: 10.1111/ans.17057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vanni G., Tazzioli G., Pellicciaro M., Materazzo M., Paolo O., Cattadori F., et al. Delay in breast cancer treatments during the first COVID-19 lockdown. A multicentric analysis of 432 patients. Anticancer Res. 2020 Dec;40(12):7119–7125. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.14741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Vanni G., Pellicciaro M., Materazzo M., Dauri M., D’angelillo R.M., Buonomo C., et al. Awake breast cancer surgery: strategy in the beginning of COVID-19 emergency. Breast Cancer. 2021 Jan;28(1):137–144. doi: 10.1007/s12282-020-01137-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vissio E., Falco E.C., Collemi G., Borella F., Papotti M., Scarmozzino A., et al. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on oncological surgical activity: analysis of the surgical pathology caseload of a tertiary referral hospital in Northwestern Italy. J. Surg. Oncol. 2021 Jan;123(1):24–31. doi: 10.1002/jso.26256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yiğit B., Çitgez B., Tana M., Yetkin S.G., Uludag M. Comparison of the emergency and oncological surgery before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A single-center retrospective study. Ann. Ital. Chir. 2020 Nov;9 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zhang D., Fu Y., Zhou L., Liang N., Wang T., Del Rio P., et al. Thyroid surgery during coronavirus-19 pandemic phases I, II and III: lessons learned in China, South Korea, Iran and Italy. J. Endocrinol. Invest. 2020 Sep;1–9 doi: 10.1007/s40618-020-01407-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.National Health Service Clinical guide for the management of cancer patients during the coronavirus pandemic. https://www.uhb.nhs.uk/coronavirus-staff/downloads/pdf/CoronavirusCancerManagement.pdf [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from:
  • 45.American College of Surgeons https://www.facs.org/covid-19/clinical-guidance/triage COVID-19: Guidance for Triage of Non-Emergent Surgical Procedures [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from:
  • 46.Desai S., Gupta A. IASO COVID-19 guidelines. 2020. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L2004869015&from=export (Updated on 9th April 2020). Indian J Surg Oncol [Internet] 11(2):171-174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 47.Limited I.K.N.L. https://iknl.nl/nieuws/2021/beperkte-invloed-coronacrisis-op-totaal-aantal-kan influence of the corona crisis on the total number of cancer treatments in 2020 [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 11]. Available from:
  • 48.Heiden B.T., Eaton D.B., Engelhardt K.E., Chang S.-H., Yan Y., Patel M.R., et al. Analysis of delayed surgical treatment and oncologic outcomes in clinical stage I non–small cell lung cancer. JAMA Netw. Open. 2021 May 27;4(5) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ponholzer F., Kroepfl V., Ng C., Maier H., Kocher F., Lucciarini P., et al. Delay to surgical treatment in lung cancer patients and its impact on survival in a video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy cohort. Sci. Rep. 2021 Dec 1;11(1):4914. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84162-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Xia L., Talwar R., Chelluri R.R., Guzzo T.J., Lee D.J. Surgical delay and pathological outcomes for clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer. JAMA Netw. Open. 2020 Dec 8;3(12) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lee S.H., Kim Y.-S., Han W., Ryu H.S., Chang J.M., Cho N., et al. Tumor growth rate of invasive breast cancers during wait times for surgery assessed by ultrasonography. Medicine (Baltim.) 2016 Sep;95(37) doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hanna T.P., King W.D., Thibodeau S., Jalink M., Paulin G.A., Harvey-Jones E., et al. Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020 Nov 4 doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Toes-Zoutendijk E., Vink G., Nagtegaal I.D., Spaander M.C.W., Dekker E., van Leerdam M.E., et al. Impact of COVID-19 and suspension of colorectal cancer screening on incidence and stage distribution of colorectal cancers in The Netherlands. Eur. J. Cancer. 2022 Jan;161:38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.11.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Patrone M.V., Hubbs J.L., Bailey J.E., Marks L.B. How long have I had my cancer, doctor? Estimating tumor age via Collins' law. Oncology. 2011 Jan;25(1):38–43. 46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Maringe C., Spicer J., Morris M., Purushotham A., Nolte E., Sullivan R., et al. 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 Aug;21(8):1023–1034. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30388-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cucinotta D., Vanelli M. WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Biomed. 2020;91(1):157–160. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.World health organization https://covid19.who.int WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard [Internet]. [cited 2022 Sep 5]. Available from:

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Multimedia component 1
mmc1.docx (26KB, docx)
Multimedia component 2
mmc2.docx (13.5KB, docx)
Multimedia component 3
mmc3.docx (15.4KB, docx)

Articles from Surgical Oncology are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES