Defining Pathologic Upstaging in cT1b Esophageal Cancer: Should We Consider Neoadjuvant Therapy?

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NCRT) for cT1b esophageal cancer is not recommended despite the risk of pathologic upstaging with increased depth of penetration. We aimed to (1) define the rate of and factors associated with pathologic upstaging, (2) describe current trends in treatments, and (3) compare overall survival (OS) with and without NCRT for surgically resected cT1b lesions. METHODS: We used the 2020 National Cancer Database to identify patients with cT1b N0 esophageal cancer with or without pathologic upstaging who underwent removal of their tumor. We built multivariable logistic regression models to assess factors associated with pathologic upstaging. Survival was compared using log-rank analysis and modeled using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regressions. RESULTS: Out of 1106 patients with cT1b esophageal cancer, 17.3% (N = 191) had pathologic upstaging. A higher tumor grade (P = 0.002), greater tumor size (P < 0.001), and presence of lympho-vascular invasion (P < 0.001) were associated with pathologic upstaging. 8.0% (N = 114) of patients were treated with NCRT. Five-y OS was 49.4% for patients who received NCRT compared to 67.2% for upfront esophagectomy (P < 0.05). Pathologic upstaging was associated with decreased OS (pathologic upstaging 43.7% versus no pathologic upstaging 67.7%) (hazard ratio 2.12 [95% confidence interval, 1.70-2.65; P < 0.001]). Compared to esophagectomy, endoscopic local tumor excision was associated with a decreased OS (hazard ratio 1.50 [95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.89; P = 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic upstaging of cT1b lesions is associated with decreased OS. Esophagectomy is associated with a survival benefit over endoscopic local tumor excision for these lesions. NCRT is not associated with an increase in OS in cT1b lesions compared to upfront esophagectomy.

Developing an Educational and Decision Support Tool for Stage I Lung Cancer Using Decision Science.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making about treatment options for high-risk, operable stage I lung cancer. Patient decision aids can facilitate shared decision-making; however, their development, implementation, and evaluation in routine clinical practice presents numerous challenges and opportunities. METHODS: The purpose of this review is to reflect on the process of tool development; identify the challenges associated with meeting the needs of patients, clinicians from multiple disciplines, and institutional workflow during implementation; and propose recommendations for future clinicians who wish to develop, refine, or implement similar tools into routine care. RESULTS: In this review, we: (1) discuss guidelines for decision aid development; (2) describe how we applied those to create an education and decision support tool for patients with clinical stage I lung cancer deciding between radiation therapy and surgical resection; and (3) highlight challenges in implementing and evaluating the tool. CONCLUSIONS: We provide recommendations for those seeking to develop, refine, or implement similar tools into routine care.

Association between lung cancer screening and smoking cessation.

INTRODUCTION: Adults with high-risk smoking histories benefit from annual lung cancer screening. It is unclear if there is an association between lung cancer screening and smoking cessation among U.S. adults who receive screening. METHODS: We performed this population-based cross-sectional study using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2017-2020). We defined individuals eligible for lung cancer screening as adults 55-80 years old with ≥ 30 pack-year smoking history who were currently smoking or quit within the last 15 years. We assessed the association between lung cancer screening and current smoking status. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 12,382 participants met screening criteria. Current smoking was reported by 5685 (45.9 %) participants, of whom 40.4 % (2298) reported a cessation attempt in the prior year. Lung cancer screening was reported by only 2022 (16.3 %) eligible participants. Lung cancer screening was associated with lower likelihood of currently smoking (odds ratio [OR] 0.705, 95 % CI 0.626-0.793) compared to individuals who did not receive screening. Screening was also associated with higher likelihood of reporting a cessation attempt in the prior year (OR 1.562, 95 % CI 1.345-1.815) compared to individuals who did not receive screening. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of lung cancer screening was associated with lower smoking rates and more frequent cessation attempts among U.S. adults. Better implementation of lung cancer screening programs is critical and may profoundly increase smoking cessation in this population at risk of developing lung cancer.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes after non-small cell lung cancer resection.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical tools for evaluating patients before and after lung cancer resection. In this study, we assessed patient-reported pain, dyspnea, and functional status up to 1 year postoperatively. METHODS: This study included patients who underwent surgery for non-small cell lung cancer at a single institution (2017-2020). We collected PROs using the National Institutes of Health Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Data were prospectively collected and merged with our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons data. Using multivariable linear mixed effect models, we compared PROMIS scores for preoperative and several postoperative visits. RESULTS: From 2017 until 2020, 334 patients underwent lung cancer resection with completed PROMIS assessments. Pain interference, physical function, and dyspnea severity scores were worse 1 month after surgery (P < .001). Pain interference and physical function scores returned to baseline by 6 months after surgery. However, dyspnea severity scores remained persistently worse up to 1 year after surgery (1-month difference, 8.8 ± 1.9; 6-month difference, 3.6 ± 2.2; 1-year difference, 4.9 ± 2.8; P < .001). Patients who received a thoracotomy had worse physical function and pain interference scores 1 month after surgery compared with patients who received a minimally invasive operation; however, there were no differences in PROs by 6 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: PROs are important metrics for assessing patients before and after lung cancer resection. Patients may report persistent dyspnea up to 1 year after resection. Additionally, patients undergoing thoracotomy initially report worse pain and physical function but these impairments improve by 6 months after surgery.

Pilot Study of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Esophageal Cancer After Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical measures of patient well-being after esophagectomy. In this pilot study, we assessed PROs before and after esophagectomy using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to assess patient recovery after surgery. METHODS: We prospectively collected PROMIS dyspnea severity, physical function, and pain interference measures from patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy (2017-2020). We merged these data with our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgery esophagectomy database. We used linear mixed-effect multivariable models to assess changes in PROMIS scores (least square mean [LSM] differences) preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 and 6 months. RESULTS: The study included 112 patients undergoing esophagectomy. Pain interference, physical function, and dyspnea severity scores were significantly worse 1 month after surgery. While physical function and dyspnea severity scores returned to baseline 6 months after surgery, pain interference scores remained persistently worse (LSM difference, 2.7 ± 2.5; P = .036). PROMIS scores were further assessed among patients undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy compared with transthoracic esophagectomy. Physical function and dyspnea severity scores were similar between the groups at each assessment. However, pain interference scores were persistently better among patients undergoing THE at both 1 month (LSM difference, 6.5 ± 5.1; P = .013) and 6 months after surgery (LSM difference, 5.2 ± 3.9; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study assessing PROMIS scores after esophagectomy for cancer reveals that pain is a persistently reported symptom up to 6 months after surgery, particularly among patients receiving transthoracic esophagectomy.

Prevalence of cigarette and e-cigarette use among U.S. adults eligible for lung cancer screening based on updated USPSTF guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventative Services Taskforce recently updated lung cancer screening guidelines for U.S. adults with high-risk smoking histories. This has generated a previously undescribed patient population in which the prevalence of cigarette and e-cigarette use has not been described. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using population-based data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2017-2018). We defined lung cancer screening eligibility as adults 50-80 years old with ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history who were currently smoking or quit within the last 15 years. We assessed several smoking-related outcomes including current cigarette use, ever e-cigarette use, and current e-cigarette use among respondents. RESULTS: Among 7541 screening-eligible adults, current cigarette use was reported by 3604 (47.8%) participants. Ever and current e-cigarette use were reported by 3003 (39.8%) and 670 (8.9%) participants, respectively. Compared to individuals who were previously eligible for screening, individuals newly eligible for screening (i.e., between 50 and 55 years old with a 20-30 pack-year smoking history) were more likely to currently smoke (aOR 1.828, 95% CI 1.649-2.026, p < 0.001). While newly eligible respondents were more likely to report a history of ever using an e-cigarette (aOR 1.144, 95% CI 1.034-1.266, p = 0.009), current e-cigarette use was similar in this group compared to those individuals who were previously screening-eligible (aOR 1.014, 95% CI 0.844-1.219, p = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette and e-cigarette exposure are common among U.S. adults who are eligible for lung cancer screening. Expanded USPSTF criteria will capture a patient population with greater exposure to both of these products.

Analysis of Delayed Surgical Treatment and Oncologic Outcomes in Clinical Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: The association between delayed surgical treatment and oncologic outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poorly understood given that prior studies have used imprecise definitions for the date of cancer diagnosis. Objective: To use a uniform method to quantify surgical treatment delay and to examine its association with several oncologic outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using a novel data set from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system. Included patients had clinical stage I NSCLC and were undergoing resection from 2006 to 2016 within the VHA system. Time to surgical treatment (TTS) was defined as the time between preoperative diagnostic computed tomography imaging and surgical treatment. We evaluated the association between TTS and several delay-associated outcomes using restricted cubic spline functions. Data analyses were performed in November 2021. Exposure: Wait time between cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment (ie, TTS). Main Outcomes and Measures: Several delay-associated oncologic outcomes, including pathologic upstaging, resection with positive margins, and recurrence, were assessed. We also assessed overall survival. Results: Among 9904 patients who underwent surgical treatment for clinical stage I NSCLC, 9539 (96.3%) were men, 4972 individuals (50.5%) were currently smoking, and the mean (SD) age was 67.7 (7.9) years. The mean (SD) TTS was 70.1 (38.6) days. TTS was not associated with increased risk of pathologic upstaging or positive margins. Recurrence was detected in 4158 patients (42.0%) with median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6.15 (2.51-11.51) years. Factors associated with increased risk of recurrence included younger age (hazard ratio [HR] for every 1-year increase in age, 0.992; 95% CI, 0.987-0.997; P = .003), higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (HR for every 1-unit increase in composite score, 1.055; 95% CI, 1.037-1.073; P < .001), segmentectomy (HR vs lobectomy, 1.352; 95% CI, 1.179-1.551; P < .001) or wedge resection (HR vs lobectomy, 1.282; 95% CI, 1.179-1.394; P < .001), larger tumor size (eg, 31-40 mm vs <10 mm; HR, 1.209; 95% CI, 1.051-1.390; P = .008), higher tumor grade (eg, II vs I; HR, 1.210; 95% CI, 1.085-1.349; P < .001), lower number of lymph nodes examined (eg, ≥10 vs <10; HR, 0.866; 95% CI, 0.803-0.933; P < .001), higher pathologic stage (III vs I; HR, 1.571; 95% CI, 1.351-1.837; P < .001), and longer TTS, with increasing risk after 12 weeks. For each week of surgical delay beyond 12 weeks, the hazard for recurrence increased by 0.4% (HR, 1.004; 95% CI, 1.001-1.006; P = .002). Factors associated with delayed surgical treatment included African American race (odds ratio [OR] vs White race, 1.267; 95% CI, 1.112-1.444; P < .001), higher area deprivation index [ADI] score (OR for every 1 unit increase in ADI score, 1.005; 95% CI, 1.002-1.007; P = .002), lower hospital case load (OR for every 1-unit increase in case load, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.998-0.999; P = .001), and year of diagnosis, with less recent procedures more likely to have delay (OR for each additional year, 0.900; 95% CI, 0.884-0.915; P < .001). Patients with surgical treatment within 12 weeks of diagnosis had significantly better overall survival than those with procedures delayed more than 12 weeks (HR, 1.132; 95% CI, 1.064-1.204; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Using a more precise definition for TTS, this study found that surgical procedures delayed more than 12 weeks were associated with increased risk of recurrence and worse survival. These findings suggest that patients with clinical stage I NSCLC should undergo expeditious treatment within that time frame.

Challenges in Predicting Discharge Disposition for Trauma and Emergency General Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: Changes in discharge disposition and delays in discharge negatively impact the patient and hospital system. Our objectives were1 to determine the accuracy with which trauma and emergency general surgery (TEGS) providers could predict the discharge disposition for patients and2 determine the factors associated with incorrect predictions. METHODS: Discharge dispositions and barriers to discharge for 200 TEGS patients were predicted individually by members of the multidisciplinary TEGS team within 24 h of patient admission. Univariate analyses and multivariable logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regressions determined the associations between patient characteristics and correct predictions. RESULTS: A total of 1,498 predictions of discharge disposition were made by the multidisciplinary TEGS team for 200 TEGS patients. Providers correctly predicted 74% of discharge dispositions. Prediction accuracy was not associated with clinical experience or job title. Incorrect predictions were independently associated with older age (OR 0.98; P < 0.001), trauma admission as compared to emergency general surgery (OR 0.33; P < 0.001), higher Injury Severity Scores (OR 0.96; P < 0.001), longer lengths of stay (OR 0.90; P < 0.001), frailty (OR 0.43; P = 0.001), ICU admission (OR 0.54; P < 0.001), and higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (OR 0.94; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The TEGS team can accurately predict the majority of discharge dispositions. Patients with risk factors for unpredictable dispositions should be flagged to better allocate appropriate resources and more intensively plan their discharges.

Travel distance and overall survival in hepatocellular cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess the relationship between overall survival (OS) and distance travelled to the treating facility for patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma and to determine whether this relationship was dependent upon the structural factors of the treating facility. METHODS: Using National Cancer Database, we focused on extremes of travel: Local (<12.5 miles to treating facility) and Travel (≥50 miles). We analyzed OS with Cox models; we estimated stratified models to assess interaction between distance and facility characteristics (volume, academic status). RESULTS: We included 6860 patients. After correction for confounding, distance travelled was not associated with OS (p = 0.444). However, Travel patients treated at high-volume, academic centers had worse OS compared to Local patients (HR 1.54, 95%CI 1.07-2.21); this association was not seen for patients treated at low volume, academic centers (p = 0.708) high volume non-academic centers (p = 0.174) or low volume non-academic centers (p = 515). CONCLUSION: For those patients treated at high-volume, academic centers, living far from the facility was associated with worse OS. The reasons for this association should be investigated further.

Travel distance and its interaction with patient and hospital factors in pancreas cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Although volume-outcome literature supports regionalization for complex procedures, travel may be burdensome. We assessed the relationship between overall survival and travel distance for patients undergoing pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We analyzed the Fall 2018 National Cancer Database Public Use File. We defined distance traveled as a categorical variable (<12.5 miles, 12.5-50mi, and >50mi). We analyzed overall survival (OS) as a function of distance traveled using the log rank test and Cox proportional hazards models; we estimated stratified models to assess for interaction between distance and other relevant covariates. RESULTS: In adjusted analysis of 39,089 patients, greater distance was associated with decreased OS (p = 0.0029). We found interactions between distance and center type, comorbidities, and age. Distance traveled was a negative factor for patients treated at low-volume academic centers (but not high-volume academic or non-academic centers). Additionally, distance traveled was a negative factor for OS in young, healthy patients but not geriatric, ill patients. CONCLUSION: Traveling more than 12.5 miles for pancreatic resection was associated with worse OS. Prior to regionalization, evaluation of local resources may be necessary.