Search

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the impact of local treatment modalities in the management of large non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors using a nationwide population-based dataset. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with NSCLC tumors >7 cm that were cN0-1M0 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry from 2010 to 2015 were stratified by local management strategy (surgery, radiation therapy, no local treatment) and evaluated using Kaplan–Meier survival analyses, Cox proportional-hazard methods, and propensity-matched analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3156 patients were identified, of which 1580 (50.1%) underwent surgical resection, 920 (29.2%) received radiation only, 655 (20.7%) received no local treatment. Overall, the 5-year survival of patients undergoing surgical resection was 40.7%, compared to 14.7% and 5.3% for the radiation only and no local treatment groups, respectively (P < .001). Surgery with or without radiation continued to have an independent association with improved survival in multivariable analysis (HR 0.23, P < .0001). Other factors associated with improved survival included younger age, negative nodal disease, and chemotherapy use. In propensity-matched sub-analyses, 5-year survival remained significantly better after surgery alone compared to radiation alone (38.5% vs. 13.6%, P < .001), while survival after radiation alone was better than no local treatment, though both were largely poor (12.4% vs. 7.5%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Survival of patients with large NSCLC managed non-surgically is very poor. Despite the significant long-term survival benefit with surgical intervention, nearly half of the study cohort did not undergo surgery. Patients and clinicians can use these results to estimate specific potential benefits when considering possible treatment strategies for large NSCLC tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES The oncological efficacy of minimally invasive thymectomy for thymic carcinoma is not well characterized. We compared overall survival and short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive surgical (video-assisted thoracoscopic and robotic) approaches using the National Cancer Database. METHODS Perioperative outcomes and overall survival of patients who underwent open versus minimally invasive thymectomy for Masaoka stage I–III thymic carcinoma from 2010 to 2015 in the National Cancer Database were evaluated using propensity score-matched analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modelling. Outcomes by surgical approach were assessed using an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS Of the 216 thymectomies that were evaluated, 43 (20%) were performed with minimally invasive techniques (22 video-assisted thoracoscopic and 21 robotic). The minimally invasive approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay when compared to the open approach (3 vs 5 days, P < 0.001). In the propensity score-matched analysis of 30 open and 30 minimally invasive thymectomies, the minimally invasive group did not differ significantly in median length of stay (3 vs 4.5 days, P = 0.27), 30-day readmission (P = 0.13), 30-day mortality (P = 0.60), 90-day mortality (P = 0.60), margin positivity (P = 0.39) and 5-year survival (78.6% vs 54.6%, P = 0.15) when compared to the open group. CONCLUSIONS In this national analysis, minimally invasive thymectomy for stage I–III thymic carcinoma was found to have no significant differences in short-term outcomes and overall survival when compared to open thymectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) are the two most common oncogenic drivers in lung adenocarcinoma, and their roles still need further exploration. Here we aimed to compare the clinical impact of EGFR and KRAS mutations on disease progression in resected unifocal and multifocal lung adenocarcinoma., Methods: Clinicopathologic and genomic data were collected for patients who underwent resection of lung adenocarcinoma from 2008 to 2022 at Stanford University Hospital. Retrospective review was performed in 241 patients whose tumors harbored EGFR (n=150, 62.2%) or KRAS (n=91, 37.8%) mutations. Clinical outcome was analyzed with special attention to the natural history of secondary nodules in multifocal cases wherein the dominant tumor had been resected., Results: We confirm that compared with EGFR mutations, patients with KRAS mutations had more smokers, larger tumor size, higher TNM stage, higher positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) standard uptake value max, higher tumor mutation burden, and worse disease-free survival and overall survival on univariate analysis. For patients with multifocal pulmonary nodules, the median follow-up of unresected secondary nodules was 55 months. Secondary nodule progression-free survival (SNPFS) was significantly worse for patients with KRAS mutations than those with EGFR mutations (mean 40.3±6.6 vs. 67.7±6.5 months, P=0.004). Univariate analysis showed tumor size, tumor morphology, pathologic TNM stage, and KRAS mutations were significantly associated with SNPFS, while multivariate analysis showed only KRAS mutations were independently associated with worse SNPFS (hazard ratio 1.752, 95% confidence interval: 1.017-3.018, P=0.043)., Conclusions: Resected lung adenocarcinomas with KRAS mutations have more aggressive clinicopathological features and confer worse prognosis than those with EGFR mutations. Secondary pulmonary nodules in multifocal cases with dominant KRAS -mutant tumors have more rapid progression of the secondary nodules., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tlcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tlcr-24-165/coif). N.S.L. received research grants with payments from Intuitive Foundation Centese, consulting fees as data safety monitor for clinical trial with payments from Intuitive Surgical, and honoraria for lecture from MEC MMC; W.L.T. purchased stock in these companies (Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen Inc. Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals) several months ago for reasons unrelated to this manuscript; L.M.B. received Research Grant from Department of Veterans Affairs, Chan Zuckerberg Foundation and NIH, and received speaker bureaus/honoraria from MJH Health Sciences, and from Kazan LLP and Craddick LLP for legal expert consulting, and served on Advisory Board for Genentech, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Astra Zeneca and Ethicon/Johnson& Johnson, and served as Board of Directors from Society of Thoracic Surgeons; J.B.S. received payment of consulting on immunotherapy for lung cancer from Astra Zeneca, and was Chair of Society of Thoracic Surgeons Workforce on General Thoracic Surgery (unpaid). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

This study evaluated the impact of local treatment modalities in the management of large non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors using a nationwide population-based dataset. Patients with NSCLC tumors >7 cm that were cN0-1M0 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry from 2010 to 2015 were stratified by local management strategy (surgery, radiation therapy, no local treatment) and evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, Cox proportional-hazard methods, and propensity-matched analysis. A total of 3156 patients were identified, of which 1580 (50.1%) underwent surgical resection, 920 (29.2%) received radiation only, 655 (20.7%) received no local treatment. Overall, the 5-year survival of patients undergoing surgical resection was 40.7%, compared to 14.7% and 5.3% for the radiation only and no local treatment groups, respectively (P < .001). Surgery with or without radiation continued to have an independent association with improved survival in multivariable analysis (HR 0.23, P < .0001). Other factors associated with improved survival included younger age, negative nodal disease, and chemotherapy use. In propensity-matched sub-analyses, 5-year survival remained significantly better after surgery alone compared to radiation alone (38.5% vs. 13.6%, P < .001), while survival after radiation alone was better than no local treatment, though both were largely poor (12.4% vs. 7.5%, P < .001). Survival of patients with large NSCLC managed non-surgically is very poor. Despite the significant long-term survival benefit with surgical intervention, nearly half of the study cohort did not undergo surgery. Patients and clinicians can use these results to estimate specific potential benefits when considering possible treatment strategies for large NSCLC tumors.

Introduction: The configuration of the gastric conduit after esophagectomy can lead to chronic gastrointestinal and respiratory issues. Surgical revision of the gastric conduit has been described in small series but appears to be infrequently used. We investigated outcomes of revising dilated or redundant conduit in patients with severe quality-of-life issues., Methods: We identified all patients from 2016 to 2022 at our institution who underwent gastric conduit revision after previous esophagectomy either at our or another institution. Chart review was performed to assess prerevision course and perioperative outcomes. Pre- and postrevision imaging was compared for all patients to assess the impact of surgery on anatomic configuration. Patient-reported gastrointestinal and respiratory issues before and after surgery were examined., Results: The use of right thoracotomy combined with laparotomy to reduce redundancy and improve gastric emptying was performed in 8 patients. The symptoms necessitating reoperation included intolerance to oral intake and poor gastric emptying associated with both acute and chronic aspiration episodes. The median length of stay was 8 [4, 25] days, and there were no perioperative mortalities. Seven (87.5%) patients were tolerating oral intake at discharge. All patients had improvement in their prerevision symptoms on follow-up., Conclusions: Gastric conduit revision can improve severe postesophagectomy gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms in patients with dilated/redundant conduits with limited perioperative morbidity., Competing Interests: 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., (© 2023 The Author(s).)