Search

This study compares the short- and long-term outcomes of open vs robotic vs video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy for stage II-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Outcomes of patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC (excluding T4 tumors) who received open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) lobectomy in the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2017 were assessed using propensity score-matched analysis.A propensity score-matched analysis of 4652 open and 4652 MIS patients demonstrated a decreased median length of stay associated with MIS compared with open lobectomy (5 vs 6 days; P.001). There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, or overall survival between the open and MIS groups. A propensity score-matched analysis of 1186 VATS and 1186 robotic patients showed that compared with VATS, the robotic approach was associated with no significant differences in 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and overall survival. However, the robotic group had a decreased median length of stay compared with VATS (4 vs 5 days; P.001). The conversion rate was also significantly lower for robotic compared with VATS lobectomy (8.9% vs 15.9%, P .001).No significant differences were found in long-term survival between open and MIS lobectomy and between VATS and robotic lobectomy for stage II-IIIA NSCLC. However, the MIS approach was associated with a decreased length of stay compared with the open approach. The robotic approach was associated with decreased length of stay and decreased conversion rate compared with the VATS approach.

Although preoperative immunotherapy is increasingly utilized for non-small cell lung cancer, there remains a paucity of robust clinical data on its safety and long-term survival. Our objective was to evaluate the perioperative outcomes and survival associated with immunotherapy followed by surgery for patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Outcomes of patients with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent lung resection after preoperative chemotherapy with or without radiation or immunotherapy (with or without chemotherapy or chemoradiation) in the National Cancer Database (2010 to 2017) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariable logistic regression, multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, and propensity score-matched analysis.From 2010 to 2017, 236 patients (2.2%) received immunotherapy and 10 715 patients received preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery. There were no significant differences between the immunotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy groups with regard to margin positivity (8.5% [n = 20] vs 7.5% [n = 715], P = .98), 30-day readmission (4.2% [n = 10] vs 4.1% [n = 440], P = .87), and 30-day mortality (0.4% [n = 1] vs 2.4% [n = 253], P = .25). The immunotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy groups had similar overall survival (5-year survival 63% [95% confidence interval, 50% to 74%] vs 51% [95% confidence interval, 50% to 52%], log rank P = .06; multivariable adjusted hazard ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 1.41; P = .90). A propensity score matched analysis of 344 patients, well matched by preoperative characteristics, showed no significant differences in short-term outcomes and overall survival (log rank P = 1.00) between the two groups.In this national analysis, preoperative immunotherapy followed by surgery for non-small cell lung cancer was found to be safe and feasible with similar short-term outcomes and overall survival when compared with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with lung cancer may experience treatment delays. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of extended treatment delays on survival among patients with stage I typical bronchopulmonary carcinoid (BC), lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma (LPA) or invasive adenocarcinoma with a lepidic component (ADL). Methods Using National Cancer Database data (2004-2015), multivariable Cox regression analysis with penalized smoothing splines was performed to examine the association between treatment delay and all-cause mortality for stage I BC, LPA, and ADL. Propensity score–matched analyses compared the overall survival of patients who received “early” vs “delayed” surgery (ie, 0-30 vs 90-120 days after diagnosis) across the different histologic subtypes. Results During the study period, patients with stage I BC (n = 4947), LPA (n = 5340), and ADL (n = 6816) underwent surgery. Cox regression analysis of these cohorts showed a gradual steady increase in the hazard ratio the longer treatment is delayed. However, in propensity score–matched analyses that created cohorts of patients who underwent early and delayed surgery that were well-balanced in patient characteristics, no significant differences in 5-year survival were found between early and delayed surgery for stage I BC (87% [95% CI:77%-93%] vs 89% [95% CI: 80%-94%]), stage I LPA (73% [95% CI: 64%-80%] vs 77% [95% CI: 68%-83%]), and stage I ADL (71% [95% CI: 64%-76%] vs 69% [95% CI: 60%-76%]). Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, for early-stage indolent lung tumors and part-solid ground glass lung nodules, a delay of surgery by 3-4 months after diagnosis can be considered.

BACKGROUND Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways in several specialties reduce length of stay, but accelerated discharge after thoracic surgery is not well characterized. This study tested the hypothesis that patients discharged on postoperative day 1 (POD1) after lobectomy for lung cancer have an increased risk of readmission. METHODS Patients who underwent a lobectomy for lung cancer between 2011 and 2019 in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were identified. Readmission rates were compared between patients discharged on postoperative day 1 (POD 1) and patients discharged on POD 2 to 6. Early discharge and readmission predictors were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Only 854 (3.8%) of 22,585 patients who met inclusion criteria were discharged on POD 1, although POD 1 discharge rates increased from 2.3% to 8.1% (P < .001) from 2011 to 2019, respectively. Median hospitalization for patients discharged on POD 2 to 6 was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 5 days). Patients' characteristics associated with a lower likelihood of POD 1 discharge were increasing age, smoking, or a history of dyspnea, whereas a minimally invasive approach was the strongest predictor of early discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 5.42; P < .001). Readmission rates were not significantly different for the POD 1 and POD 2 to 6 groups in univariate analysis (6.0% vs 7.0%; P = .269). Further, POD 1 discharge was not a risk factor for readmission in multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.10; P = .537). CONCLUSIONS Select patients can be discharged on POD 1 after lobectomy for lung cancer without an increased readmission risk, a finding supporting this accelerated discharge target inclusion in lobectomy enhanced recovery after surgery protocols.

In this era of value-based healthcare, costs must be measured alongside patient outcomes to prioritize quality improvement and inform performance-based reimbursement strategies. We sought to identify drivers of costs for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from December 2008 to March 2020 were included. Our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database was merged with financial data to determine inpatient direct accounting costs in 2020 US dollars for total, operative (surgery and anesthesia), and postoperative (intensive care, floor, radiology, laboratory, etc) services. A supervised machine learning quantitative method, the lasso estimator with 10-fold cross-validation, was applied to identify predictors of costs.In the study cohort (n = 240) most had ≥cT2 pathology (82%), adenocarcinoma histology (90%), and received neoadjuvant therapy (78%). Mean length of stay was 8.00 days (SD, 4.13) with 45% inpatient morbidity rate and no deaths. The largest proportions of cost were from the operating room (30%), inpatient floor (30%), and postanesthesia care/intensive care units (20%). Preoperative predictors of operative costs were age (-5.18% per decade [95% confidence interval {CI}, -9.95 to -0.27], P = .039), body mass index ≥ 30 (+12.9% [95% CI, 0.00-27.5], P = .050), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (-3.24% per 10% forced expiratory volume in 1 second [95% CI, -5.80 to -0.61], P = .017), and year of surgery (+2.55% [95% CI, 0.97-4.15], P = .002). Predictors of postoperative costs were postoperative renal failure (+91.6% [95% CI, 9.93-233.8], P = .022), respiratory failure (+414.6% [95% CI, 158.7-923.6], P .001), pneumonia (+136.1% [95% CI, 71.1-225.8], P.001), and reoperation (+60.5% [95% CI, 21.5-111.9], P = .001).Costs associated with minimally invasive esophagectomy are driven by preoperative risk factors and postoperative outcomes. These data enable surgeons and policymakers to reduce cost variation, improve quality through standardization, and ultimately provide greater value to patients.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) eighth edition TNM staging manual for NSCLC, derived from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) Staging Project, designates tumors with additional nodule(s) in the same lobe as T3. This study sought to externally validate the results of the IASLC, which showed a trend in improved survival for such tumors, but excluded treatment-based adjustment, by assessing whether these tumors have worse survival than T2b NSCLC.Overall survival of patients with T2b-T3, N0-3, M0 NSCLC (satisfying a single T descriptor of tumors4 cm but ≤5 cm in greatest dimension ["T2b"], tumors5 cm but ≤7 cm in greatest dimension ["T3-Size"], or tumors with additional nodule(s) in the same lobe ["T3-Add"]), according to the AJCC eighth edition, in the National Cancer Database (2010-2015), was evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score matching.31,563 patients with T2b-T3, N0-3, M0 NSCLC met the study inclusion criteria. In multivariable-adjusted analysis, T3-Add tumors had improved overall survival compared with T3-Size tumors (Hazard Ratio = 0.86, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.82-0.89, p0.001) and similar survival compared with T2b tumors (Hazard Ratio = 1.04, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.97-1.12, p = 0.28). A propensity score-matched analysis of 2260 T3-Add and 2,260 T2b patients, well-balanced on 16 common prognostic covariates, including treatment type (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation), revealed similar 5-year survival (53.4% versus 52.3%, p = 0.30).In this national analysis, T3-Add tumors had better survival than other T3 tumors and similar survival to T2b tumors. These findings may be taken into consideration for the AJCC ninth edition staging classifications.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) approach on outcomes in patients who underwent sleeve lobectomy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Outcomes of patients with cT1-T3, N0-N2, M0 NSCLC who underwent sleeve lobectomy in the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) from 2010-2015 were assessed using Kaplan-Meier, propensity score-matching, and Cox proportional hazards analyses. An "intent-to-treat" analysis was performed. In the NCDB, 210 sleeve lobectomy patients met inclusion criteria (VATS 44 [21%], thoracotomy 166 [79%]). Nine (20%) of the VATS cases were converted to open. Compared to an open approach, VATS was associated with no significant differences in lymph nodes examined (median 9.5 vs 9.0; p = 0.72), length of stay (median 6 days vs 6 days; p = 0.36), 30-day mortality (4.5% vs 1.8%; p = 0.28), and 90-day mortality (6.8% vs 4.8%; p = 0.70). There were no significant differences in 5-year survival between the VATS and open groups in both the entire cohort (VATS [85%] vs open [79%]; log-rank p = 0.91) and in a propensity score-matched analysis of 86 patients (log-rank p = 0.75). Furthermore, a VATS approach was also not associated with worse survival in multivariable analysis (HR = 0.64; 95% CI [0.23-1.78]; p = 0.39). In this national analysis, a VATS approach for sleeve lobectomy for NSCLC was not associated with worse short-term or long-term outcomes when compared to an open approach.

Background The interaction between tumor size and the comparative prognosis of lobar and sublobar resection has been defined poorly. Research Question The purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship between tumor size and the receipt of segmentectomy or lobectomy in association with overall survival in patients with clinically node-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Study Design and Methods The 2004-2015 National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with cT1-3N0M0 NSCLC who underwent segmentectomy or lobectomy without neoadjuvant therapy or missing survival data. The primary outcome was overall survival, which was evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazards including an interaction term between tumor size and type of surgery. Results A total of 143,040 patients were included: 135,446 (95%) underwent lobectomy and 7594 (5%) underwent segmentectomy. In multivariate Cox regression, a significant three-way interaction was found among tumor size, histologic results, and type of surgery (P Interpretation In this NCDB study of patients with node-negative NSCLC, we found different tumor size thresholds, based on histologic results, that identified populations of patients who least and most benefitted from lobectomy compared with segmentectomy.

Existing guidelines for surveillance after non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment are inconsistent and have relatively sparse supporting literature. This study characterizes detection rates of metachronous and recurrent disease during surveillance with computed tomography scans after definitive treatment of early stage NSCLC.The incidence of metachronous and recurrent disease in patients who previously underwent complete resection via lobectomy for stage IA NSCLC at a single center from 1996 to 2010 were evaluated. A subgroup analysis was used to compare survival of patients whose initial surveillance scan was 6 ± 3 months (early) versus 12 ± 3 months (late) after lobectomy.Of 294 eligible patients, 49 (17%) developed recurrent disease (14 local only, 35 distant), and 45 (15%) developed new NSCLC. Recurrent disease was found at a mean of 22 ± 19 months, and new primaries were found at a mean of 52 ± 31 months after lobectomy (P .01). Five-year survival after diagnosis of recurrent disease was significantly lower than after diagnosis of second primaries (2.3% vs. 57.5%; P .001). In the subgroup analysis of 187 patients, both disease detection on the initial scan (2% [2/94] vs. 4% [4/93]; P = .44) and 5-year survival (early, 80.8% vs. late, 86.7%; P = .61) were not significantly different between the early (n = 94) and the late (n = 93) groups.Surveillance after lobectomy for stage IA NSCLC is useful for identifying both new primary as well as recurrent disease, but waiting to start surveillance until 12 ± 3 months after surgery is unlikely to miss clinically important findings.

Background We performed a nationwide analysis to assess the impact of adjuvant therapy on survival after a microscopically margin-positive (R1) resection for esophageal cancer. Methods The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with R1 resection for esophageal cancer (2004-2015). Patients were grouped by type of adjuvant therapy. Patients who had other margin status, M1 disease, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation, missing survival, and no or unknown treatment were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival. A 1:1 propensity score–matched sensitivity analysis was also performed comparing patients who received no adjuvant therapy with those who received adjuvant chemoradiation. Results Of 546 patients, 279 (51%) received adjuvant therapy and 267 (49%) did not. Patients receiving adjuvant therapy were more likely to be younger, have more advanced pathologic stage, have nonsquamous histology, and have shorter hospitalization. In multivariable analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation, and chemoradiation were all associated with improved survival compared with no adjuvant therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis of 123 patient pairs, adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with improved survival compared with no adjuvant therapy (adjusted HR: 0.30; 95% CI: [0.22, 0.40]). Conclusions Adjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival compared with no adjuvant therapy in patients with R1 resection for esophageal cancer even after adjustment for pathologic stage. Adjuvant therapy should be considered in patients with incompletely resected esophageal cancer in concordance with national guidelines.

This article describes the experience with the endoscopically assisted fixation of the customized total temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prosthesis in TMJ Yang's system only through a modified preauricular approach. Twenty patients (23 joints) treated with the custom-made total TMJ prosthesis were retrospectively recruited. An endoscopically assisted technique was used through a modified preauricular approach to fix the mandibular component for all these patients. These reconstructions were evaluated by surgical records, clinical examinations, and radiographic observations. All patients had successful fixation of the prosthesis. No patient had permanent weakness of the facial nerve and malocclusion or any other severe complications. The mean operative time was 111 min per joint (range, 85-133 min). The average surgical bleeding was 195 ml per side. The mean follow-up period was 16.2 months (range, 5-32 months). The mean scores were 8.3 for surgical satisfaction and 9.2 for scar healing evaluation. All patients experienced positive clinical outcomes, with a mean 75.2% reduction in pain and 53.7% increase in mouth opening with significant differences (P