Search

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of lung cancer screening, with its subsequent findings, is anticipated to change the current diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape. This review aimed to identify and present the most updated expert opinion and discuss relevant evidence regarding the impact of lung cancer screening and lung nodule management on the diagnostic and surgical landscape of lung cancer, as well as summarise points for clinical practice. METHODS: This article is based on relevant lectures and talks delivered during the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Respiratory Society Collaborative Course on Thoracic Oncology (February 2023). Original lectures and talks and their relevant references were included. An additional literature search was conducted and peer-reviewed studies in English (December 2022 to June 2023) from the PubMed/Medline databases were evaluated with regards to immediate affinity of the published papers to the original talks presented at the course. An updated literature search was conducted (June 2023 to December 2023) to ensure that updated literature is included within this article. RESULTS: Lung cancer screening suspicious findings are expected to increase the number of diagnostic investigations required therefore impacting on current capacity and resources. Healthcare systems already face a shortage of imaging and diagnostic slots and they are also challenged by the shortage of interventional radiologists. Thoracic surgery will be impacted by the wider lung cancer screening implementation with increased volume and earlier stages of lung cancer. Nonsuspicious findings reported at lung cancer screening will need attention and subsequent referrals where required to ensure participants are appropriately diagnosed and managed and that they are not lost within healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of lung cancer screening requires appropria

Despite the increasing number of radiological case reports, the majority lack a standardised methodology of writing and reporting. We therefore develop a reporting guideline for radiological case reports based on the CAse REport (CARE) statement. We established a multidisciplinary group of experts, comprising 40 radiologists, methodologists, journal editors and researchers, to develop a reporting guideline for radiological case reports according to the methodology recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research network. The Delphi panel was requested to evaluate the significance of a list of elements for potential inclusion in a guideline for reporting mediation analyses. By reviewing the reporting guidelines and through discussion, we initially drafted 46 potential items. Following a Delphi survey and discussion, the final CARE-radiology checklist is comprised of 38 items in 16 domains. CARE-radiology is a comprehensive reporting guideline for radiological case reports developed using a rigorous methodology. We hope that compliance with CARE-radiology will help in the future to improve the completeness and quality of case reports in radiology.

Background: Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation. Methods: Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants. Results: The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22). Conclusions: The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique. Trial registration: https://www.equator-netwo

Background: Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice. Methods: We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item. Results: We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc. Conclusions: Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

Background: Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice. Methods: We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item. Results: We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc. Conclusions: Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

OBJECTIVES To identify and prioritize technical procedures for simulation-based training to be integrated into the thoracic surgical curriculum. METHODS A 3-round Delphi survey was conducted from February 2022 to June 2022 among 34 key opinion leaders in thoracic surgery from 14 countries worldwide. The 1st round was a brainstorming phase to identify technical procedures that a newly qualified thoracic surgeon should be able to perform. All the suggested procedures were categorized, qualitatively analysed and sent to the 2nd round. The second round investigated: the frequency of the identified procedure at each institution, the number of thoracic surgeons that should be able to perform these procedures, the degree of risk to the patient if the procedure is performed by a non-competent thoracic surgeon and the feasibility of simulation-based education. In the 3rd round, elimination and re-ranking of the procedures from the 2nd round were performed. RESULTS Response rates in the 3 iterative rounds were 80% (28 out of 34), 89% (25 out of 28) and 100% (25 out of 25) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round, respectively. Seventeen technical procedures were included for simulation-based training in the final prioritized list. The top 5 procedures were Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy, VATS segmentectomy, VATS mediastinal lymph node dissection, diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery port placement, robotic-assisted thoracic surgery docking and undocking. CONCLUSIONS The prioritized list of procedures represents a consensus of key thoracic surgeons worldwide. These procedures are suitable for simulation-based training and should be integrated in the thoracic surgical curriculum., OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritize technical procedures for simulation-based training to be integrated into the thoracic surgical curriculum. METHODS: A 3-round Delphi survey was conducted from February 2022 to June 2022 among 34 key opinion leaders in thoracic surgery from 14 countries worldwide. The 1st round was a brainstorming phase to identify technical procedures that a newly qualified thoracic surgeon should be able to perform. All the suggested procedures were categorized, qualitatively analysed and sent to the 2nd round. The second round investigated: the frequency of the identified procedure at each institution, the number of thoracic surgeons that should be able to perform these procedures, the degree of risk to the patient if the procedure is performed by a non-competent thoracic surgeon and the feasibility of simulation-based education. In the 3rd round, elimination and re-ranking of the procedures from the 2nd round were performed. RESULTS: Response rates in the 3 iterative rounds were 80% (28 out of 34), 89% (25 out of 28) and 100% (25 out of 25) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round, respectively. Seventeen technical procedures were included for simulation-based training in the final prioritized list. The top 5 procedures were Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy, VATS segmentectomy, VATS mediastinal lymph node dissection, diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery port placement, robotic-assisted thoracic surgery docking and undocking. CONCLUSIONS: The prioritized list of procedures represents a consensus of key thoracic surgeons worldwide. These procedures are suitable for simulation-based training and should be integrated in the thoracic surgical curriculum.