Two centres experience of lung cancer resection in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer upon treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors: safety and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Recent trials have begun to explore immune checkpoint inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer in the neoadjuvant setting, but data on tumour response and surgical outcome remain limited. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of clinical data from patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors followed by lung resection was performed at 2 large volume institutions (1 North American, 1 European). Data were analysed using Chi-squared, Fisher's and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests where appropriate. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were identified from 2017 to 2019. Forty-nine per cent were Stage IIIB and IV. Forty-six per cent received immunotherapy alone and 54% in combination with chemo- and/or radiotherapy. Sixteen per cent of cases were successfully performed minimally invasively. Twenty patients were operated with lobectomy (6 of these with wedges or segments of a neighbouring lobe, 2 with sleeve resections and 1 with a chest wall resection), 4 with bilobectomies, 11 with pneumonectomy (including 5 extrapleural pneumonectomies and 1 atrial resection) and 1 with a wedge resection. Overall, 10 patients (27%) developed postoperative complications and the 90-day mortality was zero. One-year recurrence-free survival was 73% for stage II/IIIA and 55% for stage IIIB/stage IV. The major pathologic response rate was 34%. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, lung resection after immunotherapy (alone or in combination) is safe, although often requires complex surgery. Due to increasing number of clinical trials adopting immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting, it is likely that this therapy will become part of standard of care. Immunotherapy may also allow surgery to have a role for selected patients with advanced disease.

Spotlight on esophageal perforation: A multinational study using the Pittsburgh esophageal perforation severity scoring system.

OBJECTIVE: The Pittsburgh group has suggested a perforation severity score (PSS) for better decision making in the management of esophageal perforation. Our study aim was to determine whether the PSS can be used to stratify patients with esophageal perforation into distinct subgroups with differential outcomes in an independent study population. METHODS: In a retrospective study cases of esophageal perforation were collected (study-period, 1990-2014). The PSS was analyzed using logistic regression as a continuous variable and stratified into low, intermediate, and high score groups. RESULTS: Data for 288 patients (mean age, 59.9 years) presenting with esophageal perforation (during the period 1990-2014) were abstracted. Etiology was spontaneous (Boerhaave; n = 119), iatrogenic (instrumentation; n = 85), and traumatic perforation (n = 84). Forty-three patients had coexisting esophageal cancer. The mean PSS was 5.82, and was significantly higher in patients with fatal outcome (n = 57; 19.8%; mean PSS, 9.79 vs 4.84; P < .001). Mean PSS was also significantly higher in patients receiving operative management (n = 200; 69%; mean PSS, 6.44 vs 4.40; P < .001). Using the Pittsburgh strata, patients were assigned to low PSS (≤2; n = 63), intermediate PSS (3-5; n = 86), and high PSS (>5; n = 120) groups. Perforation-related morbidity, length of stay, frequency of operative treatment, and mortality increased with increasing PSS strata. Patients with high PSS were 3.37 times more likely to have operative management compared with low PSS. CONCLUSIONS: The Pittsburgh PSS reliably reflects the seriousness of esophageal perforation and stratifies patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups with differential morbidity and mortality outcomes.

Constrictive pericarditis and rheumatoid nodules with severe aortic incompetence.

The case of a female patient presenting with constrictive rheumatoid pericarditis and aortic incompetence secondary to valvular rheumatoid nodules is described along with a review of the literature with the aim to highlight this rare cause of aortic insufficiency.

Endoscopic stent insertion versus primary operative management for spontaneous rupture of the esophagus (Boerhaave syndrome): an international study comparing the outcome.

Spontaneous rupture of the esophagus (Boerhaave syndrome) is an extremely rare, life-threatening condition. Traditionally surgery was the treatment of choice. Endoscopic stent insertion offers a promising alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the results of primary surgical therapy with endoscopic stenting. A British and a German high-volume center for esophageal surgery participated in this retrospective study. At the British center, operative therapy (primary repair or surgical drainage) was routinely carried out. Endoscopic stent insertion was the primary treatment option at the German center. Only patients with nonmalignant, spontaneous rupture of the esophagus (Boerhaave syndrome) were included. Demographic characteristics, comorbidity, clinical course, and outcome were analyzed. The study comprises 38 patients with a median age of 60 years. Time between rupture and treatment was less than 24 hours in 22 patients. Overall mortality was four of 38. Diagnosis greater than 24 hours was associated with higher risk for fatal outcome (odds ratio [OR], 4.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 265.79). The surgery (S) and the endoscopic stent group (E) included 20 and 13 cases, respectively. Esophagectomy was unavoidable in three cases and two were managed conservatively. There were no significant differences in age, time to diagnosis less than 24 hours, intensive care unit days, hospital stay, sepsis, renal failure, slow respiratory weaning, or presence of comorbidity between the two groups. In 11 of 13 in the stent group, operative intervention (video-assisted thoracic surgery, thoracotomy, mediastinotomy) was eventually mandatory and three of 13 even required repeated surgery. The rate of reoperation in the surgery group was six of 20. Mortality was two of 13 (E) versus one of 20 (S). The odds for fatal outcome were 3.3 times higher in the stent group than in the surgery group (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 0.15 to 213.98). Management of Boerhaave syndrome by means of endoscopic stent insertion offers no advantage regarding morbidity, intensive care unit or hospital stay, and is associated with frequent treatment failure eventually requiring surgical intervention. Furthermore, endoscopic stenting shows a higher risk for fatal outcome than primary surgical therapy.