RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend surgery for limited stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, there is no literature on minimum acceptable lymph node retrieval in surgery for SCLC. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients undergoing lobectomy for limited stage (cT1-2N0M0) SCLC from 2004 to 2015. Patients with unknown survival, staging, or nodal assessment, and patients who received neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. The number of lymph nodes assessed was studied both as a continuous variable and as a categoric variable stratified into distribution quartiles. The primary outcome was overall survival and the secondary outcome was pathologic nodal upstaging. RESULTS: A total of 1051 patients met study criteria. In multivariable analysis, only a retrieval of eight to 12 nodes was associated with a significant survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.98). However, when modeled as a continuous variable, there was no association between number of nodes assessed and survival (hazard ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.02). The overall rate of pathologic nodal upstaging was 19%. Modeled as a continuous variable, more than seven lymph nodes assessed at time of resection was significantly associated with nodal upstaging in multivariable regression (odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was no clear difference in survival based on increasing the number of lymph nodes assessed during lobectomy for limited stage SCLC. However, the number of retrieved lymph nodes was associated with pathologic nodal upstaging. Therefore, patients may benefit from retrieval of more than seven lymph nodes during lobectomy for SCLC.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Pulmonares/patologia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirurgia , Excisão de Linfonodo , Pneumonectomia , Carcinoma de Pequenas Células do Pulmão/patologia , Carcinoma de Pequenas Células do Pulmão/cirurgia , Idoso , Bases de Dados Factuais , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidade , Linfonodos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Estudos Retrospectivos , Carcinoma de Pequenas Células do Pulmão/mortalidade , Taxa de Sobrevida , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend consideration of surgery for clinical T4a esophageal adenocarcinoma. There are limited data on the outcomes of patients with T4a adenocarcinoma treated with surgery vs definitive chemoradiation, however. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients from 2010-2015 with clinical T4aN0-3M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma, and grouped by receipt of surgery (with or without perioperative therapy) or definitive, concurrent chemoradiation. Patients receiving incomplete definitive therapy or with missing survival information were excluded. Overall survival was evaluated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analyses. RESULTS: Of 182 patients in the study, 85 (47%) underwent esophagectomy and 97 (53%) underwent chemoradiation. In the surgery cohort, 79 patients (93%) received perioperative chemotherapy. Unadjusted and multivariable analyses demonstrated a significant survival benefit associated with surgery compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio 0.32; 95% confidence interval 0.21, 0.50). A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis of 63 patient pairs also revealed a significant overall survival benefit with surgery compared with chemoradiotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.26; 95% confidence interval 0.16, 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: In this national analysis, surgery for cT4a esophageal adenocarcinoma was associated with improved outcomes when compared with definitive chemoradiation. Surgery should be considered for medically fit patients with cT4aN0-3M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma/terapia , Neoplasias Esofágicas/terapia , Esofagectomia/métodos , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Vigilância da População , Adenocarcinoma/diagnóstico , Adenocarcinoma/mortalidade , Idoso , Quimiorradioterapia , Neoplasias Esofágicas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Esofágicas/mortalidade , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Terapia Neoadjuvante , Prognóstico , Porto Rico/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Taxa de Sobrevida/tendências , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are rare, histologically heterogeneous, and anatomically complex tumors. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend evaluation and management by multidisciplinary teams with experience in sarcoma. Our aim was to determine an appropriate hospital volume threshold for the treatment of RPS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of RPS were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (1998-2012). Multivariable modeling with restricted cubic splines was employed to examine the association between hospital volume and survival and identify possible hospital volume threshold. RESULTS: The study included 5,340 patients who underwent surgery at 909 different hospitals. Median annual volume was two cases per year. After adjustment, hospital volume was associated with improved survival (p=0.01), without cutoff. The cohort was then grouped into: Low-volume (≤5 cases/year), intermediate-volume (6-10 cases/year), and high-volume (>10 cases/year). The majority of patients were treated in low-volume hospitals (86%), compared to 9% in intermediate- and 5% in high-volume centers; 44% of patients were treated in hospitals that performed one case per year. Compared to low-volume, high-volume hospitals more often had patients with high-grade and larger tumors. Adjusted 90-day mortality was significantly lower in high- vs. low-volume hospitals (odds ratio(OR)=0.25, p=0.02). With adjustment, treatment in high- vs. low-volume hospitals was associated with lower odds of margin positivity (OR=0.58, p=0.001), and improved overall survival (hazard ratio(HR)=0.61, p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Treatment of RPS in high-volume centers is associated with significant reduction in short-term mortality and improved long-term survival. Hospital volume may be a surrogate for the infrastructure and support necessary for the optimal management of these complex malignancies.