Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Delay in Breast Cancer Treatments During the First COVID-19 Lockdown. A Multicentric Analysis of 432 Patients

GIANLUCA VANNI, GIOVANNI TAZZIOLI, MARCO PELLICCIARO, MARCO MATERAZZO, ORSARIA PAOLO, FRANCESCA CATTADORI, FRANCESCA COMBI, SIMONA PAPI, CHIARA ADRIANA PISTOLESE, MARIA COTESTA, FRANCESCA SANTORI, JONATHAN CASPI, AGOSTINO CHIARAVALLOTI, SAVERIO MUSCOLI, VITTORIO LOMBARDO, ANTONELLA GRASSO, LORENZA CAGGIATI, ROBERTA RASELLI, DANTE PALLI, VITTORIO ALTOMARE, ROLANDO MARIA D’ANGELILLO, LEONARDO PALOMBI and ORESTE CLAUDIO BUONOMO
Anticancer Research December 2020, 40 (12) 7119-7125; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14741
GIANLUCA VANNI
1Breast Unit, Department of Surgical Science, PTV: Policlinico Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIOVANNI TAZZIOLI
2Division of Breast Surgical Oncology Department of Medical and Surgery, Maternal-infantile and Adult Sciences, University Hospital of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARCO PELLICCIARO
1Breast Unit, Department of Surgical Science, PTV: Policlinico Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: marcopell62@gmail.com
MARCO MATERAZZO
1Breast Unit, Department of Surgical Science, PTV: Policlinico Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ORSARIA PAOLO
3Department of Breast Surgery, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FRANCESCA CATTADORI
4Breast Surgery, Breast Unit, “Guglielmo da Saliceto” Hospital, Piacenza, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FRANCESCA COMBI
2Division of Breast Surgical Oncology Department of Medical and Surgery, Maternal-infantile and Adult Sciences, University Hospital of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SIMONA PAPI
2Division of Breast Surgical Oncology Department of Medical and Surgery, Maternal-infantile and Adult Sciences, University Hospital of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CHIARA ADRIANA PISTOLESE
6Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Molecular Imaging and Radiotherapy, Policlinico Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARIA COTESTA
1Breast Unit, Department of Surgical Science, PTV: Policlinico Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FRANCESCA SANTORI
1Breast Unit, Department of Surgical Science, PTV: Policlinico Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JONATHAN CASPI
7Tor Vergata School of Medicine and Surgery, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
AGOSTINO CHIARAVALLOTI
8Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SAVERIO MUSCOLI
10Department of Cardiovascular Disease, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VITTORIO LOMBARDO
11Department of General Surgery, I.R.C.C.S. Centro Neurolesi Bonino Pulejo P.O. Piemnote, Messina, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANTONELLA GRASSO
3Department of Breast Surgery, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LORENZA CAGGIATI
3Department of Breast Surgery, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ROBERTA RASELLI
4Breast Surgery, Breast Unit, “Guglielmo da Saliceto” Hospital, Piacenza, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DANTE PALLI
4Breast Surgery, Breast Unit, “Guglielmo da Saliceto” Hospital, Piacenza, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VITTORIO ALTOMARE
3Department of Breast Surgery, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ROLANDO MARIA D’ANGELILLO
12Radiotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Policlinico Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LEONARDO PALOMBI
8Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ORESTE CLAUDIO BUONOMO
1Breast Unit, Department of Surgical Science, PTV: Policlinico Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Extraordinary restrictions aimed to limit Sars-CoV-2 spreading; they imposed a total reorganization of the health-system. Oncological treatments experienced a significant slowdown. The aim of our multicentric retrospective study was to evaluate screening suspension and surgical treatment delay during COVID-19 and the impact on breast cancer presentation. Patients and Methods: All patients who underwent breast surgery from March 11, 2020 to May 30, 2020 were evaluated and considered as the Lockdown group. These patients were compared with similar patients of the previous year, the Pre-Lockdown group. Results: A total of 432 patients were evaluated; n=223 and n=209 in the Lockdown and Pre-lockdown-groups, respectively. At univariate analysis, waiting times, lymph-nodes involvement and cancer grading, showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Multivariate analysis identified waiting-time on list (OR=1.07) as a statistically significant predictive factor of lymph node involvement. Conclusion: Although we did not observe a clinically evident difference in breast cancer presentation, we reported an increase in lymph node involvement.

Key Words:
  • COVID-19
  • breast cancer
  • screening suspension
  • lockdown
  • oncological treatments delay

Sars-CoV-2 infection has dramatically spread worldwide since the beginning of 2020 (1). Due to rapid human-to-human transmission and in order to limit the viral spread, on March 10, 2020, the government has implemented extraordinary restrictions (2). These measures changed our daily routine and forced a reorganization of the Health system (3). During the pandemic, especially at the beginning of the lockdown, only urgent medical services were guaranteed while oncological diagnostic procedures and treatments suffered a significant slowdown (3). Many national and international scientific societies and research groups published recommendations aiming to prioritize breast cancer management strategies, preserve hospital resources for COVID-19 and reduce the risk of cross-infection (4-6). Regardless of the recommendations, breast cancer screening programs were temporarily suspended (7). Even though breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, in the last years there has been a decrease in mortality (8). Additionally, invasive breast surgeries (e.g. mastectomy) have decreased along the years. Both these favourable outcomes have been made possible partially thanks to the improvement in early breast cancer diagnosis achieved by the screening programs (9). Many researches have reported that in addition to the improvement in survival, there is a significant reduction in breast cancer diagnosed by physical examination (e.g. palpable lesion) (7, 10-12). We hypothesized that screening suspension and surgical treatment delay could alter the clinical presentation and features of breast cancer.

The aim of our multicentric retrospective study was to evaluate the impact of screening suspension and treatment delay during the COVID-19 lockdown, on breast cancer clinical presentation, diagnosis and surgical treatments.

Patients and Methods

Study design. In our multicentric study we retrospectively analyzed data from four Italian Brest Units: “Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico” hospital of Modena, “Gulielmo da Saliceto” hospital Piacenza, Tor Vergata University Hospital Rome and Campus Bio-Medico University hospital Rome. All patients who underwent breast surgery from March 11, 2020 to May 30, 2020 were evaluated in our study and were considered as the Lockdown group. These patients were compared with patients who undergone breast surgery during the same period of the previous year (March 11, 2019 to May 30, 2019), defined as the Pre-Lockdown group.

Four hundred and thirty-two (n=432) patients were evaluated in the study. Patients who did not undergo oncological surgery were excluded from the analysis. The manuscript was approved by the local Ethical Committee of the Fondazione Policlinico Tor Vergata (reference 122/20).

Variable and outcome definition. The number of surgical procedures performed by each Breast Unit during the studied periods were reported. For each patient, date of diagnosis, admission, surgery and discharge were collected.

Preoperative diagnosis was obtained through cytological examination or biopsy as core needle biopsy or Vacuum assisted biopsy.

Waiting time on list was reported in days, defined as the time between histological or cytological examination and date of surgery. Data regarding age and prior administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were collected from clinical notes. Reoperation was recorded when a second surgery was performed within 3 months from the primary procedure.

Surgical procedures were distinguished between breast conservative surgery and breast invasive surgery. Breast conservative surgery included all procedures with a partial gland removal. Alternatively, breast invasive surgery comprised the complete removal of the glandular tissue with or without sparing the nipple areola complex (mastectomy). Preoperative image-guided wire localization was reported for breast conservative surgery cases.

The axillary procedure was analysed as well. Patients without clinical or radiological evidence of lymph nodes involvement underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Otherwise, patients with axillary involvement or SLNB positivity underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Number of nodes removed during ALND and the degree of node involvement within specimens were reported and analyzed. Length of hospital stay was reported in days, considered as the time between hospital admission and discharge.

Data from surgical specimens were included in the study. Tumor maximum diameters were collected and reported in millimetres. Pathological staging was based on recommendations from AJCC 2018 (edition VIII) for TNM classification. Tumor grading was evaluated according to the Nottingham Histologic Score system (the Elston-Ellis modification of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson grading system). Estrogen receptor (ER), Progesterone receptor (PR) and Ki67 index were expressed as percentage of positive cells in the specimens studied through immunohistochemistry. Overexpression of Her2 gene (HER2+) was identified by immunohistochemistry or by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), as indicated by the recommendations of the 2018 ASCO/CAP, reported as a dichotomous variable (HER+ yes/no).

Statistical analysis. All data were collected into the EXCEL database (Microsoft, Washington, DC, USA). For continuous variables, we calculated medians and ranges. The t-test was used to determine whether there were significant differences between the two groups. Categorical data were recorded in numbers and percentages. Analysis was performed using the Fisher’s exact test in case of dichotomous variables or Monte Carlo test for non-dichotomous variables. Variables with assigned p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis. All the statistical analysis was performed in SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

From March 11, 2020 to May 30, 2020 a total of 223 patients underwent breast surgery (Lockdown group) compared to 209 treated in the same period of the previous year (Pre-Lockdown group). Twenty patients of the Lockdown group (8.9%) underwent non-oncological surgery (reconstructive) and were excluded from the analysis. Accordingly, 37 cases of the Pre-Lockdown group (17.9%) were excluded as well, p<0.05.

Median age was 62 [35-90] years in the Lockdown group and 60.8 [21-89] years in the Pre-lockdown group, p=0.196. Among the Lockdown group, preoperative diagnosis assessment was performed in 32 cases by cytological examination (15.7%) and in 187 by biopsy (92.1%). In the Pre-Lockdown group, 24 (13.9%) patients underwent cytological examination and 159 (92.4%) were biopsied. Both variables did not show any statistically significant difference with p-values of 0.066 and 1.000, respectively. Upon specimen examination, 48 (27.9%) patients presented with in situ breast carcinoma in the Lockdown group vs. 24 (18.9%) in the control group, p=0.065. Twenty-eight (13.8%) patients presented ipsilateral node involvements in the Lockdown vs. 19 (11.4%) patients in the Pre-Lockdown group, p=0.439. Administration of neoadjuvant therapy was carried out in 19 patients (9.3%) in the Lockdown group and in 16 patients (9.3%) in the Pre-Lockdown group, with no statistically significant difference, p=1.000. Waiting time on list, the time between biopsy/cytological examination and surgery, was shorter in the Pre-Lockdown group: mean values of 42 [10-220] days vs. 56 [6-134] days, showing a statistically significant difference, p<0.05. However, waiting time on list adjusted for other factors was the only factor exhibiting an increased risk for nodes involvement when analysed as a dichotomous variable in a logistic binary regression.

Breast conservative surgery was performed in 141 (69.5%) patients in the Lockdown group, and 100 (71%) of these cases required preoperative image-guided wire localization. In the Pre-Lockdown group, 121 (70.3%) cases underwent breast conservative surgery and wire localization was required in 70 (57.9%) of them. Both these parameters did not show any statistically significant difference p=0.6491 and p=0.060, respectively. Types of surgery and relative p- values are shown in Table I.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Distribution of type of surgery between groups.

SNLB was performed in 175 (86.2%) cases in the Lockdown group and 30 (17.1%) cases were found positive for cancer at frozen section examination. In the Pre-Lockdown group, 153 patients (87.9%) underwent SNLB and cancer was recorded in 14 cases (9.1%). Incidence of lymph nodes positivity through SNLB showed a statistically significant difference, p=0.035. Conversely, indications for SNLB did not show statistical significance, p=0.647 (Table I).

ALND was performed in 58 (28.6%) patients in the Lockdown group, compared to 33 cases (20.0%) in the control group, showing a statistically significant difference with p=0.039. Indications for ALND are presented in Table I. Number of lymph nodes removed during ALND and number of negative results at pathological examination did not exhibit statistically significant differences between the groups with respective p-values of 0.499 and 0.495.

Length of hospital stay was comparable between the groups without showing a statistically significant difference, p=0.436. Median hospitalization time was 2 days (range=0-91 days) in the Lockdown and 2 days (range=0-93 days) in the Pre-Lockdown group.

At pathological examination of Lockdown group, 145 (63%) cases were determined as ductal carcinoma, 32 (15.8%) as lobular carcinoma and 26 (11.3%) were defined as others. In the Pre-Lockdown group, 133 (76%), 20 (11.5%) and 18 (9.7%) were determined as ductal carcinoma, lobular carcinoma and others, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found, and the p values were 0.292, 0.294 and 0.0196, respectively. One hundred and fifty (74%) cases of the Lockdown group were invasive carcinoma vs. 137 (78%) in the control group, (p=0.278).

Maximum diameter of lesions did not show a statistically significant difference between the groups, p=0.323. Median tumor diameters were 12 mm (range=6-80 mm) in the Lockdown group and 13 mm (range=4-90 mm) in the control group. T distribution between the groups did not show a statistically significant difference, p=0.489, depicted in Table II.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

TNM distribution between groups with relative p-values, absolute numbers and (percentages).

Lymph node involvement exhibited a statistically significant difference between the groups (p=0.031), grading of the involvement is presented in Table II. The Lockdown group exhibited higher incidence of N2compared to the Pre-Lockdown group (8% vs. 2%), and the difference was statistically significant with p<0.05. Four patients (1.97%) presented with metastatic breast cancer disease in the Lockdown group compared to 1 case (0.58%) in the Pre-Lockdown group, p=0.380. Pathological specimen prognostic and predictive factors are shown in Table III. All these variables did not show statistically significant differences. Nonetheless, tumor grading was different among the groups (p=0.032) and its distribution is depicted in Table III.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Prognostic and predictive factors between groups.

Incidence of reoperation was comparable in the two groups (p=0.512) with 25 (12%) and 17 (10%) cases in Lockdown and Pre-lockdown groups, respectively. At logistic binary regression, waiting time was the variable associated with increased risk for lymph nodes involvement (univariate p=0.008). Differently, tumor grading was not a statistically significant factor for predicting lymph nodes major involvement, p=0.208. Other factors analyzed with logistic regression are presented in Table IV. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified waiting time on list (considering 10 days) (OR:1.07) as a statistically significant factor (p=0.017), predictive of lymph nodes major involvement. Other factors analyzed by multivariate analysis are depicted in Table IV.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Predictive factors of lymph node involvement. Univariate and multivariate analysis.

Discussion

The spread of Sars-CoV2 reached pandemic dimensions in the last months with around 43 million infections worldwide (13). Due to rapid human transmission and in order to limit viral spread, many countries are implementing severe restrictions (2). These measures have altered our daily routine and forced a reorganization of the Health system (3). Accordingly, this reorganization includes resources reallocation toward COVID-19 as well as temporary suspension of non-urgent medical services (3). Especially at the beginning of the lockdown, oncological procedures suffered a significant slowdown (3). In this regard, most routine oncological preventive activities were suspended (6). Although the number of COVID-19 cases in Italy is decreasing and despite the return to routine life, breast cancer screening programs are still temporarily scaled down (2-7).

Although breast cancer is the most frequent cancer and represents the leading cause of oncological death among women worldwide; latest statistics suggest that there has been an improvement in term of prognosis (14, 15). Both, empowerment of breast cancer treatments and higher incidence of early diagnosis, due to the screening, have led to this improvement (9-16). The benefits of screening are largely attributed to the ability to diagnose breast cancer in earlier stages (17). This is a fundamental factor responsible for reducing recurrence and demolitive surgery and increasing survival rate (18).

Absolute number of surgical procedures during the COVID-19 outbreak are comparable with the same period of the previous year (2019). According to the restrictive measures and scientific recommendations, we observed a significant reduction in non-oncological surgical procedure (reconstructive surgery) (6, 7, 19, 20). During the lockdown, most national and international guidelines recommended that reconstruction procedures should be deferred (21, 22). Waiting lists for breast reconstructive surgery could become clogged and would bring about a psychological impact on women’s quality of life (23). In order to avoid further delays, physicians have increased the number of oncological surgical procedures (24, 25). In fact, the number of oncological procedures was higher during the lockdown.

Waiting time on list and the time between biopsy/cytological examination to surgery were significantly longer in the Lockdown group. This delay can be attributed to the slowdown of oncological treatments during the lockdown due to the Health system reorganization and resources reallocation (3). Additionally, patients’ anxiety and treatment refusals could have contributed to the delay (26).

Despite breast cancer screening suspension, we did not observe an increase in primary tumor dimensions calculated as maximum diameter and relative T stage of the disease. In accordance with this result, incidence of mastectomy and conservative breast surgery without radiological wire localization (palpable lesions) were comparable between the two groups. Many Italian studies have reported a reduction in breast cancer diagnosed by physical examination as well as in mastectomies due to early detection through screening (15, 27, 28). The short timeframe between the screening suspension and our analysis could explain this result. In fact, the time between diagnosis assessment and surgery is longer than 1 month. Thus, in the coming months we could probably observe tumors with larger dimensions or more clinically evident.

During the lockdown, we observed a reduction in incidence of well differentiated tumors. Apparently, tumors with higher grading are lesions with rapidly changing clinical features that may reveal themselves earlier and alert patients and physicians (29, 30). Conversely, lesions with stable clinical features associated with COVID-19 anxiety may have led to the reduction of well differentiated breast cancer incidence during the outbreak (24-31). In the next months, we may observe low grading lesions but probably in an advanced local stage.

Malignant lymph nodes involvement seems to be more frequent among the Lockdown group. We observed a significantly greater number of sentinel lymph nodes positive for cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak. In concordance with this result, incidence of ALND was significantly higher in the lockdown group. N staging distribution seems to be more advanced in the lockdown group with incidence of N2 being significantly higher (32, 33). Involvement and number of positive lymph nodes are prognostic factors of breast cancer (34-38). The higher incidence of nodes involvement and local advanced stage could be partially related to the screening suspension and delayed diagnosis (6). Additionally, we observed a different distribution of cancer grades, which could also be partially correlated with lymph nodes advanced stages (26-39). Nonetheless, at multivariate analysis, waiting time on list, significantly longer during the Lockdown, seems to be the only predictive factor of lymph nodes involvement progression. According to our results, the oncological slowdown caused by the Covid-19 lockdown, patients’ anxiety and breast cancer screening suspension lead to an increase in lymph nodes advanced stages.

Conclusion

The results of breast cancer screening suspension and oncological surgical treatment delay during these months are not yet clinically evident. We reported an increase in pathological nodes involvement. Furthermore, in the comings months we might also observe an increase in tumor dimensions and incidence of clinically evident lesions with a consequent increase of post-surgery treatments and worse quality of life.

The benefit of screening is largely attributed to the ability to diagnose breast cancer in earlier stages and improve prognosis. Breast cancer screening suspension and surgical treatments delay, due to Covid-19 lockdown, could impact breast cancer presentation and staging. We did not observe a clinically evident difference in breast cancer presentation due to screening suspension and oncological treatments delay. We report an increase in lymph nodes involvement. The most significant factor predictive of major advanced N stage was the waiting time on list. In the coming months, we might also observe an increase in tumor dimensions and incidence and clinically evident lesions with a consequent worsening of quality of life. This study highlighted the importance of maintaining breast cancer screening programs and avoiding oncological treatment delays. This could impact clinical staging of breast cancer presentation, treatments, prognosis and quality of life of women. Resource reallocation should also take these aspects into consideration in the event of new lockdown due to second COVID-19 wave spread.

Acknowledgements

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

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Gianluca Vanni, Leonardo Palombi, and Marco Pellicciaro: conceptualization, methodology, formal, analysis, review. Marco Pellicciaro: Writing original draft. Gianluca Vanni, Marco Pellicciaro and Jonathan Caspi: review and editing. Marco Materazzo, Orsaria Paolo, Francesca Cattadori, Francesca Combi, Simona Papi, Maria Cotesta, Chiara Adriana Pistolese, Francesca Santori, Jonathan Caspi, Antonella Grasso, Lorenza Caggiati, Roberta Raselli: data curation. Oreste Claudio Buonomo, Vittorio Altomare, Giovanni Tazzioli and Dante Palli: Supervision. All the Authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

  • This article is freely accessible online.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this study.

  • Received November 10, 2020.
  • Revision received November 17, 2020.
  • Accepted November 18, 2020.
  • Copyright © 2020 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wu Z and
    2. McGoogan JM
    : Characteristics of and Important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for disease control and prevention. JAMA 323(13): 1239-1242, 2020. PMID: 32091533. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Ministry of Health
    : Covid-19 - Situazione in Italia. Available at: http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioContenutiNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=5351&area=nuovoCoronavirus&menu=vuoto [Last accessed on October 25, 2020]
  3. ↵
    1. Buonomo OC,
    2. Materazzo M,
    3. Pellicciaro M,
    4. Caspi J,
    5. Piccione E and
    6. Vanni G
    : Tor Vergata University-Hospital in the beginning of COVID-19-Era: experience and recommendation for breast cancer patients. In Vivo 34(3 Suppl): 1661-1665, 2020. PMID: 32503826. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11958
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Lambertini M,
    2. Toss A,
    3. Passaro A,
    4. Criscitiello C,
    5. Cremolini C,
    6. Cardone C,
    7. Loupakis F,
    8. Viscardi G,
    9. Meattini I,
    10. Dieci MV,
    11. Ferrara R,
    12. Giusti R and
    13. Maio MD
    : Cancer care during the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Italy: young oncologists’ perspective. ESMO Open 5(2): e000759, 2020. PMID: 32229501. DOI: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000759
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Cammalleri V,
    2. Muscoli S,
    3. Benedetto D,
    4. Stifano G,
    5. Macrini M,
    6. Di Landro A,
    7. Di Luozzo M,
    8. Marchei M,
    9. Mariano EG,
    10. Cota L,
    11. Sergi D,
    12. Bezzeccheri A,
    13. Bonanni M,
    14. Baluci M,
    15. De Vico P and
    16. Romeo F
    : Who has seen patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction? First results from Italian Real-World Coronavirus Disease 2019. J Am Heart Assoc 9(19): e017126, 2020. PMID: 32901560. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.017126
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Curigliano G,
    2. Cardoso MJ,
    3. Poortmans P,
    4. Gentilini O,
    5. Pravettoni G,
    6. Mazzocco K,
    7. Houssami N,
    8. Pagani O,
    9. Senkus E,
    10. Cardoso F and editorial board of The Breast
    : Recommendations for triage, prioritization and treatment of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Breast 52: 8-16, 2020. PMID: 32334323. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.04.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Vanni G,
    2. Pellicciaro M,
    3. Materazzo M,
    4. Palombi L and
    5. Buonomo OC
    : Breast cancer diagnosis in Coronavirus-Era: Alert from Italy. Front Oncol 10: 938, 2020. PMID: 32574281. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00938
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Colombet M,
    3. Soerjomataram I,
    4. Mathers C,
    5. Parkin DM,
    6. Pineros M,
    7. Znaor A and
    8. Bray F
    : Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 144(8): 1941-1953, 2019. PMID: 30350310. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.31937
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Berry DA,
    2. Cronin KA,
    3. Plevritis SK,
    4. Fryback DG,
    5. Clarke L,
    6. Zelen M,
    7. Mandelblatt JS,
    8. Yakovlev AY,
    9. Habbema JD and
    10. Feur EJ
    : Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modelling Network (CISNET) Collaboratirs. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353(17): 1784-1792, 2005. PMID: 16251534. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa050518
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Puliti D,
    2. Bucchi L,
    3. Mancini S,
    4. Paci E,
    5. Barraco S,
    6. Campari C,
    7. Canuti D,
    8. Cirilli C,
    9. Collina N,
    10. Conti GM,
    11. Di Felice E,
    12. Falcini F,
    13. Michiara M,
    14. Negri R,
    15. Ravaioli A,
    16. Sassoli De’ Bianchi P,
    17. Serafini M,
    18. Zorzi M,
    19. Caldarella A,
    20. Cataliotti L,
    21. Zappa M and IMPACT COHORT Working Group
    : Corrigendum to “Advanced breast cancer rates in the epoch of service screening: The 400,000 women cohort study from Italy”. Eur J Cancer 75: 109-116, 2017. PMID: 28222306. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.12.030
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Vanni G,
    2. Pellicciaro M,
    3. Materazzo M,
    4. Bruno V,
    5. Oldani C,
    6. Pistolese CA,
    7. Buonomo C,
    8. Caspi J,
    9. Gualtieri P,
    10. Chiaravalloti A,
    11. Palombi l, Piccione E and
    12. Buonomo OC
    : Lockdown of breast cancer screening for COVID-19: Possible scenario. In Vivo 34(5): 3047-3053, 2020. PMID: 32871851. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12139
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Vanni G,
    2. Pellicciaro M,
    3. Materazzo M,
    4. Dauri M,
    5. D’angelillo RM,
    6. Buonomo OC,
    7. De Majo A,
    8. Pistolese C,
    9. Portarena I,
    10. Mauriello A,
    11. Servadei F,
    12. Giacobbi E,
    13. Chiaravolloti A and
    14. Buonomo OC
    : Awake breast cancer surgery: strategy in the beginning of COVID-19 emergency. Breast Cancer 30: 1-8, 2020. PMID: 32734327. DOI: 10.1007/s12282-020-01137-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    - Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 84. Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200413-sitrep-84-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=44f511ab_2 [Last accessed on October 25, 2020]
  12. ↵
    1. Bray F,
    2. Ferlay J,
    3. Soerjomataram I,
    4. Siegel RL,
    5. Torre LA and
    6. Jemal A
    : Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries [published correction appears in CA Cancer J Clin 70(4): 313, 2018]. CA Cancer J Clin 68(6): 394-424, 2020. PMID: 30207593. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21492
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Cedolini C,
    2. Bertozzi S,
    3. Londero AP,
    4. Bernardi S,
    5. Seriau L,
    6. Concina S,
    7. Cattin F and
    8. Risaliti A
    : Type of breast cancer diagnosis, screening, and survival. Clin Breast Cancer 14(4): 235-240, 2014. PMID: 24703317. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2014.02.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Buonomo O,
    2. Granai AV,
    3. Felici A,
    4. Piccirillo R,
    5. De Liguori Carino N,
    6. Guadagni F,
    7. Polzoni M,
    8. Cipriani C,
    9. Simonetti G,
    10. Cossu E,
    11. Schiaroli S,
    12. Altomare V,
    13. Cabassi A,
    14. Pernazza E,
    15. Casciani UC and
    16. Roselli M
    : Day-surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast using wide local excision with sentinel node biopsy. Tumori 88(3): S48-9, 2020. PMID: 12365390.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Senie RT,
    2. Lesser M,
    3. Kinne DW and
    4. Rosen PP
    : Method of tumor detection influences disease-free survival of women with breast carcinoma. Cancer 73(6): 1666-1672, 1994. PMID: 8156494. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940315)73:6<1666::aid-cncr2820730619>3.0.co;2-e
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Burrell HC,
    2. Pinder SE,
    3. Wilson AR,
    4. Evans AJ,
    5. Yeoman LJ,
    6. Elston CW and
    7. Ellis IO
    : The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 non-palpable breast lesions. Clin Radiol 51(4): 277-281, 1996. PMID: 8617041. DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(96)80346-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Pediconi F,
    2. Galati F,
    3. Bernardi D,
    4. Belli P,
    5. Brancato B,
    6. Calabrese M Camera L,
    7. Carbonaro LA,
    8. Caumo F,
    9. Clauser P,
    10. Girardi V,
    11. Iacconi C,
    12. Martincich L,
    13. Panizza P,
    14. Petrillo A,
    15. Schiaffino S,
    16. Tagliafico A,
    17. Trimboli RM,
    18. Zuiani C,
    19. Sardanelli F and
    20. Montemezzi S
    : Breast imaging and cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM. Radiol Med 125: 926-930, 2020. PMID: 32661780. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-020-01254-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Bielli A,
    2. Bernardini R,
    3. Varvaras D,
    4. Rossi P,
    5. Di Blasi G,
    6. Petrella G,
    7. Buonomo OC,
    8. Mattei M and
    9. Orlandi A
    : Characterization of a new decellularized bovine pericardial biological mesh: Structural and mechanical properties. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 78: 420-426, 2018. PMID: 29223730. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.12.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Ielpo B,
    2. Venditti D,
    3. Balassone V,
    4. Favetta U,
    5. Buonomo O and
    6. Petrella G
    : Proctalgia as a late complication of stapled hemorrhoidectomy. Report of our case series. Int J Surg 8(8): 648-652, 2010. PMID: 20797456. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.07.303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Vidya R,
    2. Rubio IT,
    3. Paulinelli RR,
    4. Rancati A,
    5. Kolacinska-Voytkuv A,
    6. Salgarello M and
    7. Becker H
    : Should breast reconstruction and breast oncoplastic procedures be performed during the coronavirus pandemic? Ecancermedicalscience 14: 1041, 2020. PMID: 32565894. DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2020.1041
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Van de Grift TC,
    2. Mureau MAM,
    3. Negenborn VN,
    4. Dikmans REG,
    5. Bouman MB and
    6. Mullender MG
    : Predictors of women’s sexual outcomes after implant-based breast reconstruction. Psychooncology 29(8): 1272-1279, 2020. PMID: 32419285. DOI: 10.1002/pon.5415
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Vanni G,
    2. Materazzo M,
    3. Santori F,
    4. Pellicciaro M,
    5. Cotesta M,
    6. Orsaria P,
    7. Cattadori F,
    8. Pistolese CA,
    9. Perretta T,
    10. Chiocchi M,
    11. Meucci R,
    12. Lamacchia F,
    13. Assogna M,
    14. Caspi J,
    15. Granai AV,
    16. De Majo A,
    17. Chiaravalloti A,
    18. D’Angelillo RM,
    19. Barbarino R,
    20. Ingallinella S,
    21. Morando L,
    22. Dalli S,
    23. Portarena I,
    24. Altomare V,
    25. Tazzioli G and
    26. Buonomo OC
    : The effect of coronavirus (COVID-19) on breast cancer teamwork: A multicentric survey. In Vivo 34(3 Suppl): 1685-1694, 2020. PMID: 32503830. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11962
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Ielpo B,
    2. Podda M,
    3. Pellino G,
    4. Pata F,
    5. Caruso R,
    6. Gravante G,
    7. Di Saverio S and ACIE Appy Study Collaborative
    : Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study. Br J Surg, 2020. PMID: 33030744. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11999
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Vanni G,
    2. Materazzo M,
    3. Pellicciaro M,
    4. Ingallinella S,
    5. Rho M,
    6. Santori F,
    7. Cotesta M,
    8. Caspi J,
    9. Makarova A,
    10. Pistolese CA and
    11. Buonomo OC
    : Breast cancer and COVID-19: The effect of fear on patients’ decision-making process. In Vivo 34(3 Suppl): 1651-1659, 2020. PMID: 32503825. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11957
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Giudici F,
    2. Bortul M,
    3. Clagnan E,
    4. Del Zotto S,
    5. Franzo A,
    6. Giordano L,
    7. Gobbato M,
    8. Puliti D,
    9. Serraino D,
    10. Zucchetto A,
    11. Zainer L,
    12. Zanconati F and
    13. Bucchi L
    : Effetti precoci dell’adesione al programma di screening mammografico della Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia sull’incidenza del cancro della mammella in stadio avanzato: uno studio di coorte [Early effects of attendance to the Friuli Venezia Giulia (Northern Italy) mammography screening programme on the incidence of advanced-stage breast cancer: a cohort study]. Epidemiol Prev 44(2-3): 145-153, 2020. PMID: 32631014. DOI: 10.19191/EP20.2-3.P145.037
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. Chiricozzi A,
    2. Faleri S,
    3. Saraceno R,
    4. Bianchi L,
    5. Buonomo O,
    6. Chimenti S and
    7. Chimenti MS
    : Tofacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 11(4): 443-455, 2015. PMID: 25666451. DOI: 10.1586/1744666X.2015.1013534.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Warren SL,
    2. Bhutiani N,
    3. Agle SC,
    4. Martin RCG 2nd.,
    5. McMasters KM and
    6. Ajkay N
    : Differences between palpable and nonpalpable tumors in early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Am J Surg 216(2): 326-330, 2018. PMID: 29502856. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.02.020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Li J,
    2. Chen Z,
    3. Su K and
    4. Zeng J
    : Clinicopathological classification and traditional prognostic indicators of breast cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 8(7): 8500-8505, 2015. PMID: 26339424.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Chu J,
    2. Yang D,
    3. Wang L and
    4. Xia J
    : Nomograms predicting survival for all four subtypes of breast cancer: a SEER-based population study. Ann Transl Med 8(8): 544, 2020. PMID: 32411767. DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-2808
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Pellicciaro M,
    2. Granai AV,
    3. Marchese G,
    4. Materazzo M,
    5. Cotesta M,
    6. Santori F,
    7. Giacobbi E,
    8. Servadei F,
    9. Gelli S,
    10. Perretta T,
    11. Meucci R,
    12. Pistolese CA and
    13. Vanni G
    : Breast cancer patients with hormone neoadjuvant bridging therapy due to asymptomatic Corona virus infection. Case report, clinical and histopathologic findings. Int J Surg Case Rep 76: 377-380, 2020. PMID: 33052300. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2020.10.020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Orsaria P,
    2. Varvaras D,
    3. Vanni G,
    4. Pagnani G,
    5. Scaggiante J,
    6. Frusone F,
    7. Granai AV,
    8. Petrella G and
    9. Buonomo OC
    : Nodal status assessment in breast cancer: strategies of clinical grounds and quality of life implications. Int J Breast Cancer 2014: 469803, 2014. PMID: 24672730. DOI: 10.1155/2014/469803
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Piazza A,
    2. Adorno D,
    3. Poggi E,
    4. Borrelli L,
    5. Buonomo O,
    6. Pisani F,
    7. Valeri M,
    8. Torlone N,
    9. Camplone C,
    10. Monaco PI,
    11. Fraboni D and
    12. Casciani CU
    : Flow cytometry crossmatch: a sensitive technique for assessment of acute rejection in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 30(5): 1769-1771, 1998. PMID: 9723274. DOI: 10.1016/s0041-1345(98)00423-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ferroni P,
    2. Roselli M,
    3. Spila A,
    4. D’Alessandro R,
    5. Portarena I,
    6. Mariotti S,
    7. Palmirotta R,
    8. Buonomo O,
    9. Petrella G and
    10. Guadagni F
    : Serum sE-selectin levels and carcinoembryonic antigen mRNA-expressing cells in peripheral blood as prognostic factors in colorectal cancer patients. Cancer 116(12): 2913-2921, 2010. PMID: 20336782. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Largillier R,
    2. Ferrero JM,
    3. Doyen J,
    4. Barriere J,
    5. Namer M,
    6. Mari V,
    7. Courdi A,
    8. Hannounlevi JM,
    9. Ettore F,
    10. Birtwisle-Peyrottes I,
    11. Balu-Maestro C,
    12. Marcy PY,
    13. Raoust I,
    14. Lallement M and
    15. Chamorey E
    : Prognostic factors in 1,038 women with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 19: 2012-2019, 2008. PMID: 18641006. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdn424
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hortobagyi GN,
    2. Edge SB and
    3. Giuliano A
    : New and important changes in the TNM staging system for breast cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 38: 457-467, 2018. PMID: 30231399. DOI: 10.1200/EDBK_201313
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    1. Vanni G,
    2. Materazzo M,
    3. Pellicciaro M,
    4. Morando L,
    5. Portarena I,
    6. Anemona L,
    7. D’angelillo RM,
    8. Barbarino R,
    9. Chiaravalloti A,
    10. Meucci R,
    11. Perretta T,
    12. Deiana C,
    13. Orsaria P,
    14. Caspi J,
    15. Pistolese CA and
    16. Buonomo OC
    : Does age matter? Estimating risks of locoregional recurrence after breast-conservative surgery. In Vivo 34(3): 1125-1132, 2020. PMID: 32354901. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11884
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Kolarova I,
    2. Vanasek J,
    3. Dolezel M,
    4. Stuk J,
    5. Hlavka A,
    6. Dusek L,
    7. Melichar B,
    8. Buchler T,
    9. Ryska A,
    10. Prausova J,
    11. Petrakova K,
    12. Tesarova P,
    13. Petera J,
    14. Vosmik M,
    15. Horackova K and
    16. Jarkovsky J
    : Association of triple positivity with prognostic parameters and overall survival in a population-based study of 6,122 HER2-positive breast cancer patients: analysis of real-world clinical practice based on a research database. Neoplasma, 2020. PMID: 32614235. DOI: 10.4149/neo_2020_191023N1080
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 40 (12)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 40, Issue 12
December 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Delay in Breast Cancer Treatments During the First COVID-19 Lockdown. A Multicentric Analysis of 432 Patients
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 11 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Delay in Breast Cancer Treatments During the First COVID-19 Lockdown. A Multicentric Analysis of 432 Patients
GIANLUCA VANNI, GIOVANNI TAZZIOLI, MARCO PELLICCIARO, MARCO MATERAZZO, ORSARIA PAOLO, FRANCESCA CATTADORI, FRANCESCA COMBI, SIMONA PAPI, CHIARA ADRIANA PISTOLESE, MARIA COTESTA, FRANCESCA SANTORI, JONATHAN CASPI, AGOSTINO CHIARAVALLOTI, SAVERIO MUSCOLI, VITTORIO LOMBARDO, ANTONELLA GRASSO, LORENZA CAGGIATI, ROBERTA RASELLI, DANTE PALLI, VITTORIO ALTOMARE, ROLANDO MARIA D’ANGELILLO, LEONARDO PALOMBI, ORESTE CLAUDIO BUONOMO
Anticancer Research Dec 2020, 40 (12) 7119-7125; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14741

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Delay in Breast Cancer Treatments During the First COVID-19 Lockdown. A Multicentric Analysis of 432 Patients
GIANLUCA VANNI, GIOVANNI TAZZIOLI, MARCO PELLICCIARO, MARCO MATERAZZO, ORSARIA PAOLO, FRANCESCA CATTADORI, FRANCESCA COMBI, SIMONA PAPI, CHIARA ADRIANA PISTOLESE, MARIA COTESTA, FRANCESCA SANTORI, JONATHAN CASPI, AGOSTINO CHIARAVALLOTI, SAVERIO MUSCOLI, VITTORIO LOMBARDO, ANTONELLA GRASSO, LORENZA CAGGIATI, ROBERTA RASELLI, DANTE PALLI, VITTORIO ALTOMARE, ROLANDO MARIA D’ANGELILLO, LEONARDO PALOMBI, ORESTE CLAUDIO BUONOMO
Anticancer Research Dec 2020, 40 (12) 7119-7125; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14741
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Vacuum-assisted Evacuation (VAEv) of Symptomatic and/or Voluminous Breast Haematomas Following Surgeries and Percutaneous Procedures
  • Surgical Treatments for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) in Elderly Patients
  • Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Using Intradermal Microbubble Sulfur Hexafluoride for Identification of Sentinel Lymph Nodes During Breast Cancer Surgery: A Clinical Trial
  • Awake Breast Conservative Surgery: A Strategy to Shorten Surgical Waiting Lists During and Post COVID-19 Emergency
  • Acute Appendicitis During Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Increasing Incidence of Complicate Appendicitis, Severity and Length of Hospitalization
  • Changes in the quality of cancer care as assessed through performance indicators during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: a Scoping Review
  • Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Multicentric Study
  • Extremely Advanced Breast Cancer Presentation: Possible Effect of Coronavirus Pandemic Anxiety
  • Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and related control measures on cancer diagnosis in Catalonia: a time-series analysis of primary care electronic health records covering about five million people
  • Advanced Stages and Increased Need for Adjuvant Treatments in Breast Cancer Patients: The Effect of the One-year COVID-19 Pandemic
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Bone Toxicity Case Report Combining Encorafenib, Cetuximab and WNT974 in a Phase I Trial
  • Assessment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain Among Female Patients With Cancer: Knowledge, Management and Characterization in the IOPS-MS Study
  • Low-dose Apalutamide in Non-metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Case Series
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • COVID-19
  • breast cancer
  • screening suspension
  • lockdown
  • oncological treatments delay
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire