Barriers to Completing Low Dose Computed Tomography Scan for Lung Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals by detecting the disease at an earlier stage. This study aims to assess the barriers to completing LDCT in a cohort of patients who were determined eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS). METHODS: We performed a single institution, mixed methods, cross-sectional study of patients who had a LDCT ordered from July to December 2022. We then completed phone surveys with patients who did not complete LDCT to assess knowledge, attitude, and perceptions toward LCS. RESULTS: We identified 380 patients who met inclusion criteria, including 331 (87%) who completed LDCT and 49 (13%) who did not. Patients who completed a LDCT and those who did not were similar regarding age, sex, race, primary language, household income, body mass index, median pack years, and quit time. Positive predictors of LDCT completion were: meeting USPSTF guidelines (97.9% vs 81.6%), being married (58.3% vs 44.9%), former versus current smokers (55% vs 41.7%), personal history of emphysema (60.4% vs 42.9%), and family history of lung cancer (13.9% vs 4.1%) (all P < .05). Of the patients who participated in the phone survey, only 7% of respondents thought they were high risk for developing lung cancer despite attending a shared decision-making visit and only 10% wanted to re-schedule their LDCT. CONCLUSION: There exist barriers to completing LDCT even after patients are identified as eligible and complete a shared decision-making visit secondary to knowledge barriers, misperceptions, and patient disinterest.

What is an Adequate Margin During Sublobar Resection of ≤3cm N0 Subsolid Lung Adenocarcinomas?

BACKGROUND: Sublobar resection offers non-inferior survival vs. lobectomy for ≤2cm NSCLC and is commonly employed for subsolid tumors. While data exists for solid tumors, the minimum adequate margin of resection for subsolid adenocarcinomas remains unclear. METHODS: Retrospective review of 1101 adenocarcinoma resections at our institution, 2006-2022. INCLUSION CRITERIA: tumors≤3cm with ≥10% radiographic ground glass, excised by sublobar resection. EXCLUSIONS: positive nodes, positive or unreported margin. The primary outcome was rate of local recurrence(LR) at multiple thresholds of margin distance. Relationship between margin distance and solid-component size was also explored. RESULTS: 194 patients met inclusion criteria. Median(IQR) tumor diameter and margin distance were 12(9-17)mm and 10(5-17)mm, respectively. Median follow-up was 42.5 months. There was a progressive increase in LR with diminishing margin (0.1cm decrements) from 1.5cm to 0.5cm. The difference in the rate of LR between "over"(n=143) and "under"(n=51) was most significant at 0.5cm [8/51(15.7%) vs. 6/143(4.2%),p=0.01] but did not reach α adjusted for multiple comparisons. On Cox regression for LR-free survival (LRFS), margin ≤0.5cm(p=0.19) and %solid component (p=0.14) trended to significance. Combining these using margin-distance-to-solid-component-size ratio, a ratio≤1 did show a significantly higher rate of local recurrence [7(14.3%) vs. 2(2.0%),p=0.009]. Treatment of local recurrences provided at least intermediate-term survival in 87% of recurrences (median post-recurrence follow-up 44 months). CONCLUSIONS: During sublobar resection of subsolid lung adenocarcinomas, margin-to-solid-component-size ratio>1.0 appears to be a more reliable factor than margin distance alone to minimize local recurrence. Local recurrence, however, may not impact survival in patients with subsolid adenocarcinomas if timely treatment is administered.

Randomized controlled trials in lung cancer surgery: How are we doing?

Objective: Randomized control trials are considered the highest level of evidence, yet the scalability and practicality of implementing randomized control trials in the thoracic surgical oncology space are not well described. The aim of this study is to understand what types of randomized control trials have been conducted in thoracic surgical oncology and ascertain their success rate in completing them as originally planned. Methods: The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in April 2023 to identify registered randomized control trials performed in patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery (by any technique) as part of their treatment. Results: There were 68 eligible randomized control trials; 33 (48.5%) were intended to examine different perioperative patient management strategies (eg, analgesia, ventilation, drainage) or to examine different intraoperative technical aspects (eg, stapling, number of ports, port placement, ligation). The number of randomized control trials was relatively stable over time until a large increase in randomized control trials starting in 2016. Forty-four of the randomized control trials (64.7%) were open-label studies, 43 (63.2%) were conducted in a single facility, 66 (97.1%) had 2 arms, and the mean number of patients enrolled per randomized control trial was 236 (SD, 187). Of 21 completed randomized control trials (31%), the average time to complete accrual was 1605 days (4.4 years) and average time to complete primary/secondary outcomes and adverse events collection was 2125 days (5.82 years). Conclusions: Given the immense investment of resources that randomized control trials require, these findings suggest the need to scrutinize future randomized control trial proposals to assess the likelihood of successful completion. Future study is needed to understand the various contributing factors to randomized control trial success or failure.

Complications of Outpatient Chest Tube Management for Prolonged Air Leaks After Pulmonary Surgery.

PURPOSE: Air leaks are common after pulmonary surgery. Prolonged air leaks (PALs) may persist through discharge and often are managed with one-way valve devices (OWD). We sought to determine the course and complications of patients discharged with OWDs, risk factors for complications, and to evaluate the utility of clamp trials before chest tube (CT) removal. METHODS: Single-institution, retrospective review of patients discharged with a OWD after pulmonary surgery between 2008 and 2022. Charts were examined for the presence of complications and CT duration. Differences in CT duration were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULT: Sixty-four of 1917 (3.3%) pulmonary surgeries resulted in OWD use. Twelve of 64 (19%) patients discharged with a OWD suffered a complication. Nine of 64 (14%) had a CT-related readmission, and seven of 64 (11%) required PAL intervention. Patients sustaining a complication demonstrated longer CT durations before complication compared with duration in patients without complications, with median days of 13 [IQR 6-21] vs. 7 [IQR 6-12], p = 0.04). Five (7.8%) OWD patients developed an empyema; only one (20%) occurred before a CT duration of 14 days. Sixteen of 64 (25%) patients underwent a clamp trial before CT removal. One of ten (10%) failed even with no air leak present, whereas one of six (17%) failed with a present/questionable air leak. CONCLUSIONS: One-way valve device use has a substantial complication rate, and chest tube duration is a risk factor. In-hospital interventions might benefit patients with larger leaks that likely require prolonged OWD use. Because clamp trials occasionally fail, we contend that a clamp trial is the safest course before CT removal.

The Impact of Immunotherapy Use in Stage IIIA (T1-2N2) NSCLC: A Nationwide Analysis.

Introduction: Multiple clinical trials have revealed the benefit of immunotherapy (IO) for NSCLC, including unresectable stage III disease. Our aim was to investigate the impact of IO use on treatment and outcomes of potentially resectable stage IIIA NSCLC in a broader nationwide patient cohort. Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database (2004-2019) for patients with stage IIIA (T1-2N2) NSCLC. Treatment and survival were evaluated with descriptive statistics, logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: Overall, 5.5% (3777 of 68,335) of patients received IO. IO use was uncommon until 2017, but by 2019, it was given to 40.1% (1544 of 2308) of stage IIIA patients. The increased use of IO after 2017 was associated with increased definitive chemoradiation treatment (54.2% [6800 of 12,535] from years 2017 to 2019 versus 46.9% [26,251 of 55,914] from 2004 to 2016, p < 0.001) and less use of surgery (18.1% [2266 of 12,535] from years 2017 to 2019 versus 22.0% [12,300 of 55,914] from 2004 to 2016, p < 0.001). IO treatment was associated with significantly better 5-year survival in the entire cohort (36.9% versus 23.4%, p < 0.001) and the subsets of patients treated with chemoradiation (37.2% versus 22.7%, p < 0.001) and surgery (48.6% versus 44.3%, p < 0.001). Pneumonectomy use decreased with increased IO treatment (5.1% of surgical patients [116 of 2266] from years 2017 to 2019 versus 9.2% [1127 of 12,300] from 2004 to 2016, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Increased use of IO was associated with a change in treatment patterns and improved survival for patients with stage IIIA(N2) NSCLC.

Lepidic-Type Lung Adenocarcinomas: Is It Safe to Observe for Growth Before Treating?

BACKGROUND: Lepidic-type adenocarcinomas (LPAs) can be multifocal, and treatment is often deferred until growth is observed. This study investigated the potential downside of that strategy by evaluating the relationship of nodal involvement with tumor size and survival. METHODS: The impact of tumor size on lymph node involvement and survival was evaluated for National Cancer Database patients who underwent surgery without induction therapy as primary treatment for cT1-3 N0 M0 histologically confirmed LPA from 2006 to 2019 by using logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox analyses. RESULTS: Positive nodes occurred in 442 of 8286 patients (5.3%). The incidence of having positive nodes approximately doubled with each 1-cm increment increase in size. Patients with positive nodes were more likely to have larger tumors (27 mm vs 20 mm, P < .001) and clinical ≥T2 disease (40.7% vs 26.8%, P < .001) compared with node-negative patients. However, tumor size was the only significant independent predictor of having positive nodal disease in logistic regression analysis, and this association grew stronger with each incremental centimeter increase in size. Patients with positive nodes were more likely to undergo adjuvant radiotherapy (23.5% vs 1.1%, P < .001) and chemotherapy (72.9% vs 7.9%, P < .001), and expectedly, had worse survival compared with the node-negative group in univariate (5-year overall survival, 50.9% vs 81.1%, P < .001) and multivariable (hazard ratio, 2.56; 95% CI, 2.14-3.05; P < .001) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Nodal involvement is relatively uncommon in early-stage LPAs but steadily increases with tumor size and is associated with dramatically worse survival. These data can be used to inform treatment decisions when evaluating LPA patients.

A Tale of Two Presidential Addresses.

The Viewpoint discusses the lessons learned from 2 recent societal presidential addresses and what it means to be a leader in surgery.

Risk model-based management for second primary lung cancer among lung cancer survivors through a validated risk prediction model.

BACKGROUND: Recent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model (called SPLC-RAT) was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT was evaluated in a hospital-based cohort of lung cancer survivors. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from 8448 ever-smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997-2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model-based surveillance using SPLC-RAT versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines. RESULTS: Of 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person-years. The application of SPLC-RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10-year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC-RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high-risk versus low-risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10-6 ). The risk-based surveillance through SPLC-RAT (≥5.6% threshold) outperformed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines with higher sensitivity (86.4% vs. 79.4%) and specificity (38.9% vs. 30.4%) and required 20% fewer computed tomography follow-ups needed to detect one SPLC (162 vs. 202). CONCLUSION: In a large, hospital-based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC-RAT in identifying high-risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk-based surveillance. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, no evidence-based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors. Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. Using a large, real-world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk-stratification ability of the SPLC risk-prediction model. Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model-based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus-based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Impact of hyperthermic intrathoracic chemotherapy (HITHOC) during resection of pleural mesothelioma on patient survival.

Background: Pleural mesothelioma (PM) is rare but portends a poor prognosis. Multimodal treatment, including aggressive surgical resection, may offer the best chance of treatment response and improved survival. Single-center studies suggest that hyperthermic intrathoracic chemotherapy (HITHOC) during surgical resection improves outcomes, but the impact of HITHOC on postoperative morbidity and survival has not been examined on a larger scale. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing resection for PM from 2006-2017. Patients were excluded if staging or survival data was incomplete. After propensity-score matching, patients who underwent HITHOC were compared to patients who did not (case-control study). Perioperative outcomes and survival were analyzed. Results: The final cohort consisted of 3,232 patients; of these, 365 patients underwent HITHOC. After propensity-score matching, receipt of HITHOC was associated with increased length of stay (12 vs. 7 days, P<0.001) and increased 30-day readmissions (9.9% vs. 4.9%, P=0.007), but decreased 30-day mortality (3.2% vs. 6.0%, P=0.017) and 90-day mortality (7.5% vs. 10.9%). Kaplan-Meier modeling demonstrated that HITHOC was associated with improved survival in the overall cohort (median 20.5 vs. 16.8 months, P=0.001). In multivariable analysis, HITHOC remained associated with improved overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) =0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.92; P=0.002], and this persisted in the propensity-matched analysis (HR =0.73; 95% CI: 0.61-0.88; P=0.001). Conclusions: Using a large national database, we describe the impact of HITHOC on survival in patients with PM. Despite observed increased short-term morbidity, in multivariable analysis HITHOC was associated with an overall survival advantage for patients undergoing surgical resection of PM.

Second Primary Lung Cancer Among Lung Cancer Survivors Who Never Smoked.

Importance: Lung cancer among never-smokers accounts for 25% of all lung cancers in the US; recent therapeutic advances have improved survival among patients with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC), who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). As smoking rates continue to decline in the US, it is critical to examine more closely the epidemiology of lung cancer among patients who never smoked, including their risk for SPLC. Objective: To estimate and compare the cumulative SPLC incidence among lung cancer survivors who have never smoked vs those who have ever smoked. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based prospective cohort study used data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC), which enrolled participants between April 18, 1993, and December 31, 1996, with follow-up through July 1, 2017. Eligible individuals for this study were aged 45 to 75 years and had complete smoking data at baseline. These participants were followed up for IPLC and further SPLC development through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. The data were analyzed from July 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023. Exposures: Never-smoking vs ever-smoking exposure at MEC enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study had 2 primary outcomes: (1) 10-year cumulative incidence of IPLC in the entire study cohort and 10-year cumulative incidence of SPLC among patients with IPLC and (2) standardized incidence ratio (SIR) (calculated as the SPLC incidence divided by the IPLC incidence) by smoking history. Results: Among 211 414 MEC participants, 7161 (3.96%) developed IPLC over 4 038 007 person-years, and 163 (2.28%) developed SPLC over 16 470 person-years. Of the participants with IPLC, the mean (SD) age at cohort enrollment was 63.6 (7.7) years, 4031 (56.3%) were male, and 3131 (43.7%) were female. The 10-year cumulative IPLC incidence was 2.40% (95% CI, 2.31%-2.49%) among ever-smokers, which was 7 times higher than never-smokers (0.34%; 95% CI, 0.30%-0.37%). However, the 10-year cumulative SPLC incidence following IPLC was as high among never-smokers (2.84%; 95% CI, 1.50%-4.18%) as ever-smokers (2.72%; 95% CI, 2.24%-3.20%), which led to a substantially higher SIR for never-smokers (14.50; 95% CI, 8.73-22.65) vs ever-smokers (3.50; 95% CI, 2.95-4.12). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings indicate that SPLC risk among lung cancer survivors who never smoked is as high as among those with IPLC who ever-smoked, highlighting the need to identify risk factors for SPLC among patients who never smoked and to develop a targeted surveillance strategy.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US.

Importance: The revised 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening have been shown to reduce disparities in screening eligibility and performance between African American and White individuals vs the 2013 guidelines. However, potential disparities across other racial and ethnic groups in the US remain unknown. Risk model-based screening may reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance, but neither validation of key risk prediction models nor their screening performance has been examined by race and ethnicity. Objective: To validate and recalibrate the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 (PLCOm2012) model-a well-established risk prediction model based on a predominantly White population-across races and ethnicities in the US and evaluate racial and ethnic disparities and screening performance through risk-based screening using PLCOm2012 vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a population-based cohort design, the Multiethnic Cohort Study enrolled participants in 1993-1996, followed up through December 31, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from April 1, 2022, to May 19. 2023. A total of 105 261 adults with a smoking history were included. Exposures: The 6-year lung cancer risk was calculated through recalibrated PLCOm2012 (ie, PLCOm2012-Update) and screening eligibility based on a 6-year risk threshold greater than or equal to 1.3%, yielding similar eligibility as the USPSTF 2021 guidelines. Outcomes: Predictive accuracy, screening eligibility-incidence (E-I) ratio (ie, ratio of the number of eligible to incident cases), and screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, and number needed to screen to detect 1 lung cancer). Results: Of 105 261 participants (60 011 [57.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 59.8 [8.7] years), consisting of 19 258 (18.3%) African American, 27 227 (25.9%) Japanese American, 21 383 (20.3%) Latino, 8368 (7.9%) Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 29 025 (27.6%) White individuals, 1464 (1.4%) developed lung cancer within 6 years from enrollment. The PLCOm2012-Update showed good predictive accuracy across races and ethnicities (area under the curve, 0.72-0.82). The USPSTF 2021 criteria yielded a large disparity among African American individuals, whose E-I ratio was 53% lower vs White individuals (E-I ratio: 9.5 vs 20.3; P < .001). Under the risk-based screening (PLCOm2012-Update 6-year risk ≥1.3%), the disparity between African American and White individuals was substantially reduced (E-I ratio: 15.9 vs 18.4; P < .001), with minimal disparities observed in persons of other minoritized groups, including Japanese American, Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Risk-based screening yielded superior overall and race and ethnicity-specific performance to the USPSTF 2021 criteria, with higher overall sensitivity (67.2% vs 57.7%) and lower number needed to screen (26 vs 30) at similar specificity (76.6%). Conclusions: The findings of this cohort study suggest that risk-based lung cancer screening can reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance across races and ethnicities vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria.

Overall Survival Among Patients With De Novo Stage IV Metastatic and Distant Metastatic Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Despite recent breakthroughs in therapy, advanced lung cancer still poses a therapeutic challenge. The survival profile of patients with metastatic lung cancer remains poorly understood by metastatic disease type (ie, de novo stage IV vs distant recurrence). Objective: To evaluate the association of metastatic disease type on overall survival (OS) among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to identify potential mechanisms underlying any survival difference. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study of a national US population based at a tertiary referral center in the San Francisco Bay Area using participant data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) who were enrolled between 2002 and 2004 and followed up for up to 7 years as the primary cohort and patient data from Stanford Healthcare (SHC) for diagnoses between 2009 and 2019 and followed up for up to 13 years as the validation cohort. Participants from NLST with de novo metastatic or distant recurrent NSCLC diagnoses were included. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2023. Exposures: De novo stage IV vs distant recurrent metastatic disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: OS after diagnosis of metastatic disease. Results: The NLST and SHC cohort consisted of 660 and 180 participants, respectively (411 men [62.3%] vs 109 men [60.6%], 602 White participants [91.2%] vs 111 White participants [61.7%], and mean [SD] age of 66.8 [5.5] vs 71.4 [7.9] years at metastasis, respectively). Patients with distant recurrence showed significantly better OS than patients with de novo metastasis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87; P < .001) in NLST, which was replicated in SHC (aHR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.96; P = .03). In SHC, patients with de novo metastasis more frequently progressed to the bone (63 patients with de novo metastasis [52.5%] vs 19 patients with distant recurrence [31.7%]) or pleura (40 patients with de novo metastasis [33.3%] vs 8 patients with distant recurrence [13.3%]) than patients with distant recurrence and were primarily detected through symptoms (102 patients [85.0%]) as compared with posttreatment surveillance (47 patients [78.3%]) in the latter. The main finding remained consistent after further adjusting for metastasis sites and detection methods. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with distant recurrent NSCLC had significantly better OS than those with de novo disease, and the latter group was associated with characteristics that may affect overall survival. This finding can help inform future clinical trial designs to ensure a balance for baseline patient characteristics.

The impact of neoadjuvant immunotherapy on perioperative outcomes and survival after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Objective: Immunotherapy for esophageal cancer is relatively novel but increasingly used. This study evaluated the early use of immunotherapy as an adjunct to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before esophagectomy for locally advanced disease. Methods: Perioperative morbidity (composite of mortality, hospitalization ≥21 days, or readmission) and survival of patients with locally advanced (cT3N0M0, cT1-3N + M0) distal esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database from 2013 to 2020 who underwent neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy alone followed by esophagectomy were evaluated using logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazards methods, and propensity-matched analysis. Results: Immunotherapy was used in 165 (1.6%) of 10,348 patients. Younger age (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P < .001) predicted immunotherapy use, which slightly delayed time from diagnosis to surgery versus chemoradiation alone (immunotherapy 148 [interquartile range, 128-177] days vs chemoradiation 138 [interquartile range, 120-162] days, P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between the immunotherapy and chemoradiation groups for the composite major morbidity index (14.5% [24/165] vs 15.6% [1584/10,183], P = .8). Immunotherapy was associated with a significant improvement in median overall survival (69.1 months vs 56.3 months, P = .005) and 3-year overall survival in univariate analysis (65.6% [95% confidence interval, 57.7-74.5] vs 55.0% [53.9-56.1], P = .005), and independently predicted improved survival in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 0.68 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89], P = .006). Propensity-matched analysis also showed that immunotherapy use was not associated with increased surgical morbidity (P = .5) but was associated with improved survival (P = .047). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant immunotherapy use before esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer did not lead to worse perioperative outcomes and shows promising results on midterm survival.

Surgical Management of Esophageal Perforation: Examining Trends in a Multi-Institutional Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal perforations historically are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and generally require emergent intervention. The influence of improved diagnostic and therapeutic modalities available in recent years on management has not been examined. This study examined the surgical treatments and outcomes of a modern cohort. METHODS: Patients with esophageal perforation management in the 2005-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were stratified into three eras (2005-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2020). Surgical management was classified as primary repair, resection, diversion, or drainage alone based on procedure codes. The distribution of procedure use, morbidity, and mortality across eras was examined. RESULTS: Surgical management of 378 identified patients was primary repair (n=193,51%), drainage (n=89,24%), resection (n=70,18%), and diversion (n=26,7%). Thirty-day mortality in the cohort was 9.5% (n=36/378) and 268 patients (71%) had at least one complication. The median length of stay was 15 days. Both morbidity (Era 1 65% [n=42/60] versus Era 2 69% [n=92/131] versus Era 3 72% [n=135/187], p=0.3) and mortality (Era 1 11% [n=7/65] versus Era 2 9% [n=12/131] versus Era 3 10% [n=19/187], p=0.9) did not change significantly over the three defined eras. Treatment over time evolved such that primary repair was more frequently utilized (43% in Era 1 to 51% in Era 3) while diversion was less often performed (13% in Era 1 to 7% in Era 3) (p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal perforation management in recent years uses diversion less often but remains associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

Characterization of Epidural Analgesia Interruption and Associated Outcomes After Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Interruption of thoracic epidural analgesia may impact the postoperative course following esophagectomy. This study investigates the incidence and causes of epidural interruption in esophagectomy patients along with associated postoperative outcomes. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective analysis examined patients undergoing esophagectomy who received a thoracic epidural catheter from 2016 to 2020. Patients were stratified according to whether epidural catheter infusion was interrupted or not postoperatively. Outcomes were compared between the two groups, and predictors of epidural interruption and postoperative complications were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 168 patients who received a thoracic epidural before esophagectomy, 60 (35.7%) required epidural interruption and 108 (64.3%) did not. Interruption commonly occurred on postoperative day 1 and was due to hypotension 80% of the time. Heart failure (10.0% versus 0.9%, P = 0.009), atrial fibrillation (20.0% versus 3.7%, P = 0.002), preoperative opioid use (30.0% versus 16.7%, P = 0.043), and higher American Society of Anesthesiology classification (88.4% versus 70.4%, P = 0.008) were more prevalent in the epidural interruption cohort. The female gender was associated with epidural interruption on multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.45, P = 0.039). Patients in the epidural interruption cohort had a higher incidence of delirium (30.5% versus 13.9%, P = 0.010), sepsis (13.6% versus 3.7%, P = 0.028), and severe anastomotic leak (18.3% versus 7.4%, P = 0.032). On adjusted analysis, heart disease (AOR 4.26, P = 0.027), BMI <18.5 (AOR 9.83, P = 0.031), and epidural interruption due to hypotension (AOR 3.51, P = 0.037) were associated with severe anastomotic leak. CONCLUSIONS: Early epidural interruption secondary to hypotension in esophagectomy patients may be a harbinger of postoperative complications such as sepsis and severe anastomotic leak. Patients requiring epidural interruption due to hypotension should have a low threshold for additional workup and early intervention.

Impact of Delaying Surgery After Chemoradiation on Outcomes for Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Performing selective esophagectomy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma may spare patients morbidity, but delayed surgery may infer higher risks. This study evaluated the impact of length of time between chemoradiation and esophagectomy on perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. METHODS: The impact of surgical timing, stratified by surgery performed < 180 and ≥ 180 days from starting radiation, on perioperative outcomes and survival in patients treated with chemoradiation and esophagectomy for cT1N + M0 and cT2-4, any N, M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the mid-distal esophagus in the National Cancer Database (2006-2016) was evaluated with logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional-hazards methods, and propensity-matched analysis. RESULTS: Median time between starting radiation and esophagectomy in 1641 patients was 93 (IQR 81-114) days. Most patients (96.8%, n = 1589) had surgery within 180 days of starting radiation, while 52 patients (3.2%) had delayed surgery. Black race and clinical T stage were associated with delayed surgery. Rates of pathologic upstaging, downstaging, complete response, and positive margins were not significantly different between the groups. Patients with delayed surgery had increased major morbidity as measured by a composite of length of hospital stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality [42.3% (22/52) vs 22.3% (355/1589), p = 0.001]. However, delayed surgery was not associated with a significant difference in survival in both univariate [5-year survival 32.8% (95% CI 21.1-50.7) vs 47.3% (44.7-50.1), p = 0.19] and multivariable analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.23 (0.85-1.78), p = 0.26]. CONCLUSIONS: Delaying surgery longer than 180 days after starting chemoradiation for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is associated with worse perioperative outcomes but not long-term survival.