Understanding Racial Differences in Lung Cancer Surgery Through a Statewide Quality Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Persistent racial disparities in lung cancer incidence, treatment, and survival are well documented. Given the importance of surgical resection for lung cancer treatment, racial disparities in surgical quality were investigated using a statewide quality collaborative. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from the Michigan Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons General Thoracic database, which includes data gathered for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database at 17 institutions in Michigan. Adult patients undergoing resection for lung cancer between 2015 and 2021 were included. Propensity score-weighting methodology was used to assess differences in surgical quality, including extent of resection, adequate lymph node evaluation, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission rate between white and black patients. RESULTS: The cohort included 5073 patients comprising 357 (7%) black and 4716 (93%) white patients. The black patients had significantly higher unadjusted rates of wedge resection than the white patients, but after propensity score-weighting for clinical factors, wedge resection did not differ from lobectomy (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.49; P = 0.67). The black patients had fewer lymph nodes collected (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < 0.0001) and lymph node stations sampled (IRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94; P < 0.0001). The black patients did not differ from the white patients in terms of mortality (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.19-2.34; P = 0.55) or readmission (OR, 0.79; 95 % CI, 0.49-1.27; P = 0.32). The black patients had longer hospital stays (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In a statewide quality collaborative that included high-volume centers, black patients received a less extensive lymph node evaluation, with fewer non-anatomic wedge resections performed, and a more limited lymph node evaluation with lobectomy.

Quality improvement mechanisms to improve lymph node staging for lung cancer: Trends from a statewide database.

OBJECTIVE: Our statewide thoracic quality collaborative has implemented multiple quality improvement initiatives to improve lung cancer nodal staging. We subsequently implemented a value-based reimbursement initiative to further incentivize quality improvement. We compare the impact of these programs to steer future quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: Since 2016, our collaborative focused on improving lymph node staging for lung cancer by leveraging unblinded, hospital-level metrics and collaborative feedback. In 2021, a value-based reimbursement initiative was implemented with statewide yearly benchmark rates for (1) preoperative mediastinal staging for ≥T2N0 lung cancer, and (2) sampling ≥5 lymph node stations. Participating surgeons would receive additional reimbursement if either benchmark was met. We reviewed patients from January 2015 to March 2023 at the 21 participating hospitals to determine the differential effects on quality improvement. RESULTS: We analyzed 6228 patients. In 2015, 212 (39%) patients had ≥5 nodal stations sampled, and 99 (51%) patients had appropriate preoperative mediastinal staging. During 2016 to 2020, this increased to 2253 (62%) patients and 739 (56%) patients, respectively. After 2020, 1602 (77%) patients had ≥5 nodal stations sampled, and 403 (73%) patients had appropriate preoperative mediastinal staging. Interrupted time-series analysis demonstrated significant increases in adequate nodal sampling and mediastinal staging before value-based reimbursement. Afterward, preoperative mediastinal staging rates briefly dropped but significantly increased while nodal sampling did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative quality improvement made significant progress before value-based reimbursement, which reinforces the effectiveness of leveraging unblinded data to a collaborative group of thoracic surgeons. Value-based reimbursement may still play a role within a quality collaborative to maintain infrastructure and incentivize participation.

Short-Term Outcomes of COVID-19 Pandemic on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Screening and Management.

Background To assess the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) screening, staging, and management in a single health care system. Materials and Methods From November 2015 to December 2020, a total of 1,547 NSCLC cases was reported at our institution including 1,329 cases pre-COVID-19 and 218 cases during COVID-19. Pre-COVID-19 was defined as November 2015 to February 2020, while during COVID-19 was March 2020 to December 2020. Data were collected from tumor registry and medical record review. Patients with mesothelioma, lymphoma, small cell, or mixed small cell cancer were excluded from the study. Results Both pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 cohorts had similar comorbidities including age (70 vs. 71 years), current smokers (35 vs. 32%), and chronic obstructive lung disease (32 vs. 28%). The number of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening scans decreased by 25% during COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 era. There were more cases of stage 1A NSCLC pre-COVID-19 (31 vs. 25%) and more stage 4 cancer during COVID-19 (42 vs. 33%); p = 0.01. The proportion of patients treated with radiotherapy was similar between pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 (49 vs. 50%), but fewer patients underwent surgery during COVID-19 (17 vs. 27%; p = 0.004). The median time to radiotherapy (67 days) and surgery (29 days) was similar between the groups. The unadjusted overall 6-month mortality after lung cancer diagnoses was higher during COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 (28 vs. 22%; p = 0.04). Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in delayed lung cancer screening scans, and more patients had diagnosis of advanced NSCLC; however, short-term mortality was unchanged.

Evidence-based opioid prescribing guidelines after lung resection: a prospective, multicenter analysis.

Background: Opioid prescribing guidelines have significantly decreased overprescribing and post-discharge use after cardiac surgery; however, limited recommendations exist for general thoracic surgery patients, a similarly high-risk population. We examined opioid prescribing and patient-reported use to develop evidence-based, opioid prescribing guidelines after lung cancer resection. Methods: This prospective, statewide, quality improvement study was conducted between January 2020 to March 2021 and included patients undergoing surgical resection of a primary lung cancer across 11 institutions. Patient-reported outcomes at 1-month follow-up were linked with clinical data and Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) database records to characterize prescribing patterns and post-discharge use. The primary outcome was quantity of opioid used after discharge; secondary outcomes included quantity of opioid prescribed at discharge and patient-reported pain scores. Opioid quantities are reported in number of 5-mg oxycodone tablets (mean ± standard deviation). Results: Of the 602 patients identified, 429 met inclusion criteria. Questionnaire response rate was 65.0%. At discharge, 83.4% of patients were provided a prescription for opioids of mean size 20.5±13.1 pills, while patients reported using 8.2±13.0 pills after discharge (P<0.001), including 43.7% who used none. Those not taking opioids on the calendar day prior to discharge (32.4%) used fewer pills (4.4±8.1 vs. 11.7±14.9, P<0.001). Refill rate was 21.5% for patients provided a prescription at discharge, while 12.5% of patients not prescribed opioids at discharge required a new prescription before follow-up. Pain scores were 2.4±2.5 for incision site and 3.0±2.8 for overall pain (scale 0-10). Conclusions: Patient-reported post-discharge opioid use, surgical approach, and in-hospital opioid use before discharge should be used to inform prescribing recommendations after lung resection.

The influence of tobacco load versus smoking status on outcomes following lobectomy for lung cancer in a statewide quality collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative quality consortia can facilitate implementation of quality measures arising from clinical databases. Our statewide general thoracic surgery (GTS) collaborative investigated the influences of cigarette smoking status on mortality and major morbidity following lobectomy for lung cancer. METHODS: Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database records were identified from 14 institutions participating in a statewide thoracic surgical quality collaborative between 2012 and 2017. We excluded patients with nonelective procedures, stage 0 tumors, American Society of Anesthesiologists class VI disease, and missing clinical characteristics. Outcomes analysis included the combined mortality and major postoperative morbidity rates and the influence of patient characteristics, including smoking status, on composite rate and on postoperative complications. RESULTS: The study cohort included 2267 patient records for analysis. Overall combined mortality and major morbidity rate was 10.2% (n = 231). Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1.5%, and major morbidity 9.6%. Significant predictors of the combined outcome included male sex (P = .004), body mass index (P < .001), Zubrod score (P = .02), smoking pack-years (P = .03), and thoracotomy (P < .001). Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists disease class and advanced tumor stage were marginally associated with worse combined outcome (P = .06). Smoking status; that is, current, past (no smoking within 30 days), or never smoked, was not associated with worse combined outcome (P = .56) and had no significant influence on major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking status was not associated with worse outcomes; however, smoking dose (pack-years) was associated with worse combined mortality and major morbidity. A statewide quality collaborative provides constructive feedback for participating institutions and surgeons, promoting quality improvement in perioperative patient care strategies and improved outcomes.

Intrapyloric botulinum injection increases postoperative esophagectomy complications.

BACKGROUND: Intrapyloric botulinum toxin injection has emerged as a possible alternative to standard pyloric drainage procedures. Possible advantages include decreased operative time and less postoperative dumping and bile reflux symptoms. However, data are lacking to show its effectiveness versus standard drainage procedures. The purpose of this review is to compare the results in a prospective cohort of patients who received pyloric botulinum injection versus patients who received pyloromyotomy or pyloroplasty with esophagectomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective database of all patients who underwent an open esophageal resection at a single institution from 2005 through 2010. Three hundred twenty-two patients were divided into 3 groups for analysis: botulinum injection (n = 78), pyloromyotomy (n = 45), and pyloroplasty (n = 199). We compared these groups with respect to duration of the procedure, presence of delayed gastric emptying on postoperative swallow studies, requirement of anastomotic dilation, requirement of pyloric dilation, use of postoperative promotility agents, and patient experience of postoperative symptoms of reflux or dumping, or both. RESULTS: Patients receiving botulinum injections experienced similar delayed gastric emptying on postoperative radiologic evaluation as did patients undergoing pyloromyotomy and pyloroplasty (16% versus 5% and 13%, respectively; p = 0.14). Mean operative time was significantly shorter for the patients receiving botulinum as expected (239 minutes versus 312 minutes and 373 minutes, respectively; p < 0.001). However, more patients receiving botulinum and pyloric dilation (22% versus 4% and 2%, respectively; p < 0.001) experienced postoperative reflux symptoms (32% versus 12% and 13%, respectively; p = 0.001) and used postoperative promotility agents (22% versus 5% and 15%, respectively; p = 0.04). There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding postoperative dumping. CONCLUSIONS: Use of intrapyloric botulinum injection significantly decreased operative time. However, the patients receiving botulinum experienced more postoperative reflux symptoms, had increased use of promotility agents as well as a requirement for postoperative endoscopic interventions, and postoperative dumping was not reduced by the reversible procedure. Intrapyloric botulinum injection should not be used as an alternative to standard drainage procedures. Pyloromyotomy appears to be the drainage procedure of choice to accompany an esophagectomy.

Current readings on off-pump coronary artery bypass.

Historically, the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in performing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the "gold standard" in coronary revascularization. However, with greater understanding of the inflammatory effects of CPB and the increased risks of strokes in atherosclerotic or calcified aortas, there has been a growing interest in less-invasive approaches to the standard conventional technique. One such approach is performing coronary revascularization without using CPB, also known as off-pump CABG (OPCAB). Several studies have reported that OPCAB is a safe and effective technique that avoids the significant morbidity associated with the use of CPB, whereas other studies report no overall advantage with the avoidance of CPB in coronary revascularization and a trend toward better outcomes in patients undergoing the conventional on-pump technique. The controversial topic of on-pump vs OPCAB has been the subject of ongoing debate for over a decade. This article reviews current literature and hopefully provides an unbiased guide for assessing the values, benefits, and risks of both the techniques.