A Real-World Assessment of Stage I Lung Cancer Through Electronic Nose Technology.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic nose (E-nose) technology has reported excellent sensitivity and specificity in the setting of lung cancer screening. However, the performance of E-nose specifically for early-stage tumors remains unclear. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic performance of E-nose technology in clinical stage I lung cancer. METHODS: This phase IIc trial (NCT04734145) included patients diagnosed with a single greater than or equal to 50% solid stage I nodule. Exhalates were prospectively collected from January 2020 to August 2023. Blinded bioengineers analyzed the exhalates, using E-nose technology to determine the probability of malignancy. Patients were stratified into three risk groups (low-risk, [<0.2]; moderate-risk, [≥0.2-0.7]; high-risk, [≥0.7]). The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of E-nose versus histopathology (accuracy and F1 score). The secondary outcome was the clinical performance of the E-nose versus clinicoradiological prediction models. RESULTS: Based on the predefined cutoff (<0.20), E-nose agreed with histopathologic results in 86% of cases, achieving an F1 score of 92.5%, based on 86 true positives, two false negatives, and 12 false positives (n = 100). E-nose would refer fewer patients with malignant nodules to observation (low-risk: 2 versus 9 and 11, respectively; p = 0.028 and p = 0.011) than would the Swensen and Brock models and more patients with malignant nodules to treatment without biopsy (high-risk: 27 versus 19 and 6, respectively; p = 0.057 and p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of clinical stage I lung cancer, E-nose agrees well with histopathology. Accordingly, E-nose technology can be used in addition to imaging or as part of a "multiomics" platform.

Incidence and management of esophageal cancer recurrence to regional lymph nodes after curative esophagectomy.

Up to 50% of patients treated with curative esophagectomy for esophageal cancer will develop recurrence, contributing to the dismal survival associated with this disease. Regional recurrence may represent disease that is not yet widely metastatic and may therefore be amenable to more-aggressive treatment. We sought to assess all patients treated with curative esophagectomy for esophageal cancer who developed regional recurrence. We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma at a single institution from January 2000 to August 2019. In total, 1626 patients were included in the study cohort. As of June 2022, 595 patients had disease recurrence, which was distant or systemic in 435 patients (27%), regional in 125 (7.7%) and local in 35 (2.2%). On multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant chemoradiation with a total radiation dose <45 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-7.3]; P = .001), pathologic node-positive disease (HR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3-3.0]; P = .003) and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.0-2.5]; P = .049) were predictors of isolated nodal recurrence, whereas increasing age (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]; P = .001) and increasing number of excised lymph nodes (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.95-1.00]; P = .021) were independently associated with decreased risk of regional recurrence. Patients treated with a combination of local and systemic therapies had better survival outcomes than patients treated with systemic therapy alone (P < .001). In patients with recurrence of esophageal cancer limited to regional lymph nodes, salvage treatment may be possible. Higher radiation doses and more-extensive lymphadenectomy may reduce the risk of regional recurrence.

Long-term assessment of efficacy with a novel Thoracic Survivorship Program for patients with lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We developed a novel, nurse practitioner-run Thoracic Survivorship Program to aid in long-term follow-up. Patients with non-small cell lung cancer who were disease-free at least 1 year after resection could be referred to the Thoracic Survivorship Program by their surgeon. Our objectives were to summarize follow-up compliance and assess long-term outcomes between Thoracic Survivorship Program enrollment and non-Thoracic Survivorship Program. METHODS: Patients who underwent R0 resection for stages I to IIIA between 2006 and 2016 were stratified by enrollment in Thoracic Survivorship Program versus surgeon only follow-up (non-Thoracic Survivorship Program). Follow-up included 6-month chest computed tomography scans for 2 years and then annually. Lack of follow-up compliance was defined by 2 or more consecutive delayed annual computed tomography scans/visits ± 90 days. Relationships between Thoracic Survivorship Program and second primary non--small cell lung cancers, extrathoracic cancers, and survival were quantified using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with time-varying covariate reflecting timing of enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 1162 of 3940 patients (29.5%) were enrolled in the Thoracic Survivorship Program. The median time to enrollment was 2.3 years; 3279 of 3940 (83%) had complete computed tomography scan data, and 60 of 3279 (1.8%) had 2 or more delayed scans; 323 of 9082 (3.6%) non-Thoracic Survivorship Program visits were noncompliant versus 132 of 4823 (2.7%) of Thoracic Survivorship Program visits (P = .009); 136 of 1146 Thoracic Survivorship Program patients developed second primary non-small cell lung cancer, and 69 of 1123 developed extrathoracic cancer, whereas 322 of 2794 of non-Thoracic Survivorship Program patients developed second primary non-small cell lung cancer and 225 of 2817 patients developed extrathoracic cancer. In multivariable analyses, Thoracic Survivorship Program enrollment was associated with improved disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.67; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our novel nurse practitioner-run Thoracic Survivorship Program is associated with high patient compliance and outcomes not different from those seen with physician-based follow-up. These results have important implications for health care resource allocation and costs.

External Validation of Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System in Pulmonary Resection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate preoperative risk assessment is necessary for informed decision making for patients and surgeons. Several preoperative risk calculators are available but few have been examined in the general thoracic surgical patient population. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS), a risk-assessment tool applicable to a wide spectrum of surgical procedures, was developed to predict the risks of common adverse postoperative outcomes using a parsimonious set of preoperative input variables. We sought to externally validate the performance of SURPAS for postoperative complications in patients undergoing pulmonary resection. METHODS: Between January 2016 and December 2018, 2514 patients underwent pulmonary resection at our center. Using data from our institution's prospectively maintained database, we calculated the predicted risks of 12 categories of postoperative outcomes using the latest version of SURPAS. Performance of SURPAS against observed patient outcomes was assessed by discrimination (concordance index) and calibration (calibration curves). RESULTS: The discrimination ability of SURPAS was moderate across all outcomes (concordance indices, 0.640 to 0.788). Calibration curves indicated good calibration for all outcomes except infectious and cardiac complications, discharge to a location other than home, and mortality (all overestimated by SURPAS). CONCLUSIONS: SURPAS demonstrates outcomes for pulmonary resections with reasonable predictive ability. Discretion should be applied when assessing risk for postoperative infectious and cardiac complications, discharge to a location other than home, and mortality. Although the parsimonious nature of SURPAS is one of its strengths, its performance might be improved by including additional factors known to influence outcomes after pulmonary resection, such as sex and pulmonary function.

Ongoing Challenges with Clinical Assessment of Nodal Status in T1 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has emerged as an esophageal-preserving treatment for T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC); however, only patients with negligible risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) are eligible. Reliable clinical diagnostic tools for LNM are lacking, as such, several risk assessment scores have been developed. The purpose of this study was to externally validate 2 previously published risk scores (Lee and Weksler) for clinical prediction of LNM in T1 EAC patients. METHODS: In adherence with the Lee and Weksler scores, esophagectomy patients with pathologic T1 EAC were identified. Sub-analysis was performed in patients with clinical T1 based on EMR. Predictive accuracy of the scores was evaluated by calculating the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration plots. The areas under the curves were compared using Venkatraman's test for paired receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Of 233 patients identified who met study criteria for external validation, 3 T1a and 32 T1b patients had LNM. The receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrated comparable high predictive and discriminatory capabilities with areas under the curves of 0.832 and 0.824 for the Lee and Weksler scores, respectively (p = 0.750). Results were more variable for the EMR cohort. Based on the risk thresholds defined by each score, the false-positive rate compared against the pathologic LNM status were 73% and 56% for Lee and Weksler, with 3% false negatives in the latter. On EMR, the false-positive rates were 70% and 50% for Lee and Weksler, with no false negatives. CONCLUSIONS: Both scoring systems demonstrated good discriminatory ability and predictive accuracy for LNM, but the defined thresholds resulted in a high false-positive rate. A better scoring system based on clinical characteristics is needed to better identify patients with local disease.