Chylothorax complicating video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chylothorax is an infrequent but well-known complication in lung cancer surgery. Previous published studies on this topic are limited, and thoracotomy has been the main surgical approach for treatment. However, chylothorax after lung cancer surgery performed solely by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has rarely been investigated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate chylothorax after VATS for lung cancer. METHODS: The records of 776 patients with primary non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent VATS for pulmonary resection and mediastinal lymph node dissection (MLND) at our hospital from January 2010 to August 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty patients with chylothorax (2.58 %) were included in the analysis. RESULTS: The 20 patients with chylothorax were all treated conservatively, but five patients (25 %) subsequently required reoperation for chylothorax. In patients with pleural drainage of less than 400 ml the first postoperative day, the chylothorax resolved with conservative treatment. Chylothorax also resolved in patients with pleural drainage of more than 400 ml the first or second postoperative day if drainage was less than 400 ml on postoperative day 4 and thereafter. Reoperations were required in cases with an increasing amount of pleural drainage on postoperative day 4 and thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the chylothorax following VATS for lung cancer can be treated conservatively. However, the timing of surgical intervention for chylothorax following VATS for lung cancer can be earlier if pleural drainage does not show a trend toward decreasing with conservative treatment.

Surgical outcomes of pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma: A review of 41 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma is a rare cancer that occurs primarily in younger patients. The prognostic factors of pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma are largely undetermined, especially in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to examine the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors influencing survival after surgical resection in patients with pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma and also analyze the clinical manifestations and prognostic factors in elderly patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pathological records of 41 pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma patients (mean age, 61.4 years) who underwent surgical resection at our hospital between January 1991 and July 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Subjects >65 years of age (n = 22) were considered elderly. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration was 42.9 (interquartile range, 15.0-120.8) months. Sixteen patients (39.0%) experienced tumor relapse, including 13 patients (81.3%) within 2 years. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 57.9%. Tumor grade did not influence disease-free survival (P = 0.286). In the multivariate analysis, age, tumor size, pathological T3-4 status, and pathological N2 status were independent predictors of disease-free survival. The 5-year overall survival rate was 57.0%. Tumor grade also did not influence overall survival (P = 0.170). Age, tumor size, pathological T status, and pathological N2 status were independent predictors of overall survival. In elderly patients, the 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 41.4% and 41.5%, respectively. Pathological T status was the only independent predictor of both disease-free survival and overall survival in elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic factors identified for pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma in this study differ from those of previous studies. Principally, tumor grade did not influence either disease-free survival or overall survival. Age, tumor size, and pathological factors were independent predictors of disease-free survival and overall survival. In elderly patients, pathological T status was the only independent predictor of disease-free survival and overall survival.

Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Esophagus and Esophagogastric Junction: Clinical Manifestations and Treatment Outcomes.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study is to understand the clinicopathological manifestations, treatment, and prognostic factors of adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction, a rare malignancy. METHODS: From 1981 to 2011, 26 out of 4704 patients (23 males, 3 females; mean age: 65.8 years) with ASC of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction who received surgical resection were analyzed. RESULTS: Only one (4.2%) patient was diagnosed with ASC by preoperative endoscopic biopsy. Three patients received Ivor-Lewis operation with intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy, seven received gastrectomies, and the other 16 underwent transthoracic esophagectomies. Median follow-up time was 30.6 months (interquartile range, 17.9-95.1 months). At study end, there were 12 (46.2%) patients with tumor relapse, all within 3 years postoperatively. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 46.2%. Tumor length and no postoperative adjuvant treatment were the independent prognostic factors for DFS. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 30.8%. On multivariate analysis, the resection type, tumor length, and perineural invasion were independent prognostic factors for OS. CONCLUSION: ASC is a rare cell type of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction that is easily misdiagnosed at endoscopic biopsy. OS rate was no worse than that reported for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Tumor length was the independent prognostic factor for both DFS and OS.

Treatment outcomes of patients with different subtypes of large cell carcinoma of the lung.

BACKGROUND: Although large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (LELC) are the variants of large cell carcinoma (LCC) of lung, there are few studies comparing them. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristic and treatment outcomes of LCNEC, LELC, and classic LCC. METHODS: Patients with LCNEC, LELC, or classic LCC were identified in a prospectively collected database, and their data were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients with classic LCC, 30 with LCNEC, and 18 with LELC, who received surgical resection with curative intent, were identified and included in the analysis. Patients with LELC were younger, and the frequency of nonsmokers was greater than in patients with classic LCC or LCNEC. In patients with LCNEC or LELC, most lesions were located on the left side. There were 5 surgical deaths, and the median follow-up time of the surviving patients was 44.1 months. The 5-year disease free survival among the three subgroups was similar (p = 0.601), but patients with LELC had a significantly better overall survival than the other two subgroups (LELC vs classic LCC, p = 0.009; LELC vs LCNEC, p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed tumor location site, tumor stage, and LELC were independent prognostic factors of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical manifestations and treatment outcomes of LCNEC, LELC, and classic LCC are different. LCNEC has a poor survival, and survival is not different than that of classic LCC. LELC is associated with younger age and a higher frequency of nonsmokers, and the treatment outcomes are better than those of other subtypes.