Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy confers survival advantage for patients undergoing sleeve lobectomy.

OBJECTIVES: It has been demonstrated that neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) plus chemotherapy was safe and feasible referred to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing sleeve lobectomy. Nevertheless, no survival data were reported in the previous researches. Therefore, we conducted this study to compare neoadjuvant ICI plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by sleeve lobectomy for long-term survival outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent bronchial sleeve lobectomy following neoadjuvant ICI plus chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy were retrospectively identified. Treatment response, perioperative outcomes, event-free survival and overall survival were compared between groups in the overall and the inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted cohort. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients with 39 lung cancer recurrence and 21 death were included. Among them, 83 (59.7%) and 56 (40.3%) patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant ICI plus chemotherapy, respectively. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, more patients achieved complete pathological response in the neoadjuvant ICI plus chemotherapy group (6.0% vs 26.3%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference regarding overall postoperative complication (23.8% vs 20.2%, P = 0.624) and specific complications (all P > 0.05). Patients receiving neoadjuvant ICI plus chemotherapy had favourable event-free survival (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.85, P = 0.020) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.80, P = 0.021). Multivariable analysis revealed that neoadjuvant ICI plus chemotherapy was an independent predictor for favourable event-free survival (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.86, P = 0.020, adjusted for clinical TNM stage). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant ICI plus chemotherapy was correlated with favourable long-term survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing sleeve lobectomy.

Bronchial sleeve resections.

Although bronchial sleeve resections were previously defined as an alternative technique to pneumonectomy for patients with limited pulmonary reserve, currently these resections are applied as a standard even in patients having normal pulmonary capacity. Pneumonectomy, itself, is a disease, and sleeve lobectomies can be performed without compromising oncological principles and without causing significant morbidity and mortality. In parallel with the developments in surgical techniques, bronchial sleeve resections can be performed by videothoracoscopic and robotic surgeries. Major complications in sleeve lobectomies are bronchial dehiscence, bronchopleural fistulas, and broncho-arterial fistulas. Late complications are bronchial stenosis and tumor recurrence.

Comparison of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic versus thoracotomy bronchial sleeve lobectomy with pulmonary arterioplasty for centrally located non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of bronchial sleeve lobectomy with pulmonary arterioplasty by uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (UniVATS) in centrally located non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: One hundred and two thoracotomy and 31 UniVATS cases were included in this retrospective, single-centre study. Baseline characteristics, perioperative performance and survival outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Compared with the thoracotomy group, the UniVATS group was associated with lower postoperative blood transfusion rate (P = 0.043), decreased postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.008), shorter drainage duration (P = 0.003) and less drainage volume during the first postoperative 24 h (P = 0.005). Besides, the 3-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival were comparable between the 2 groups (log-rank, P = 0.81 and P = 0.78, respectively). In addition, squamous cell carcinoma was proved to be the independent favourable predictor for overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.80; P = 0.008], and advanced pathological stage was found to be independently associated with worse overall survival (IIIB stage: HR 3.21, 95% CI 1.13-9.12; P = 0.028) and recurrence-free survival (IIIB stage: HR 3.54, 95% CI 1.32-9.51; P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate patient selection, UniVATS sleeve lobectomy with pulmonary arterioplasty is feasible and safe for centrally located lung cancer in the hands of thoracic surgeons with extensive thoracoscopy experience.

Combined sleeve lobectomy for centrally located primary lung cancer and lung cancer with hilar lymph node metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Centrally located lung cancer or metastatic hilar lymph nodes can invade the airway and other hilar structures, and they must be removed to achieve complete resection. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the clinical course of 47 patients with centrally located lung cancer or metastatic hilar lymph nodes who underwent sleeve lobectomy from January 2010 to December 2017. RESULTS: The invaded structure other than the airway was the pulmonary artery in 21 patients, chest wall in 3, esophageal muscular wall in 2, vagus nerve in 2, pericardium in 2, left atrium in 1, phrenic nerve in 1 and superior vena cava in 1. Twenty-four patients were treated with sleeve lobectomy alone (simple sleeve lobectomy), and 23 patients were treated with sleeve lobectomy with additional methods (combined sleeve lobectomy). Adverse events occurred in 10 patients (48%) in the simple sleeve lobectomy group and 7 patients (30%) in the combined sleeve lobectomy group. During the follow-up period, 15 patients developed recurrent disease and 12 patients died. Patients in the combined sleeve lobectomy group had significantly shorter overall survival (P = 0.004) and disease-free survival periods (P = 0.013). Combined sleeve lobectomy was a significantly poor prognostic factor in the univariate and multivariate analyses. Patients who underwent sleeve lobectomy with an additional method other than angioplasty had a significantly poorer prognosis. However, no patient developed recurrent disease in the hilar area. CONCLUSIONS: Combined sleeve lobectomy has acceptable adverse events and good local controllability. However, combined sleeve lobectomy is associated with a significantly poorer prognosis than simple sleeve lobectomy in terms of overall survival and disease-free survival.