Search

Objective: Presentation with multiple ground-glass opacities (GGOs) is an increasingly common occurrence, and the optimal management of these lesions is unclear. Active surveillance has been increasingly adopted as a management strategy for other low-grade malignancies. We hypothesized that active surveillance could be a feasible and safe option for patients with multiple GGOs., Methods: Patients with ≥2 GGOs (ground-glass predominant, <50% solid, ≤3 cm) were enrolled in a multi-institutional registry and prospectively followed up on active surveillance with computed tomography scans every 6 to 12 months. Each GGO was catalogued and measured individually at each follow-up visit., Results: Target accrual was met, with 337 patients from 23 institutions. The mean age was 70 years (interquartile range, 65-77 years), and 74% were women. Most were former (70%) or current (9%) smokers, with a mean exposure of 30 pack-years (interquartile range [IQR], 15-44 pack-years). One half of the patients (51%) had a previous lung cancer, and the majority (86%) were already under surveillance at the time of study entry. The median number of GGOs per patient was 3 (IQR, 2-5), with a total of 1467 GGOs under surveillance. The median GGO size was 0.9 cm (IQR, 0.7-1.3 cm). Most GGOs were 0.5 to 1 cm in size., Conclusions: Active surveillance, rather than immediate intervention, was an acceptable option to patients, and accrual to this registry trial was feasible. Safety end points and long-term outcomes will be assessed in the planned 5-year follow-up in accordance with the protocol., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Lobectomy is a standard treatment for stage I non-small cell lung cancer, but a significant proportion of patients are considered at high risk for complications, including mortality, after lobectomy and might not be candidates. Identifying who is at risk is important and in evolution. The objective of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Clinical Practice Standards Committee expert panel was to review important considerations and factors in assessing who is at high risk among patients considered for lobectomy., Methods: The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Clinical Practice Standards Committee assembled an expert panel that developed an expert consensus document after systematic review of the literature. The expert panel generated a priori a list of important risk factors in the determination of high risk for lobectomy. A survey was administered, and the expert panel was asked to grade the relative importance of each risk factor. Recommendations were developed using discussion and a modified Delphi method., Results: The expert panel survey identified the most important factors in the determination of high risk, which included the need for supplemental oxygen because of severe underlying lung disease, low diffusion capacity, the presence of frailty, and the overall assessment of daily activity and functional status. The panel determined that factors, such as age (as a sole factor), were less important in risk assessment., Conclusions: Defining who is at high risk for lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer is challenging, but remains critical. There was impressive strong consensus on identification of important factors and their hierarchical ranking of perceived risk. The panel identified several key factors that can be incorporated in risk assessment. The factors are evolving and as the population ages, factors such as neurocognitive function and frailty become more important. A minimally invasive approach becomes even more critical in this older population to mitigate risk. The determination of risk is a clinical decision and judgement, which should also take into consideration patient perspectives, values, preferences, and quality of life., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Continuous thoracic epidural analgesia is considered by many the gold standard for post-thoracotomy pain control but is associated with its own complications. In this study we compare continuous paravertebral extrapleural to epidural infusion for post-thoracotomy pain control., Methods: In a prospective fashion, 50 patients were randomized to receive either paravertebral or epidural infusion for post-thoracotomy pain control. The anesthesia department placed epidurals, and the operative surgeon placed unilateral paravertebral catheters. Patients were evaluated for analgesic efficacy and postoperative complications., Results: We found that both methods of analgesia provide adequate postoperative pain control. Epidural infusion demonstrated an improved efficacy early in the postoperative course but provided statistically similar analgesia to paravertebral by postoperative day 2. Neither group demonstrated a greater number of pain-related complications. Narcotic-induced complications such as pruritus, nausea/vomiting, and postural hypotension/mental status changes/respiratory depression were seen with statistically similar frequency in both epidural and paravertebral arms. Urinary retention, however, was noted to be significantly more frequent in patients with epidural catheters. Drug toxicity was not observed with either epidural or paravertebral infusion., Conclusions: We recommend continuous paravertebral infusion as an improved method of post-thoracotomy analgesia that can be placed and managed by the surgeon.

Background: The role of nonanatomic wedge resection in the management of stage I (T1 N0 M0) non-small-cell lung cancer continues to be debated against the present gold standard of care--anatomic lobectomy., Methods: We analyzed the results of 219 consecutive patients with pathologic stage I (T1 N0 M0) non-small-cell lung cancer who underwent open wedge resection (n = 42), video-assisted wedge resection (n = 60), and lobectomy (n = 117) to assess morbidity, recurrence, and survival differences between these approaches., Results: There were no differences among the three groups with regard to histologic tumor type. Analysis demonstrated the wedge resection groups to be significantly older and to have reduced pulmonary function despite a higher incidence of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease when compared with patients having lobectomy. The mean hospital stay was significantly less in the wedge resection groups. There were no operative deaths among patients having wedge resection; however, a 3% operative mortality occurred among patients having lobectomy (p = 0.20). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were nearly identical at 1 year (open wedge resection, 94%; video-assisted wedge resection, 95%; lobectomy, 91%). At 5 years survival was 58% for patients having open wedge resection, 65% for those having video-assisted wedge resection, and 70% for those having lobectomy. Log rank testing demonstrated significant differences between the survival curves during the 5-year period of study (p = 0.02). This difference was a result of a significantly greater non-cancer-related death rate by 5 years among patients having wedge resection (38% vs 18% for those having lobectomy; p = 0.014)., Conclusion: Wedge resection, done by open thoracotomy or video-assisted techniques, appears to be a viable "compromise" surgical treatment of stage I (T1 N0 M0) non-small-cell lung cancer for patients with cardiopulmonary physiologic impairment. Because of the increased risk for local recurrence, anatomic lobectomy remains the surgical treatment of choice for patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer who have adequate physiologic reserve.

A method for cardiac allograft surveillance that is less invasive than endomyocardial biopsy is needed. A fall in the unipolar peak-to-peak amplitude recorded from cardiac allografts has been shown to detect rejection when retrospectively compared with endomyocardial biopsy. This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of prospective telemetric unipolar peak-to-peak amplitude surveillance in detecting rejection of heterotopic canine cardiac allografts occurring through triple drug immunosuppression. Native heart and graft amplitudes were telemetrically acquired on a daily basis. A fall in normalized unipolar peak-to-peak graft amplitude to less than 85% was used as an indication for biopsy. A quantitative rejection score was calculated for each endomyocardial biopsy (rejection score greater than 0.66 = histologic rejection). Rejection was documented in all animals. Thirty-six biopsies were performed (10 control biopsies and 26 amplitude-directed biopsies); 25 of the 36 demonstrated rejection. Sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 91%, respectively. A linear correlation between unipolar peak-to-peak amplitude and rejection severity was seen (R = 0.87, p less than 0.001). The first true positive amplitude was associated with mild-to-moderate rejection (rejection score = 1.63 +/- 0.45). Unipolar peak-to-peak amplitude recorded from native hearts remained stable during allograft rejection. It is concluded that prospective, telemetric cardiac allograft surveillance can accurately detect rejection occurring through ongoing immunosuppression.