Prior Treatment for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Is Associated With Improved Survival in Patients who Undergo Definitive Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for a Subsequent Lung Malignancy: A Retrospective Multivariate and Matched Pair Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite occurring commonly, the prognoses of second early-stage non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) are not well known. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of inoperable patients who underwent thoracic stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) from February 2007 to April 2019. Those with previous small cell lung cancers or SBRT treatments for tumors other than NSCLC were excluded. Multivariate Cox regression and a matched pair cohort analyses evaluated the prognoses of patients undergoing definitive SBRT for a new second primary. RESULTS: Of 438 patients who underwent definitive SBRT for NSCLC, 84 had previously treated NSCLC. Univariate log-rank tests identified gender, Karnofksy performance status (KPS), prior lung cancer, anticoagulation use, and history of heart disease to correlate with overall survival (OS) (P<0.05). These factors were incorporated into a multivariate Cox regression model that demonstrated female sex (P=0.004, hazard ratio [HR]=0.68), KPS (P<0.001, HR=2.0), and prior lung cancer (P=0.049, HR=0.7) to be significantly associated with OS. A similar approach found only gender (P=0.017, HR=0.64) and tumor stage (P=0.02, HR=1.7) to correlate with relapse-free survival. To support the Cox regression analysis, propensity score matching was performed using gender, age, KPS, tumor stage, history of heart disease, and anticoagulation use. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis within the matched pairs found prior lung cancer to be associated with improved OS (P=0.011), but not relapse-free survival (P=0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with initial lung cancer SBRT inoperable cases, ablative radiotherapy for new primaries was associated with improved OS. Physicians should not be dissuaded from offering SBRT to such patients.

Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Pulmonary Carcinoids: An NCDB Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Typical carcinoids (TC) and atypical carcinoids (AC) are rare diseases. A paucity of randomized studies and disagreements among various guidelines makes the management challenging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using codes for TC (8240) and AC (8249) in the National Cancer Database (NCDB), all surgically resected cases from 2004-2014 were included to evaluate the need for adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 6,673 cases were included, 88% were TCs and 12% were ACs. From 2004 to 2014, the proportion of TCs went up from 1.3% to 1.8% and ACs from 0.1% to 0.3% of all lung malignancies. TC patients did well with surgery alone in all stages. AC patients with stage I [5-year overall survival (OS) - 84% vs. 52%; S vs. S+CT] and stage II disease (5-year OS - 81% vs. 55%; S vs. S+CT) showed better OS trend with surgery alone, while stage III patients showed some benefit with the use of adjuvant chemotherapy (5-year OS - 46% vs. 54%; S vs. S+CT). These results supported the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. CONCLUSION: No benefit was seen from adjuvant chemotherapy in TCs. While the adjuvant therapy may add benefit in stage III AC, the numbers are small and did not reach statistical significance.

Management of Typical and Atypical Pulmonary Carcinoids Based on Different Established Guidelines.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a group of malignancies that originated from neuroendocrine cells, with the most common sites being lungs and the gastrointestinal tract. Lung NETs comprise 25% of all lung malignancies. Small cell lung cancer is the most common form of lung NETs, and other rare forms include well-differentiated typical carcinoids (TCs) and poorly differentiated atypical carcinoids (ACs). Given the paucity of randomized studies, rational treatment is challenging. Therefore, it is recommended that these decisions be made using a multidisciplinary collaborative approach. Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment, when feasible. Following surgery, various guidelines offer different recommendations in the adjuvant setting. In this paper, we describe the adjuvant management of lung NETs, as recommended by different guidelines, and highlight their differences. In addition to that, we also discuss the management of metastatic lung NETS, including the use of peptide receptor radionucleotide therapy.

Thoracoscopic pneumonectomy: an 11-year experience.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether thoracoscopic (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery [VATS]) pneumonectomy improves outcomes compared with open approaches. METHODS: One hundred seven consecutive pneumonectomies performed at an experienced center from January 2002 to December 2012 were studied retrospectively. Forty cases were open, and 50 successful VATS and 17 conversions were combined (intent-to-treat [ITT] analysis). RESULTS: The VATS cohort had more preoperative comorbidities (three vs two, P = .003), women (57% vs 30%, P = .009), and older ages (65 years vs 63 years, P = .07). Although advanced clinical stage was less for VATS (26% vs 50% stage III, P = .035), final pathologic staging was similar (25% vs 38%, P = .77). Pursuing a VATS approach yielded similar complications (two vs two, median, P = .73) with no catastrophic intraoperative events like bleeding. Successful VATS pneumonectomy rates rose from 50%-82% by the second half of the series (P < .001). Completion pneumonectomy cases (13.4% VATS, 7.5% open) had similar outcomes. Having similar initial discomforts as patients undergoing open surgery, more patients undergoing VATS were pain-free at 1 year (53% vs 19%, P = .03). Conversions resulted in longer ICU stays (4 days vs 2 days, P = .01). Advanced clinical stage (III-IV) ITT VATS had longer median overall survival (OS) (42 months vs 13 months, log-rank P = .042). Successful VATS cases with early pathologic stage (0-II) had a median OS of 80 vs 16 months for converted and 28 months for open (log rank = 0.083). CONCLUSIONS: Attempting thoracoscopic pneumonectomy at an experienced center appears safe but does not yield the early pain/complication reductions observed for VATS lobectomy. There may be long-term pain/survival advantages for certain stages that warrant further study and refinement of this approach.