Introduction Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to improve clinical outcomes in gynecologic oncology, with the majority of published reports originating from a small number of specialized centers. It is unclear to what degree ERAS is implemented in hospitals globally. This international survey investigated the status of ERAS protocol implementation in open gynecologic oncology surgery to provide a worldwide perspective on peri-operative practice patterns. Methods Requests to participate in an online survey of ERAS practices were distributed via social media (WhatsApp, Twitter, and Social Link). The survey was active between January 15 and March 15, 2020. Additionally, four national gynecologic oncology societies agreed to distribute the study among their members. Respondents were requested to answer a 17-item questionnaire about their ERAS practice preferences in the pre-, intra-, and post-operative periods. Results Data from 454 respondents representing 62 countries were analyzed. Overall, 37% reported that ERAS was implemented at their institution. The regional distribution was: Europe 61%, Americas 53%, Asia 30%, and Africa 17%. ERAS gynecologic oncology guidelines were well adhered to (>80%) in the domains of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, early removal of urinary catheter after surgery, and early introduction of ambulation. Areas with poor adherence to the guidelines included the use of bowel preparation, adoption of modern fasting guidelines, carbohydrate loading, use of nasogastric tubes and peritoneal drains, intra-operative temperature monitoring, and early feeding. Conclusion This international survey of ERAS in open gynecologic oncology surgery shows that, while some practices are consistent with guideline recommendations, many practices contradict the established evidence. Efforts are required to decrease the variation in peri-operative care that exists in order to improve clinical outcomes for patients with gynecologic cancer globally.

On March 11, 2020 the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a ‘pandemic’ by the World Health Organization. COVID-19 is associated with higher surgical morbidity and mortality. An array of guidelines on the management of cancer during this pandemic have been published since the first reports of the outbreak. This narrative review brings all the relevant information from the guidelines together into one document, to support patient care. We present a detailed review of published guidelines, statements, comments from peer-reviewed journals, and nationally/internationally recognized professional bodies and societies' web pages (in English or with English translation available) between December 1, 2019 and May 27, 2020. Search terms included combinations of COVID, SARS-COV-2, guideline, gynecology, oncology, gynecological, cancer. Recommendations for surgical and oncological prioritization of gynecological cancers are discussed and summarized. The role of minimally invasive surgery, patient perspectives, medico-legal aspects, and clinical trials during the pandemic are also discussed. The consensus is that elective benign surgery should cease and cancer surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy should continue based on prioritization. Patient and staff face-to-face interactions should be limited, and health resources used efficiently using prioritization strategies. This review and the guidelines on which it is based support the difficult decisions currently facing us in gynecological cancer. It is a balancing act: limited resources and a hostile environment pitted against the time-sensitive nature of cancer treatment. We can only hope to do our best for our patients with the resources available to us.

Background: Cancellations of elective surgeries on the day of surgery (DOS) can lead to added financial burden and wastage of resources for healthcare facilities; as well as social and emotional problems to patients. These cancellations act as barriers to delivering efficient surgical services. Optimal utilisation of the available resources is necessary for resource‐constrained low‐and‐middle‐income countries (LMIC). This study investigates the rate and causes of cancellations of elective surgeries on the DOS in various surgical departments across ten hospitals in India.Methods: A research consortium ‘IndSurg’ led by World Health Organisation Collaboration Centre (WHOCC) for Research in Surgical Care Delivery in LMICs, India conducted this multicentre retrospective cross‐sectional study to analyse the cancellations of elective/planned surgical operations on DOS across urban secondary and tertiary level hospitals. We audited surgical records of a pre‐decided period of six weeks for cancellations, documented relevant demographic information and reasons for cancellations.Results: We analysed records from the participating hospitals, with an overall cancellation rate of 9.7% (508/5231) on the DOS for elective surgical operations. Of these, 74% were avoidable cancellations. A majority (30%) of these 508 cancellations were attributed to insufficient resources, 28% due to patient's refusal or failure to show‐up, and 22% due to change in patient's medical status.Conclusion: We saw a preponderance of avoidable reasons for elective surgery cancellations. A multidisciplinary approach with adequate preoperative patient counselling, timely communication between the patients and caregivers, adequate preoperative anaesthetic assessment, and planning by the surgical team may help reduce the cancellation rate.

Objectives: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been questioned in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with/without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal malignancies. This survey was performed to study clinicians’ practice about ERAS in patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC. Methods: An online survey, comprising 76 questions on elements of prehabilitation (n=11), preoperative (n=8), intraoperative (n=16) and postoperative (n=32) management, was conducted. The respondents included surgeons, anesthesiologists, and critical care specialists. Results: The response rate was 66% (136/206 clinicians contacted). Ninety-one percent of respondents reported implementing ERAS practices. There was encouraging adherence to implement the prehabilitation (76–95%), preoperative (50–94%), and intraoperative (55–90%) ERAS practices. Mechanical bowel preparation was being used by 84.5%. Intra-abdominal drains usage was 94.7%, intercostal drains by 77.9% respondents. Nasogastric drainage was used by 84% of practitioners. The average hospital stay was 10 days as reported by 50% of respondents. A working protocol and ERAS checklist have been designed, based on the results of our study, following recent ERAS-CRS-HIPEC guidelines. This protocol will be prospectively validated. Conclusions: Most respondents were implementing ERAS practices for patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC, though as an extrapolation of colorectal and gynecological guidelines. The adoption of postoperative practices was relatively low compared to other perioperative practices.

Purpose The notorious COVID 19 pandemic has caused rapid and drastic changes in cancer care worldwide in 2020. This online survey aims to assess the extent to which the pandemic has affected cancer care in gynecological oncology amongst members of the Association of Gynecological Oncologists of India (AGOI), a registered professional society founded in 1991. Methods We developed and administered a cross-sectional, flash survey to members of AGOI in the first week of April 2020. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Office Excel 2016. Results were expressed as percentages of total responses excluding blank or unattended response. Overall theme-specific responses were described as a spectrum of findings, and related inferences were drawn. Results Among approached practitioners, 90 responded to the survey, more than 80% were practicing consultants, and more than 50% from academic institutions. The results of the study showed that the ongoing pandemic had severely affected gynecological oncology practice and care amongst all respondents. There were modifications in diagnostic pathways, interventions, and follow-ups across all organ sites. There was a near-unanimous opinion on the use of general safety measures to combat the virus and to use complete PPEs in a high-risk situation. There were mixed responses to alternative educational activities, especially using electronic technology and distant learning methods. There was optimism among respondents with regards to the current situation normalizing in 3–6 months. Conclusion This study documents the pandemic affected scenario of gynecological cancer care and perceptions of Gynecological Oncologists in India. A significant effect on all aspects of cancer care was observed. Technological learning methods, both for patient care and educational activities, were being adopted by many respondents.