OGC SO32 - Propensity score analysis of the impact of deprivation and the COVID-19 pandemic on Upper Gastro Intestinal (UGI) cancer surgery outcomes

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Deprivation is a complex, multifaceted concept, not synonymous with poverty, but with the potential to widen health inequalities. This study aimed to explore demographic disparities in patients undergoing UGI cancer surgery in a UK regional cancer network during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method Consecutive 881 patients were studied prospectively (median age 67 (24 - 89) yr., 703 m, 178 f; 518 oesophageal, 363 gastric; 837 Adeno-, 44 SCC) over 13 years. The COVID-19 pandemic was defined as the 24-month period from February 1, 2020 to January 31, 2022, during which 118 patients were treated. The demographic profile of the pandemic cohort was compared with that of the 763 patients treated outside this period incorporating a propensity score analysis. Primary outcomes were operative morbidity, mortality, and one-year survival. Wales’ Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to assess deprivation disparity. Results A 24% reduction in the number of cancer operations was observed during the first pandemic year. No difference was observed in age, gender, histology, tumour site, ASA grade, or oncological treatment. During COVID-19 the proportion of patients from the two most deprived quartiles receiving potentially curative surgery fell from 53.2% to 40.7% (p=0.012). No difference was observed in severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo >3, 22.2% vs. 19.8%, p=0.897), 30-day mortality (2.5% vs. 2.4%, p=0.886), or one-year survival (82.4% vs. 78.8%, p=0.374). Conclusion UGI cancer surgery safely continued during COVID-19, but patients from areas of high deprivation were over 20% less likely to access curative surgical treatment compared with before and after COVID-19. This emphasises the need for bespoke strategies to mitigate the disproportionate impact of any future pandemic on patients living in deprived geographical areas.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.