Search

Background: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) revised operative quality standards recommending resection of lymph nodes from at least one hilar station and three different mediastinal stations in all curative-intent pulmonary resections. This study evaluated the prognostic value and factors associated with adherence to this new CoC standard in patients with resected clinical stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Retrospective review of 654 patients who underwent pulmonary resection for clinical IA NSCLC. The study population was divided into patients that met and did not meet the CoC standard., Results: The CoC standard was met in only 254 (38.8%) patients. Factors associated with meeting the CoC standard included left-sided resections, open technique, and type of pulmonary resection. CoC standard was met in 51.6% of lobectomies, 29.9% of segmentectomies, and 17.1% of wedge resections (P<0.001). Nodal upstaging was more frequent in patients meeting the CoC standard (21.3% vs. 12.5% when standard not met; P=0.004). Time to recurrence [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-1.17, P=0.33] and overall survival (aHR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.58-1.05, P=0.10) were not different between CoC standard groups. However, patients not meeting the CoC standard and classified as pN0 exhibited an overall survival that resembled that of patients with pN1 disease., Conclusions: Left-sided resections, open technique and lobectomy were associated with meeting the CoC standard. However, this standard did not have a significant impact on long-term outcomes. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to clarify the role of the CoC standard in patients with resected stage IA NSCLC., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-24-971/coif). J.S.R. reports patents pending with Imvaria, Phase and Medview, and consulting role with companies Elucent, Noah, Isola, and Vergent. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 AME Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Implementation of minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIG) for malignancy is increasing. However, risk factors for conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy are poorly understood. This study aimed to determine the risk factors for, and impact of, conversion during oncologic resection., Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients with clinical stage I-III gastric cancer from 2010 to 2017. Chi-squared test and t-test were used to compare the robotic versus laparoscopic groups. Propensity score weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with conversion to open surgery., Results: Of 6990 patients identified, 5702 (81.6%) underwent a laparoscopic resection and 1288 (18.4%) underwent robotic-assisted resection. Conversion rates were 14.7% and 7.8% for laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, respectively. The robotic approach was associated with lower likelihood of conversion compared to laparoscopic approach (odds ratio [OR] = 0.470, P < 0.001). Other factors predictive of conversion included tumor size >5 cm compared to <2 cm (OR 1.714, P = 0.010), total gastrectomy compared to partial gastrectomy (OR 2.019, P < 0.001), antrum/pylorus (OR 2.345, P < 0.001), and body (OR 2.152, P < 0.001) tumors compared to cardia tumors. Compared to those treated with laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, patients who underwent conversion experienced significantly longer hospital length of stay and higher rates of positive surgical margins., Conclusions: Laparoscopic gastrectomy was associated with a higher conversion rate compared to robotic gastrectomy. Conversion to open surgery was associated with a significantly longer length of stay and higher rates of positive margins. Identification of risk factors for conversion can aid in appropriate modality selection., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)