Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy before resection to avoid delay for early-stage lung cancer or oligometastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pathologic outcomes from the SABR-BRIDGE protocol.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related operating room closures, some multidisciplinary thoracic oncology teams adopted a paradigm of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a bridge to surgery, an approach called SABR-BRIDGE. This study presents the preliminary surgical and pathological results. METHODS: Eligible participants from four institutions (three in Canada and one in the United States) had early-stage presumed or biopsy-proven lung malignancy that would normally be surgically resected. SABR was delivered using standard institutional guidelines, with surgery >3 months following SABR with standardized pathologic assessment. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of viable cancer. Major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as ≤10% viable tissue. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent SABR. Most common SABR regimens were 34 Gy/1 (29%, n = 21), 48 Gy/3-4 (26%, n = 19), and 50/55 Gy/5 (22%, n = 16). SABR was well-tolerated, with one grade 5 toxicity (death 10 days after SABR with COVID-19) and five grade 2-3 toxicities. Following SABR, 26 patients underwent resection thus far (13 pending surgery). Median time-to-surgery was 4.5 months post-SABR (range, 2-17.5 months). Surgery was reported as being more difficult because of SABR in 38% (n = 10) of cases. Thirteen patients (50%) had pCR and 19 (73%) had MPR. Rates of pCR trended higher in patients operated on at earlier time points (75% if within 3 months, 50% if 3-6 months, and 33% if ≥6 months; p = .069). In the exploratory best-case scenario analysis, pCR rate does not exceed 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The SABR-BRIDGE approach allowed for delivery of treatment during a period of operating room closure and was well-tolerated. Even in the best-case scenario, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Inflammation and Tissue Injury in Patients with Postoperative Respiratory Failure after Lung Resection Surgery: A Nested Case-Control Study.

Thoracic surgeries involving resection of lung tissue pose a risk of severe postoperative pulmonary complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and respiratory failure. Lung resections require one-lung ventilation (OLV) and, thus, are at higher risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) attributable to barotrauma and volutrauma in the one ventilated lung, as well as hypoxemia and reperfusion injury on the operated lung. Further, we also aimed to assess the differences in localized and systemic markers of tissue injury/inflammation in those who developed respiratory failure after lung surgery versus matched controls who did not develop respiratory failure. We aimed to assess the different inflammatory/injury marker patterns induced in the operated and ventilated lung and how this compared to the systemic circulating inflammatory/injury marker pattern. A case-control study nested within a prospective cohort study was performed. Patients with postoperative respiratory failure after lung surgery (n = 5) were matched with control patients (n = 6) who did not develop postoperative respiratory failure. Biospecimens (arterial plasma, bronchoalveolar lavage separately from ventilated and operated lungs) were obtained from patients undergoing lung surgery at two timepoints: (1) just prior to initiation of OLV and (2) after lung resection was completed and OLV stopped. Multiplex electrochemiluminescent immunoassays were performed for these biospecimen. We quantified 50 protein biomarkers of inflammation and tissue injury and identified significant differences between those who did and did not develop postoperative respiratory failure. The three biospecimen types also display unique biomarker patterns.

Disruptive behaviour in the perioperative setting: a contemporary review.

PURPOSE: Disruptive behaviour, which we define as behaviour that does not show others an adequate level of respect and causes victims or witnesses to feel threatened, is a concern in the operating room. This review summarizes the current literature on disruptive behaviour as it applies to the perioperative domain. SOURCE: Searches of MEDLINE®, Scopus™, and Google books identified articles and monographs of interest, with backreferencing used as a supplemental strategy. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Much of the data comes from studies outside the operating room and has significant methodological limitations. Disruptive behaviour has intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational causes. While fewer than 10% of clinicians display disruptive behaviour, up to 98% of clinicians report witnessing disruptive behaviour in the last year, 70% report being treated with incivility, and 36% report being bullied. This type of conduct can have many negative ramifications for clinicians, students, and institutions. Although the evidence regarding patient outcomes is primarily based on clinician perceptions, anecdotes, and expert opinion, this evidence supports the contention of an increase in morbidity and mortality. The plausible mechanism for this increase is social undermining of teamwork, communication, clinical decision-making, and technical performance. The behavioural responses of those who are exposed to such conduct can positively or adversely moderate the consequences of disruptive behaviour. All operating room professions are involved, with the rank order (from high to low) being surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, and "others". The optimal approaches to the prevention and management of disruptive behaviour are uncertain, but they include preventative and professional development courses, training in soft skills and teamwork, institutional efforts to optimize the workplace, clinician contracts outlining the clinician's (and institution's) responsibilities, institutional policies that are monitored and enforced, regular performance feedback, and clinician coaching/remediation as required. CONCLUSIONS: Disruptive behaviour remains a part of operating room culture, with many associated deleterious effects. There is a widely accepted view that disruptive behaviour can lead to increased patient morbidity and mortality. This is mechanistically plausible, but more rigorous studies are required to confirm the effects and estimate their magnitude. An important measure that individual clinicians can take is to monitor and control their own behaviour, including their responses to disruptive behaviour.