Left Upper Lobectomy versus Trisegmentectomy for Lung Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matched Comparison.

BACKGROUND: The left upper division (segments I-III) and the lingula (segments IV-V) are analogous to the right upper and middle lobes, respectively. While bilobectomy for right upper lobe tumors is rare, left upper division tumors are often resected by left upper lobectomy (LUL), rather than left upper trisegmentectomy (LU3S). To assess safety and oncologic efficacy of LUL vs. LU3S, we compared short- and long-term outcomes after both procedures. METHODS: Patients undergoing LUL or LU3S for clinical stage IA-IIA non-small cell lung cancer in the left upper division from 01/2006-12/2020 were identified from an institutional database. Propensity score matching was used to control for clinical differences. RESULTS: We identified 229 cases meeting inclusion criteria: 131 (57.2%) LUL, 98 LU3S. After matching, 83 cases were included in each group. Median clinical tumor size was similar for LUL vs. LU3S (2.2cm (interquartile range:1.6-3.0) vs. 2.1cm (interquartile range:1.7-2.9), p=0.80). Total lymph nodes sampled did not differ between LUL and LU3S (median 7 vs. 6, p=0.36), nor did patterns of N2 sampling (p=0.11). Odds of post-operative complications did not differ after LUL vs. LU3S (odds ratio=0.75; 95% CI:0.39-1.46). No 30-day mortality was observed. Median follow-up was 72 months. There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year overall survival (75.9% vs. 82.1%, p=0.28) or locoregional-recurrence-free survival (73.7% vs. 80.0%, p=0.23) after LUL vs. LU3S. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest left upper trisegmentectomy and left upper lobectomy have equivalent short- and long-term outcomes in patients with clinical stage IA-IIA non-small cell lung cancer in the left upper division.

Complete anatomic segmentectomy shows improved oncologic outcomes compared to incomplete anatomic segmentectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare oncologic outcomes after segmentectomy with division of segmental bronchus, artery and vein (complete anatomic segmentectomy) versus segmentectomy with division of <3 segmental structures (incomplete anatomic segmentectomy). METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing segmentectomy from March 2005 to May 2020. Operative reports were audited to classify procedures as complete or incomplete anatomic segmentectomy. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy or pulmonary resection beyond indicated segments were excluded. Survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier models and compared using log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for death. Cumulative incidence functions for loco-regional recurrence were compared with Gray's test, with death considered a competing event. Cox and Fine-Gray models were used to estimate cause-specific and subdistribution HRs, respectively, for loco-regional recurrence. RESULTS: Of 390 cases, 266 (68.2%) were complete and 124 were incomplete anatomic segmentectomy. Demographics, pulmonary function, tumour size, stage and perioperative outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. Surgical margins were negative in all but 1 case. Complete anatomic segmentectomy was associated with improved lymph node dissection (5 vs 2 median nodes sampled; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed reduced incidence of loco-regional recurrence (cause-specific HR = 0.42; 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.80; subdistribution HR = 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.81), and non-significant improvement in overall survival (HR = 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-1.00) after complete versus incomplete anatomic segmentectomy. CONCLUSIONS: This single-centre experience suggests complete anatomic segmentectomy provides superior loco-regional control and may improve survival relative to incomplete anatomic segmentectomy. We recommend surgeons perform complete anatomic segmentectomy and lymph node dissection whenever possible.

Association of conduit dimensions with perioperative outcomes and long-term quality of life after esophagectomy for malignancy.

Objective: The impact of conduit dimensions and location of esophagogastric anastomosis on long-term quality of life after esophagectomy remains unexplored. We investigated the association of these parameters with surgical outcomes and patient-reported quality of life at least 18 months after esophagectomy. Methods: We identified all patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer from 2018 to 2020 in our institution. We reviewed each patient's initial postoperative computed tomography scan measuring the gastric conduit's greatest width (centimeters), linear staple line length (centimeters), and relative location of esophagogastric anastomosis (vertebra). Quality of life was ascertained using patient-reported outcome measures. Perioperative complications, length of stay, and mortality were collected. Multivariate regressions were performed. Results: Our study revealed that a more proximal anastomosis was linked to an increased risk of pulmonary complications, a lower recurrence rate, and greater long-term insomnia. Increased maximum intrathoracic conduit width was significantly associated with trouble enjoying meals and reflux long term after esophagectomy. A longer conduit stapled line correlated with fewer issues related to insomnia, improved appetite, less dysphagia, and significantly enhanced "social," "role," and "physical'" aspects of the patient's long-term quality of life. Conclusions: The dimensions of the gastric conduit and the height of the anastomosis may be independently associated with outcomes and long-term quality of life after esophagectomy for cancer.

Time between imaging and surgery is not a risk factor for upstaging of clinical stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The timing of preoperative imaging in patients with lung cancer is a debated topic, as there are limited data on cancer progression during the interval between clinical staging by imaging and pathological staging after resection. We quantified disease progression during this interval in patients with early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to better understand if its length impacts upstaging. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database to identify patients who underwent surgery for clinically staged T1N0M0 NSCLC from January 2015 through September 2022. Tumour upstaging between chest computed tomography (CT) and surgery were analysed as a function of time (<30, 30-59, ≥60 days) for different nodule subtypes. We analysed data across 3 timeframes using Pearson's chi-squared and analysis of variance tests. RESULTS: During the study period, 622 patients underwent surgery for clinically staged T1N0M0 NSCLC. CT-to-surgery interval was <30 days in 228 (36.7%), 30-59 days in 242 (38.9%) and ≥60 days in 152 (24.4%) with no differences in patient or nodule characteristics observed between these groups. T-stage increased in 346 patients (55.6%) between CT imaging and surgery. Among these patients, 126 (36.4%) had ground-glass nodules, 147 (42.5%) had part-solid nodules and 73 (21.1%) had solid nodules. CT-to-surgery interval length was not associated with upstaging of any nodule subtype (full-cohort, P = 0.903; ground-glass, P = 0.880; part-solid, P = 0.858; solid, P = 0.959). CONCLUSIONS: This single-centre experience suggests no significant association between tumour upstaging and time from imaging to lung resection in patients with clinical stage IA NSCLC. Further studies are needed to better understand the risk factors for upstaging.