Search

Introduction: It was previously demonstrated that seasonal influenza incidence was significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly due to respiratory and hygiene precautions. From this point, we hypothesized that the COVID-19 precautions could lead to a decrease in nosocomial infection rates in oncology inpatient wards. Methods: We evaluated the nosocomial infection rates in an inpatient palliative oncology ward in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in our country and compared this rate with the same time frame of the previous year in our institution. Results: The percentage of nosocomial infections complicating the hospitalization episodes were significantly reduced in the first 3 months of the pandemic compared to the previous year (43 vs. 55 nosocomial infection episodes; 18.6% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.002). The decrease in the nosocomial infections was consistent in the different types of infections, namely pneumonia (4.8% vs. 7.6%), urinary tract infection (5.2% vs. 7.6%), bacteremia (5.2% vs. 7%) and intraabdominal infections (2.6% vs. 3.5%). The median monthly disinfectant use was significantly increased to 98 liters (interquartile range: 82 – 114) in 2020 compared to 72 L (interquartile range: 36 – 72) in 2019 (p = 0.046). Conclusion: The continuation of the simple and feasible hygiene and distancing measures for healthcare workers and patient relatives and adaptations for earlier discharge could be beneficial for preventing nosocomial infections in oncology wards. These measures could be implemented routinely even after the COVID-19 pandemic for patient safety, especially in settings with higher nosocomial infection rates like inpatients palliative care units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of GMS Hygiene & Infection Control is the property of German Medical Science Publishing House gGmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Unplanned readmission in the first 30 days after discharge is an important medical problem, although the data on cancer patients is limited. So we planned to evaluate the rates and causes of early readmissions and the predisposing factors. Methods: Patients hospitalized in Hacettepe University Oncology services between August 2018 and July 2019 were included. The demographic features, tumor stages, regular drugs, last laboratory parameters before discharge, and readmissions in the first 30 days after discharge were recorded. The predisposing features were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: A total of 562 hospitalizations were included. The mean age of the patients was 58.5 ± 14.5 years. Almost 2/3 of the hospitalizations were due to symptom palliation and infections. Eighty-three percent of the patients had advanced disease, and over 60% had an ECOG score of 2 and above. In the first 30 days after discharge, 127 patients were readmitted (22.6%). Advanced stage disease, presence of polypharmacy (5 or more regular drugs), hospitalization setting (emergency department (ED) vs. outpatient clinic), and hypoalbuminemia (< 3 gr/dL) were associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of readmission. Among these factors, advanced-stage disease (HR: 2.847, 95% CI: 1.375–5.895), hospitalization from ED (HR: 1.832, 95% CI: 1.208–2.777), and polypharmacy (HR: 1.782, 95% CI: 1.173–2.706) remained significant in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: In this study, 22% of cancer patients had early readmissions. The readmission risk increased in patients with advanced disease, hospitalization from ED, and polypharmacy. The optimal post-discharge plan may reduce readmissions in all oncology patients, with priority for these patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, 683 patients with endometrial cancer (EC) after comprehensive surgical staging were classified into four risk groups as low (LR), intermediate (IR), high-intermediate (HIR) and high-risk (HR), according to the recent consensus risk grouping. Patients with disease confined to the uterus, ≥50% myometrial invasion (MI) and/or grade 3 histology were treated with vaginal brachytherapy (VBT). Patients with stage II disease, positive/close surgical margins or extra-uterine extension were treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)±VBT. The median follow-up was 56 months. The overall survival (OS) was significantly different between LR and HR groups, and there was a trend between LR and HIR groups. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was significantly different between LR and HIR, LR and HR and IR and HR groups. There was no significant difference in OS and RFS rates between the HIR and HR groups. In HR patients, the OS and RFS rates were significantly higher in stage IB - grade 3 and stage II compared to stage III and non-endometrioid histology without any difference between the two uterine-confined stages and between stage III and non-endometrioid histology. The current risk grouping does not clearly discriminate the HIR and IR groups. In patients with comprehensive surgical staging, a further risk grouping is needed to distinguish the real HR group.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? The standard treatment for endometrial cancer (EC) is surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy is recommended according to risk factors. The recent European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) guideline have introduced a new risk group. However, the risk grouping is still quite heterogeneous.What do the results of this study add? This study demonstrated that the current risk grouping recommended by ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO does not clearly discriminate the intermediate risk (IR) and high-intermediate risk (HIR) groups.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Based on the results of this study, a new risk grouping can be made to discriminate HIR and IR groups clearly in patients with comprehensive surgical staging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]