Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Objective: To determine whether regional hyperthermia (RHT) in addition to chemotherapy improves local tumor control after macroscopically complete resection of abdominal or retroperitoneal high-risk sarcomas. Background: Within the prospectively randomized EORTC 62961 phase-III trial, RHT and systemic chemotherapy significantly improved local progression-free survival (LPFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with abdominal and extremity sarcomas. That trial included macroscopically complete and R2 resections. Methods: A subgroup analysis of the EORTC trial was performed and long-term survival determined. From 341 patients, 149 (median age 52 years, 18–69) were identified with macroscopic complete resection (R0, R1) of abdominal and retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcomas (median diameter 10 cm, G2 48.3%, G3 51.7%). Seventy-six patients were treated with EIA (etoposide, ifosfamide, doxorubicin) + RHT (≥5 cycles: 69.7%) versus 73 patients receiving EIA alone (≥5 cycles: 52.1%, P = 0.027). LPFS and DFS as well as overall survival were determined. Results: RHT and systemic chemotherapy significantly improved LPFS (56% vs 45% after 5 years, P = 0.044) and DFS (34% vs 27% after 5 years, P = 0.040). Overall survival was not significantly improved in the RHT group (57% vs 55% after 5 years, P = 0.82). Perioperative morbidity and mortality were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: In patients with macroscopically complete tumor resection, RHT in addition to chemotherapy resulted in significantly improved local tumor control and DFS without increasing surgical complications. Within a multimodal therapeutic concept for abdominal and retroperitoneal high-risk sarcomas, RHT is a treatment option beside radical surgery and should be further evaluated in future trials.