Induction FOLFOX and PET-Directed Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of induction FOLFOX followed by PET-directed nCRT, induction CP followed by PET-directed nCRT, and nCRT with CP alone in patients with EAC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: nCRT with CP is a standard treatment for locally advanced EAC. The results of cancer and leukemia group B 80803 support the use of induction chemotherapy followed by PET-directed chemo-radiation therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients with EAC who underwent the treatments above followed by esophagectomy. We assessed incidences of pathologic complete response (pCR), near-pCR (ypN0 with ≥90% response), and surgical complications between treatment groups using Fisher exact test and logistic regression; disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and evaluated using the log-rank test and extended Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 451 patients were included: 309 (69%) received induction chemotherapy before nCRT (FOLFOX, n = 70; CP, n = 239); 142 (31%) received nCRT with CP. Rates of pCR (33% vs. 16%, P = 0.004), near-pCR (57% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), and 2-year DFS (68% vs. 50%, P = 0.01) were higher in the induction FOLFOX group than in the induction CP group. Similarly, the rate of near-pCR (57% vs. 42%, P = 0.04) and 2-year DFS (68% vs. 44%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the FOLFOX group than in the no-induction group. CONCLUSIONS: Induction FOLFOX followed by PET-directed nCRT may result in better histopathologic response rates and DFS than either induction CP plus PET-directed nCRT or nCRT with CP alone.

Translating Telemedicine to Thoracic Surgical Oncological Care: Performance Analysis and Patient Perceptions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected care for patients undergoing thoracic surgery for cancer. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telemedicine. METHODS: Characteristics and outcomes of new patients seen between March 1 and June 30, 2019, and the same period in 2020 were compared. Patients who did not undergo surgery were excluded. Patients who had a telemedicine visit (new and established) in the 2020 period were asked to complete a survey. RESULTS: In total, 624 new patients were seen in 2019 versus 299 in 2020 (52% reduction); 45% of patients (n=136) in 2020 were seen via telemedicine. There was no statistically significant difference in time to surgery, pathological upstaging, or postsurgical complications between 2019 and 2020. In total, 1085 patients (new and established) had a telemedicine visit in 2020; 239 (22%) completed the survey. A majority replied that telemedicine was equivalent to in-person care (77%), did not impair care quality (84%), resulted in less stress (69%) and shorter waits (86%), was more convenient (92%), saved money and commuting time (93%), and expanded who could attend visits (91%). Some patients regretted the loss of human interaction (71%). Most would opt for telemedicine after the pandemic (60%), although some would prefer in-person format for initial visits (55%) and visits with complex discussions (49%). Only 21% were uncomfortable with the telemedicine technology. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine enabled cancer care to continue during the COVID-19 pandemic without delays in surgery, cancer progression, or worsened postoperative morbidity and was generally well received.

VIDEO: Rethinking "Mural Thickening:" Vasculitis or Aortic Dissection?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this video article is to provide education about the similarities and differences between vasculitis and rare, acute aortic pathologic findings so that an appropriate diagnosis can be made in a timely manner, especially for patients with life-threatening aortic pathologic findings. CONCLUSION: Although they are rare, acute aortic pathologic findings, such as aortic dissection and intramural hematoma, can have radiographic characteristics similar to those of vasculitis, which can make it challenging to discern between these vastly different diagnoses without the use of properly timed imaging studies.

Patterns and influence of nodal metastases after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and R0 resection in esophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the pattern of nodal metastases in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and undergone surgery. We sought to assess this pattern and evaluate its association with prognosis. METHODS: All patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and R0 esophagectomy between 2010 and 2018 at our institution were included (n = 537). The primary objective was to evaluate the association of sites of lymph node metastases with disease-free survival. The number of nodal stations and individual sites of nodal metastases were evaluated first in univariable then in separate multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for clinical factors. RESULTS: Of 537 patients, 193 (36%) had pathologic nodal metastases at the time of surgery; 153 (28%) had single-station disease, 32 (6.0%) had 2-station disease, and 8 (1.5%) had 3-station disease. The majority of patients with multiple positive nodal stations had positive nodes in the paraesophageal (93%) and/or left gastric stations (60%). Multivariable models controlling for clinical factors showed that an increasing number of positive nodal stations (hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.35-1.84; P < .01)-in particular, the subcarinal (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.54-5.03; P < .01) and paraesophageal stations (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.58-2.54; P < .01)-was associated with increased risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of patients who have undergone R0 resection for esophageal adenocarcinoma following induction chemoradiation therapy have metastatic lymph nodes. An increasing number of nodal stations, particularly paraesophageal and subcarinal metastases, were associated with increased risk of recurrence.

Factors Associated With New Persistent Opioid Usage After Lung Resection.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence, misuse, and abuse in the United States continue to rise. Prior studies indicate an important risk factor for persistent opioid use includes elective surgical procedures, though the probability following thoracic procedures remains unknown. We analyzed the incidence and factors associated with new persistent opioid use after lung resection. METHODS: We evaluated data from opioid-naïve cancer patients undergoing lung resection between 2010 and 2014 using insurance claims from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases. New persistent opioid usage was defined as continued opioid prescription fills between 90 and 180 days following surgery. Variables with a p value less than 0.10 by univariate analysis were included in a multivariable logistic regression performed for risk adjustment. Multivariable results were each reported with odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 3,026 patients (44.8% men, 55.2% women) were identified as opioid-naïve undergoing lung resection. Mean age was 64 ± 11 years and mean postoperative length of stay was 5.2 ± 3.3 days. A total of 6.5% underwent neoadjuvant therapy, while 21.7% underwent adjuvant therapy. Among opioid-naïve patients, 14% continued to fill opioid prescriptions following lung resection. Multivariable analysis showed that age less than or equal to 64 years (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.59; p = 0.028), male sex (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.73; p = 0.002), postoperative length of stay (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.65; p = 0.016), thoracotomy (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.02; p < 0.001), and adjuvant therapy (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.75 to 2.75; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for persistent opioid usage. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest risk factors for persistent opioid use (14%) following lung resection were adjuvant therapy and thoracotomy. Future studies should focus on reducing excess prescribing, perioperative patient education, and safe opioid disposal.