Prognostic Difference of Pleural versus Distant Metastasis after Surgery for Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pleural metastasis in lung cancer found at diagnosis has a poor prognosis, with 5-11 months' survival. We hypothesized that prognosis might be different for patients who have had curative-intent surgery and subsequent pleural recurrence and that survival might differ based on the location of the first metastasis (distant versus pleural). This may clarify if pleural recurrence is a local event or due to systemic disease. METHODS: A database of 5089 patients who underwent curative-intent surgery for lung cancer was queried, and 85 patients were found who had biopsy-proven pleural metastasis during surveillance. We examined survival based on pattern of metastasis (pleural first versus distant first/simultaneously). RESULTS: Median survival was 34 months (range: 1-171) from the time of surgery and 13 months (range: 0-153) from the time of recurrence. The shortest median survival after recurrence was in patients with adenocarcinoma and pleural metastasis as the first site (6 months). For patients with pleural metastasis as the first site, those with adenocarcinoma had a significantly shorter post-recurrence survival when compared with squamous cell carcinoma (6 vs. 12 months; HR = 0.34) and a significantly shorter survival from the time of surgery when compared with distant metastases first/simultaneously (25 vs. 52 months; HR = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo curative-intent surgery for lung adenocarcinoma that have pleural recurrence as the first site have poor survival. This may indicate that pleural recurrence after lung surgery is not likely due to a localized event but rather indicates systemic disease; however, this would require further study.

Outcomes after lung transplantation for patients with occupational lung diseases.

Occupational lung diseases (OLD) including silicosis, asbestosis, and pneumoconiosis progress to end stage lung disease requiring lung transplantation (LT). Prognosis and treatment of OLDs are poorly understood and a paucity of data exists regarding LT outcomes. Additionally, transplant operative complexity for patients with OLD is high. A single center retrospective review of all single and bilateral LT recipients between May 2005 and Oct 2016 was performed. Patients were grouped by OLD, and nearest neighbor matching was performed at a ratio of 1:3 cases to controls. Thirty cases were matched to 88 controls. Seventeen patients (57%) with OLD required intraoperative support with either extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or cardiopulmonary bypass (P = 0.02), and 5 (17%) required delayed chest closure (P = 0.05) which was more frequent than matched controls. In addition, operative time was significantly longer in patients with OLD (P = 0.03). Despite these factors, there were no significant differences in immediate post-operative outcomes including mechanical ventilator support, post-operative ECMO, and tracheostomy. Chronic lung allograft dysfunction and long-term survival were also similar between cases and controls. OLDs should not preclude LT. The operation should be performed at experienced centers.

Successful Treatment of Esophageal Necrosis Secondary to Acute Type B Aortic Dissection.

Esophageal necrosis after descending aortic dissection has been described but with no reports of successful treatment. A 66-year-old man with aortic dissection extending from the left subclavian artery through the common iliac arteries subsequently experienced esophageal necrosis. He underwent thoracic esophagectomy, cervical end esophagostomy, and open gastrostomy tube placement. Gastrointestinal continuity was established with a gastric tube conduit in the substernal plane. An oral diet was tolerated after reconstruction. Treatment of esophageal necrosis after aortic dissection may require esophageal diversion and esophagectomy. Esophageal continuity can later be restored while avoiding the posterior mediastinum.

Use of a Novel Accounting and Grouping Method for Major Trunk Injury-Analysis of Data from a Statewide Trauma Financial Survey.

Major trunk trauma is common and costly, but comparisons of costs between trauma centers (TCs) are rare. Understanding cost is essential to improve quality, manage trauma service lines, and to facilitate institutional commitment for trauma. We have used results of a statewide trauma financial survey of Levels I to IV TC to develop a useful grouping method for costs and clinical characteristics of major trunk trauma. The trauma financial survey collected billing and clinical data on 75 per cent of the state trauma registry patients for fiscal year 2012. Cost was calculated by separately accounting for embedded costs of trauma response and verification, and then adjusting reasonable costs from the Medicare cost report for each TC. The cost-to-charge ratios were then recalculated and used to determine uniform cost estimates for each patient. From the 13,215 patients submitted for the survey, we selected 1,094 patients with major trunk trauma: lengths of stay ≥ 48 hours and a maximum injury of AIS ≥3 for either thorax or abdominal trauma. These patients were then divided into three Injury Severity Score (ISS) groups of 9 to 15, 16 to 24, or 25+ to stratify patients into similar injury groups for analysis of cost and cost drivers. For abdominal injury, average total cost for patients with ISS 9 to 15 was $17,429. Total cost and cost per day increased with severity of injury, with $51,585 being the total cost for those with ISS 25. Similar trends existed for thoracic injury. Use of the Medicare cost report and cost-to-charge ratios to compute uniform costs with an innovative grouping method applied to data collected across a statewide trauma system provides unique information regarding cost and outcomes, which affects quality improvement, trauma service line management, and decisions on TC participation.