Outcomes after sublobar resection versus lobectomy in non-small cell carcinoma in situ.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer identify patients with tumors ≤2 cm and pure carcinoma in situ histology as candidates for sublobar resection. Although the merits of lobectomy, sublobar resection, and lymphoid (LN) sampling, have been investigated in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, evaluation of these modalities in patients with IS disease can provide meaningful clinical information. This study aims to compare these operations and their relationship with regional LN sampling in this population. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer clinical Tis N0 M0 with a tumor size ≤2 cm from 2004 to 2017. The χ2 tests were used to examine subgroup differences by type of surgery. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model were used to compare overall survival. RESULTS: Of 707 patients, 56.7% (401 out of 707) underwent sublobar resection and 43.3% (306 out of 707) underwent lobectomy. There was no difference in 5-year overall survival in the sublobar resection group (85.1%) compared with the lobectomy group (88.9%; P = .341). Multivariable survival analyses showed no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.044; P = .885) in the treatment groups. LN sampling was performed in 50.9% of patients treated with sublobar resection. In this group, LN sampling was not associated with improved survival (84.9% vs 85.0%; P = .741). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no difference in overall survival between sublobar resection and lobectomy in patients with cTis N0 M0 non-small cell lung cancer with tumors ≤2 cm. Sublobar resection may be an appropriate surgical option for this population. LN sampling was not associated with improved survival in patients treated with sublobar resection.

Esophagogastric Junction Outflow Obstruction and Hiatal Hernia: Is Hernia Repair Alone Sufficient?

Introduction: Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) is attributed to primary/idiopathic causes or secondary/mechanical causes, including hiatal hernias (HH). While patients with HH and EGJOO (HH+EGJOO) may undergo HH repair without myotomy, it is unclear if an underlying motility disorder is missed by therapy which addresses only the secondary EGJOO cause. The goal of this study was to determine if HH repair alone is sufficient management for HH+EGJOO patients. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent HH repair between January 1, 2016 and January 31, 2020 was performed. Patients who underwent high-resolution esophageal manometry(HREM) within one year before HH repair were included. Patients with and without EGJOO on pre-operative HREM were compared. Results: Sixty-three patients were identified. Pre-operative HREM findings included: 43 (68.3%) normal, 13 (20.6%) EGJOO, 4 (6.3%) minor disorder or peristalsis, 2 (3.2%) achalasia, and 1 (1.6%) major disorder of peristalsis. No differences between patients with EGJOO or normal findings on pre-operative manometry were found in pre-operative demographics/risk factors, pre-operative symptoms, and pre-operative HREM, except higher integrated relaxation pressure in EGJOO patients. No differences were noted in length of stay, 30-day complications, long-term persistent symptoms, or recurrence with mean follow-up of 26-months. Of the 3 (23.1%) EGJOO patients with persistent symptoms, 2 underwent HREM demonstrating persistent EGJOO and none required endoscopic/surgical myotomy. Conclusion: Most HH+EGJOO patients experienced symptom resolution following HH repair alone and none required additional intervention to address a missed primary motility disorder. Further study is required to determine optimal management of patients with persistent EGJOO following HH repair.