Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes and local control in pT1c pN0 non-small-cell lung cancer that were intentionally treated by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy or segmentectomy., Methods: Multicentre retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing VATS lobectomy (VL) or VATS segmentectomy (VS) for pT1c pN0 non-small-cell lung cancer from January 2014 to October 2021. Patients' characteristics, postoperative outcomes and survival were compared., Results: In total, 162 patients underwent VL (n = 81) or VS (n = 81). Except for age [median (interquartile range) 68 (60-73) vs 71 (65-76) years; P = 0.034] and past medical history of cancer (32% vs 48%; P = 0.038), there was no difference between VL and VS in terms of demographics and comorbidities. Overall 30-day postoperative morbidity was similar in both groups (34% vs 30%; P = 0.5). The median time for chest tube removal [3 (1-5) vs 2 (1-3) days; P = 0.002] and median postoperative length of stay [6 (4-9) vs 5 (3-7) days; P = 0.039] were in favour of the VS group. Significantly larger tumour size (mean ± standard deviation 25.1 ± 3.1 vs 23.6 ± 3.1 mm; P = 0.001) and an increased number of lymph nodes removal [median (interquartile range) 14 (9-23) vs 10 (6-15); P < 0.001] were found in the VL group. During the follow-up [median (interquartile range) 31 (14-48) months], no statistical difference was found for local and distant recurrence in VL groups (12.3%) and VS group (6.1%) (P = 0.183). Overall survival (80% vs 80%) was comparable between both groups (P = 0.166)., Conclusions: Despite a short follow-up, our preliminary data shows that local control is comparable for VL and VS., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery.)

Objectives: Although video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) has shortened hospitalization duration for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, the factors associated with early discharge remain unclear. This study aimed to identify patients eligible for a 72-h stay after VATS anatomical resection., Methods: Monocentric retrospective study including all consecutive patients undergoing VATS anatomical resection for NSCLC between February 2010 and December 2019. Two groups were defined according to the discharge: 'early discharge' (within 72 postoperative hours) and 'routine discharge' (at >72 postoperative hours)., Results: A total of 660 patients with a median age of 66.5 years (interquartile range 60-73 years) (female/male: 321/339) underwent VATS anatomical pulmonary resection for NSCLC [segmentectomy in 169 (25.6%), lobectomy in 481 (72.9%), bilobectomy in 8 (1.2%) and pneumonectomy in 2 (0.3%) patients]. The cardiopulmonary and Clavien-Dindo III-IV postoperative complication rates were 32.6% and 7.7%, respectively. The median postoperative length of stay was 6 days (interquartile range 4-10 days). In total, 119 patients (18%) could be discharged within 72 h of surgery. On multivariable analysis, the factors significantly associated with an increased likelihood of early discharge were: body mass index >20 kg/m2 [odds ratio (OR) 2.37], absence of prior cardiopathy (OR 2), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide >60% (OR 1.82), inclusion in an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol (OR 2.23), use of a single chest tube (OR 5.73) and postoperative transfer to the ward (OR 4.84). Factors significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of early discharge were: age >60 years (OR 0.53), American Society of Anaesthesiologists score >2 (OR 0.46) and use of an epidural catheter (OR 0.41). Readmission rates were not statistically different between both groups (5.9% vs 3.1%; P = 0.17)., Conclusions: Age, pulmonary functions and comorbidities may influence discharge after VATS anatomical resection. The early discharge does not increase readmission rates., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Motivation: Several gene expression-based risk scores and subtype classifiers for breast cancer were developed to distinguish high- and low-risk patients. Evaluating the performance of these classifiers helps to decide which classifiers should be used in clinical practice for personal therapeutic recommendations. So far, studies that compared multiple classifiers in large independent patient cohorts mostly used microarray measurements. qPCR-based classifiers were not included in the comparison or had to be adapted to the different experimental platforms., Results: We used a prospective study of 726 early breast cancer patients from seven certified German breast cancer centers. Patients were treated according to national guidelines and the expressions of 94 selected genes were measured by the mid-throughput qPCR platform Fluidigm. Clinical and pathological data including outcome over five years is available. Using these data, we could compare the performance of six classifiers (scmgene and research versions of PAM50, ROR-S, recurrence score, EndoPredict and GGI). Similar to other studies, we found a similar or even higher concordance between most of the classifiers and most were also able to differentiate high- and low-risk patients. The classifiers that were originally developed for microarray data still performed similarly using the Fluidigm data. Therefore, Fluidigm can be used to measure the gene expressions needed by several classifiers for a large cohort with little effort. In addition, we provide an interactive report of the results, which enables a transparent, in-depth comparison of classifiers and their prediction of individual patients., Availability and Implementation: https://services.bio.ifi.lmu.de/pia/., Supplementary Information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: A lung retransplant has been shown to be a valid option in selected patients with chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). However, a subgroup of patients may require, in addition to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to a retransplant. Overall and CLAD-free survival after ECMO-bridged retransplants are compared to first transplants with and without bridging ECMO and to retransplants without bridging ECMO., Methods: We reported a retrospective, single-institution experience based on a prospective data set of all patients undergoing lung transplants between January 2004 and December 2016 with a mean follow-up of 51 ± 41 months., Results: A total of 230 patients (96 men, 134 women, mean age 47.3 years) had lung transplants: 200 had first transplants without bridging ECMO; 13 had first transplants with bridging ECMO; 11 had retransplants without bridging ECMO; and 6 had retransplants with bridging ECMO. The 3- and 5-year survival rates were 81%/76%, 68%/68%, 69%/46% and 50%/25%, respectively. There was no significant difference in overall survival between those who had first transplants with and without bridging ECMO or retransplants without bridging ECMO. In contrast, patients undergoing ECMO-bridged retransplants had a significantly lower overall survival rate than those with a first transplant without bridging ECMO (P = 0.007). In addition, the post-transplant CLAD-free survival curves varied significantly among the 4 treatment groups (P = 0.041), paralleling overall survival., Conclusions: Patients requiring ECMO as a bridge to a retransplant had lower overall and CLAD-free survival rates compared to those who had a first transplant with and without bridging ECMO and a retransplant without bridging ECMO., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Enhanced recovery after surgery is well established in specialties such as colorectal surgery. It is achieved through the introduction of multiple evidence-based perioperative measures that aim to diminish postoperative organ dysfunction while facilitating recovery. This review aims to present consensus recommendations for the optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing thoracic surgery (principally lung resection). A systematic review of meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, large non-randomized studies and reviews was conducted for each protocol element. Smaller prospective and retrospective cohort studies were considered only when higher-level evidence was unavailable. The quality of the evidence base was graded by the authors and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. Development of these recommendations was endorsed by the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society and the European Society for Thoracic Surgery. Recommendations were developed for a total of 45 enhanced recovery items covering topics related to preadmission, admission, intraoperative care and postoperative care. Most are based on good-quality studies. In some instances, good-quality data were not available, and subsequent recommendations are generic or based on data extrapolated from other specialties. In other cases, no recommendation can currently be made because either equipoise exists or there is a lack of available evidence. Recommendations are based not only on the quality of the evidence but also on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects. Key recommendations include preoperative counselling, nutritional screening, smoking cessation, prehabilitation for high-risk patients, avoidance of fasting, carbohydrate loading, avoidance of preoperative sedatives, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, prevention of hypothermia, short-acting anaesthetics to facilitate early emergence, regional anaesthesia, nausea and vomiting control, opioid-sparing analgesia, euvolemic fluid management, minimally invasive surgery, early chest drain removal, avoidance of urinary catheters and early mobilization after surgery. These guidelines outline recommendations for the perioperative management of patients undergoing lung surgery based on the best available evidence. As the recommendation grade for most of the elements is strong, the use of a systematic perioperative care pathway has the potential to improve outcomes after surgery.

Motivation: The goal of many genome-wide experiments is to explain the changes between the analyzed conditions. Typically, the analysis is started with a set of differential genes DG and the first step is to identify the set of relevant biological processes BP . Current enrichment methods identify the involved biological process via statistically significant overrepresentation of differential genes in predefined sets, but do not further explain how the differential genes interact with each other or which other genes might be important for the enriched process. Other network-based methods determine subnetworks of interacting genes containing many differential genes, but do not employ process knowledge for a more focused analysis., Results: RelExplain is a method to analyze a given biological process bp (e.g. identified by enrichment) in more detail by computing an explanation using the measured DG and a given network. An explanation is a subnetwork that contains the differential genes in the process bp and connects them in the best way given the experimental data using also genes that are not differential or not in bp . RelExplain takes into account the functional annotations of nodes and the edge consistency of the measurements. Explanations are compact networks of the relevant part of the bp and additional nodes that might be important for the bp . Our evaluation showed that RelExplain is better suited to retrieve manually curated subnetworks from unspecific networks than other algorithms. The interactive RelExplain tool allows to compute and inspect sub-optimal and alternative optimal explanations., Availability and Implementation: A webserver is available at https://services.bio.ifi.lmu.de/relexplain ., Contact: berchtold@bio.ifi.lmu.de., Supplementary Information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)