Early vs Delayed Surgery for Esophageal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, national guidelines recommended that elective surgery for esophageal cancer be deferred by 3 months when hospital resources are limited. The impact of this delay on patient outcomes is unknown. We sought to evaluate the survival of patients with stage I and II/III esophageal cancer who undergo early vs delayed treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Using the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2017, multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score-matched analysis were employed to compare survival of patients with stage I esophageal cancer who received early (0 to 4 weeks after diagnosis) vs delayed esophagectomy (12 to 16 weeks) and of patients with stage II/III esophageal cancer who-after receiving timely chemoradiation (0 to 4 weeks after diagnosis)-underwent early (9 to 17 weeks) vs delayed esophagectomy (21 to 29 weeks). RESULTS: For stage I esophageal cancer, 226 (41.7%) patients underwent early esophagectomy, and 316 (58.3%) patients underwent delayed esophagectomy. Propensity score matching created 2 groups of 134 patients with early or delayed esophagectomy, whose 5-year survival was comparable (hazard ratio [HR] 65.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 55.2% to 73.2%] vs HR 65.1% [95% CI 55.6% to 73.1%], p = 0.50). For stage II/III esophageal cancer, 1,236 (86.1%) patients underwent early esophagectomy, and 200 (13.9%) underwent delayed esophagectomy. Propensity score matching created 2 groups of 130 patients; the early esophagectomy group had improved 5-year survival compared with the delayed esophagectomy group (HR 41.6% [95% CI 32.1% to 50.8%] vs HR 22.9% [95% CI 14.9% to 31.8%], p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Early esophagectomy was associated with similar survival compared with delayed esophagectomy for patients with stage I esophageal cancer. For patients with stage II/III esophageal cancer, early esophagectomy was associated with improved survival relative to delayed esophagectomy.

Extended Delay to Treatment for Stage III-IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Survival: Balancing Risks During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients may encounter lung cancer care delays. Here, we sought to examine the impact of extended treatment delay for stage III-IV non-small-cell lung cancer on patient survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) data, Cox regression analysis with penalized smoothing splines was performed to examine the association between treatment delay and all-cause mortality for stage III-IV lung adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. In the NCDB, propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare cumulative survival in patients who received "early" versus "delayed" treatment (ie, 0-30 vs. 90-120 days following diagnosis). RESULTS: Cox regression analysis of the NLST (n = 392) and NCDB (n = 275,198) cohorts showed a decrease in hazard ratio the longer treatment was delayed. In propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in survival were found between early and delayed treatment for patients with stage IIIA, IIIB (T3-4,N2,M0), IIIC, and IV (M1B-C) adenocarcinoma and patients with IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IV squamous cell carcinoma (all log-rank P > .05). For patients with stage IIIB (T1-2,N3,M0) and stage IV (M1A) adenocarcinoma, delayed treatment was associated with improved survival (log-rank P = .03, P = .02). The findings were consistent in sensitivity analysis accounting for wait time bias. CONCLUSION: In this national analysis, for patients with stage III-IV adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, an extended treatment delay by 3 to 4 months was not associated with significantly decreased overall survival compared to prompt treatment. These findings can be used to guide decision-making during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Overcoming congressional inertia on obesity requires better literacy in obesity science.

Obesity-focused health policies, including the landmark Treat and Reduce Obesity Act, have stalled at the federal level over the past decade. Congressional inaction on obesity reflects both misconceptions of obesity as a lifestyle choice and limited awareness for the burden obesity imposes on our health care system. Given these challenges, we argue that health professionals must bolster their efforts to partner with public figures with obesity and to directly educate the public. These strategies may help destigmatize obesity and build awareness of obesity as a disease. Furthermore, we suggest that these strategies may empower patients to flex their unrealized political muscle and demand more from their elected leaders. A bold, multilevel approach that elicits a public demand for change can propel obesity policy into the 21st century.

Randomized clinical trials of weight loss: Pragmatic and digital strategies and innovations.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital strategies and decentralized approaches allowed for the continuation of weight loss clinical trials despite in-person engagement coming to a halt. In particular, trials leveraged remote mediums to measure data in real-time across a broad array of metrics while testing novel strategies to streamline patient care. Such approaches may address longstanding challenges with traditional trials, including attrition and underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities. Ultimately, emerging data from trials utilizing both digital and in-person strategies may indicate the promise of a hybrid approach in incorporating a robust virtual component for continuous patient monitoring and an in-person component for patient adherence and data standardization. In this commentary, we provide an overview of the most innovative digital approaches in clinical trials of weight loss during the COVID-19 era, as well as identify opportunities and challenges for these modes of research going forward.