Wedge Resection Versus Segmentectomy for Older Patients With Stage IA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Anatomic lung resection remains the standard of care for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but wedge resection may offer similar survival in older adult patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival of patients aged 80 y and older undergoing wedge resection versus segmentectomy for stage IA NSCLC using a large clinical registry. METHODS: Patients aged 80 y and older in the National Cancer Database who underwent wedge resection or segmentectomy for cT1a-b N0 M0 NSCLC between 2004 and 2018 were identified for an analysis. Survival was assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, propensity-score matching, and inverse probability weighting. A subgroup analysis of patients who underwent lymph node evaluation with their wedge resection or segmentectomy was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 2690 patients identified, 2272 (84%) underwent wedge resection and 418 (16%) underwent segmentectomy. Wedge resection was associated with worse 5-year overall survival relative to segmentectomy in multivariable-adjusted (adjusted Hazard Ratio: 1.26, [1.06-1.51], P = 0.01) and propensity score-matched analysis (49% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 42%-55%] versus 59% [95% CI: 52%-65%], P = 0.02). Among a subgroup of 1221 wedge resection and 347 segmentectomy patients who also received intraoperative lymph node evaluation, however, there were no significant differences in 5-year survival in multivariable-adjusted (adjusted Hazard Ratio: 1.12, [0.90-1.39], P = 0.31) or propensity score-matched analysis (55% [95% CI: 48%-62%] versus 61% [95% CI: 54%-68%], P = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: In this national analysis, there were no significant differences in survival between older adult patients with stage IA NSCLC who underwent wedge resection versus segmentectomy when a lymph node evaluation was performed.

Safety and Optimizing Ergonomics for Cardiothoracic Surgeons.

Cardiothoracic surgery, demanding in nature, often results in surgeons suffering from musculoskeletal injuries, causing chronic pain and leading to premature retirement. A significant majority report experiencing pain, exacerbated by minimally invasive techniques such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Despite this, many surgeons delay seeking medical assistance. To mitigate these risks, preventative strategies such as strength exercises, stretching during operations, and taking brief breaks are crucial. However, the surgical community faces a shortage of institutional support and comprehensive ergonomic education. Advancements in technology, including artificial intelligence and virtual reality, could offer future solutions.

Shortage of thoracic surgeons in the United States: Implications for treatment and survival for stage I lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether there is a shortage of thoracic surgeons in the United States and whether any potential shortage is impacting lung cancer treatment and outcomes. DESIGN: Using the US Area Health Resources File and Surveillance Epidemiology End Results database, we assessed the number of cardiothoracic surgeons per 100,000 people and the number of stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) diagnoses in the US in 2010 versus 2018. Changes in the percentage of patients diagnosed with stage I NSCLC who underwent surgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy and changes in overall survival of patients with stage I NSCLC from 2010 to 2018 in the National Cancer Database were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2018, the number of cardiothoracic surgeons per 100,000 people in the US decreased by 12% (P < .001), while the number of patients diagnosed with stage I NSCLC increased by 40% (P < .001). Over the same period, the percentage of patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC decreased from 81.0% to 72.3% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.63); this decrease was similarly seen in a subgroup of young and otherwise healthy patients. Greater decreases in the percentage of patients who underwent surgery in nonmetropolitan and underserved regions corresponded with worse improvements in survival among patients in these regions from 2010 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Recent declines in the US cardiothoracic surgery workforce may have led to significantly fewer patients undergoing surgery for stage I NSCLC and worsening disparities in survival between different patient populations.

A national survey of occupational musculoskeletal injuries in cardiothoracic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing concern that surgeons are at increased risk for work-related orthopedic injuries due to poor ergonomics. We conducted a survey of North American cardiothoracic surgeons to evaluate the prevalence of occupational injury, as well as perceptions and use of ergonomic techniques. METHODS: Cardiothoracic surgeons identified through the Cardiothoracic Surgery Network were asked to complete a 33-question survey assessing their musculoskeletal health, as well as their perceptions and use of ergonomic techniques in the operating room and office. RESULTS: Among 600 cardiothoracic surgeons, the prevalence of occupational musculoskeletal injuries was 64%, with 30% of affected surgeons requiring time away from work and 20% requiring surgery or the use of narcotics. Cervical spine injury (35%, n = 216) was the most common injury due to operating, followed by lumbar spine injury (30%, n = 180). In multivariable-adjusted analysis, cardiac surgeons were more likely than thoracic surgeons to experience occupational musculoskeletal injuries (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8 [1.2-2.8], P < .01). Notably, 90% of surgeons (n = 536) reported thinking that their institution did not provide sufficient ergonomics education or support, and only 35% (n = 205) thought that the cardiothoracic surgical community is supportive of implementing ergonomics techniques in the operating room and office. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey analysis, cardiothoracic surgeons reported experiencing work-related orthopedic injuries at an alarmingly high rate, leading to significant time away from work and for many to retire from surgery over a decade early. These findings underline a critical need for institutions to prioritize ergonomics education and implement ergonomics-directed techniques in the operating room and office.

Deaths Due to COVID-19 in Patients With Cancer During Different Waves of the Pandemic in the US.

Importance: With the ongoing relaxation of guidelines to prevent COVID-19 transmission, particularly in hospital settings, medically vulnerable groups, such as patients with cancer, may experience a disparate burden of COVID-19 mortality compared with the general population. Objective: To evaluate COVID-19 mortality among US patients with cancer compared with the general US population during different waves of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database to examine COVID-19 mortality among US patients with cancer and the general population from March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2022. The number of deaths due to COVID-19 during the 2021 to 2022 winter Omicron surge was compared with deaths during the preceding year's COVID-19 winter surge (when the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 variant was predominant) using mortality ratios. Data were analyzed from July 21 through August 31, 2022. Exposures: Pandemic wave during which the wild-type variant (December 2020 to February 2021), Delta variant (July 2021 to November 2021), or Omicron variant (December 2021 to February 2022) was predominant. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of COVID-19 deaths per month. Results: The sample included 34 350 patients with cancer (14 498 females [42.2%] and 19 852 males [57.8%]) and 628 156 members of the general public (276 878 females [44.1%] and 351 278 males [55.9%]) who died from COVID-19 when the wild-type (December 2020-February 2021), Delta (July 2021-November 2021), and winter Omicron (December 2021-February 2022) variants were predominant. Among patients with cancer, the greatest number of COVID-19 deaths per month occurred during the winter Omicron period (n = 5958): at the peak of the winter Omicron period, there were 18% more deaths compared with the peak of the wild-type period. In contrast, among the general public, the greatest number of COVID-19 deaths per month occurred during the wild-type period (n = 105 327), and at the peak of the winter Omicron period, there were 21% fewer COVID-19 deaths compared with the peak of the wild-type period. In subgroup analyses by cancer site, COVID-19 mortality increased the most, by 38%, among patients with lymphoma during the winter Omicron period vs the wild-type period. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that patients with cancer had a disparate burden of COVID-19 mortality during the winter Omicron wave compared with the general US population. With the emergence of new, immune-evasive SARS-CoV-2 variants, many of which are anticipated to be resistant to monoclonal antibody treatments, strategies to prevent COVID-19 transmission should remain a high priority.

Segmentectomy vs Lobectomy for Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Visceral Pleural Invasion.

BACKGROUND: Recent prospective trials have demonstrated the noninferiority of segmentectomy to lobectomy in the surgical management of early non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It remains unknown, however, whether segmentectomy is sufficient for treating small tumors with visceral pleural invasion (VPI), a known indicator of aggressive disease biology and poor prognosis in NSCLC. METHODS: Patients in the National Cancer Database (2010-2020) with cT1a-bN0M0 NSCLC and VPI and additional high-risk features who underwent segmentectomy or lobectomy were identified for analysis. Only patients with no comorbidities were included in this analysis to reduce selection bias. Overall survival of patients who underwent segmentectomy vs lobectomy was evaluated using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards and propensity score- matched analyses. Short-term and pathologic outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 2568 patients with cT1a-bN0M0 NSCLC and VPI included in our overall cohort, 178 (7%) underwent segmentectomy and 2390 (93%) underwent lobectomy. No significant differences were found in the 5-year overall survival between patients undergoing segmentectomy vs lobectomy in multivariable-adjusted and propensity score-matched analyses (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.55-1.51], P = .72; 86% [95% CI, 75%-92%] vs 76% [95% CI, 65%-84%], P = .15, respectively). There were also no differences in surgical margin positivity, 30-day readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality between patients undergoing either surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: In this national analysis, no differences were found in survival or in short-term outcomes between patients undergoing segmentectomy vs lobectomy for early-stage NSCLC with VPI. Our findings suggest that if VPI is detected after segmentectomy for cT1a-bN0M0 tumors, completion lobectomy is unlikely to confer an additional survival advantage.