Survival Benefit of Perioperative Systemic Chemotherapy for Patients With N0 to N1 NSCLC Having Synchronous Brain Metastasis.

Introduction: In stage IV NSCLC with solitary or oligometastatic brain metastasis, surgical resection of the primary and definitive management of the brain metastasis is an accepted standard. However, the effect of systemic chemotherapy after surgical resection on overall survival is not well-established. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database to retrospectively identify individuals with NSCLC as the primary tumor along with synchronous brain metastases who underwent thoracic resection with or without adjuvant chemotherapy. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively, across the treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional modeling were done to determine the survival benefit. Results: A total of 310 (71.9%) of the cohort received perioperative chemotherapy, most of whom (79.4%) received it in the adjuvant setting. Patients receiving chemotherapy were likely to be younger (p = 0.002), privately insured (p = 0.01), and receive radiation (p < 0.001). Perioperative chemotherapy was significantly associated with survival on both univariate (hazard ratio = 0.71[0.52 - 0.99]) and multivariable (hazard ratio = 0.66 [0.47 - 0.92]) in addition to age (p = 0.03), Charlson-Deyo score (p = 0.02), pathologic N stage (p = 0.02), and adenocarcinoma histology (p = 0.02). Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed this result with a significantly better survival with perioperative chemotherapy (p = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis using pathologic N stage revealed similar effect in pN1 (p = 0.001), but not pN0 (p = 0.2) patients. Conclusions: Perioperative chemotherapy for pN0-1 NSCLC with synchronous brain metastasis is associated with improved OS in this analysis.

Analyzing the impact of minimally invasive surgical approaches on post-operative outcomes of pneumonectomy and sleeve lobectomy patients.

Background: Some patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have superior short- and long-term outcomes with sleeve lobectomy rather than pneumonectomy. Originally sleeve lobectomy was reserved for patients with limited pulmonary function, however, the reported superior results allowed sleeve lobectomy to be performed in expanded patient populations. In a further attempt to improve post-operative outcomes surgeons have adopted minimally invasive techniques Minimally invasive approaches have potential benefits to patients such as decreased morbidity and mortality while maintaining the same caliber of oncologic outcomes. Methods: We identified patients at our institution who underwent sleeve lobectomy or pneumonectomy to treat NSCLC from 2007 to 2017. We analyzed these groups in respect to 30- and 90-day mortality, complications, local recurrence, and median survival. We included multivariate analysis to determine the impact of a minimally invasive approach, sex, extent of resection, and histology. Differences in mortality were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method using the log-rank test to compare the groups. A two-tailed Z test for difference in proportions was done to analyze complications, local recurrence, 30-day and 90-day mortality. Results: A total of 108 patients underwent sleeve lobectomy (n=34) or pneumonectomy (n=74) for treatment of NSCLC with 18 undergoing open pneumonectomy, 56 undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) pneumonectomy, 29 undergoing open sleeve lobectomy, and 5 undergoing VATS sleeve lobectomy. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (P=0.064) but there was a difference in 90-day (P=0.007). There was no difference in complication rates (P=0.234) or local recurrence rates (P=0.779). The pneumonectomy patients had a median survival of 23.6 months (95% CI: 3.8-43.4 months). The sleeve lobectomy group had a median survival of 60.7 months (95% CI: 43.3-78.2 months) (P=0.008). On multivariate analysis extent of resection (P<0.001) and tumor stage (P=0.036) were associated with survival. There was no significant difference between the VATS approach and the open surgical approach (P=0.053). Conclusions: When considering patients undergoing surgery for NSCLC sleeve lobectomy resulted in lower 90-day mortality and better 3-year survival compared to patients undergoing PN. Having a sleeve lobectomy rather than a pneumonectomy and having earlier-stage disease lead to significantly improved survival on multivariate analysis. Having a VATS operation leads to a non-inferior post-operative outcome compared to open surgery.

Postoperative Restrictive Opioid Protocols and Durable Changes in Opioid Prescribing and Chronic Opioid Use.

Importance: Changes in postsurgical opioid prescribing practices may help reduce chronic opioid use in surgical patients. Objective: To investigate whether postsurgical acute pain across different surgical subspecialties can be managed effectively after hospital discharge with an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days and whether this reduction in prescribed opioids is associated with reduced new, persistent opioid use. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective cohort study with a case-control design, a restrictive opioid prescription protocol (ROPP) specifying an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days after discharge from surgery along with standardized patient education was implemented across all surgical services at a tertiary-care comprehensive cancer center. Participants were all patients who underwent surgery from August 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were the rate of compliance with the ROPP in each surgical service, the mean number of prescription days and refill requests, type of opioid prescribed, and rate of conversion to chronic opioid use determined via a state-run opioid prescription program. Postsurgical complications were also measured. Results: A total of 4068 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [13.8] years; 2528 women [62.1%]) were included, with 2017 in the pre-ROPP group (August 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019) and 2051 in the post-ROPP group (February 1, 2019, to July 31, 2019). The rate of compliance with the protocol was 95%. After implementation of the ROPP, mean opioid prescription days decreased from a mean (SD) of 3.9 (4.5) days in the pre-ROPP group to 1.9 (3.6) days in the post-ROPP group (P < .001). The ROPP implementation led to a 45% decrease in prescribed opioids after surgery (mean [SD], 157.22 [338.06] mean morphine milligram equivalents [MME] before ROPP vs 83.54 [395.70] MME after ROPP; P < .001). Patients in the post-ROPP cohort requested fewer refills (367 of 2051 [17.9%] vs 422 of 2017 [20.9%] in the pre-ROPP cohort; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in surgical complications. The conversion rate to chronic opioid use decreased following ROPP implementation among both opioid-naive patients with cancer (11.3% [143 of 1267] to 4.5% [118 of 2645]; P < .001) and those without cancer (6.1% [19 of 310] to 2.7% [16 of 600]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, prescribing an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days to surgical patients after hospital discharge was feasible for most patients, led to a significant decrease in the number of opioids prescribed after surgery, and was associated with a significantly decreased conversion to long-term opioid use without concomitant increases in refill requests or significant compromises in surgical recovery.

Sarcoma Pulmonary Metastatic Disease: Still a Chance for Cure.

Tumors of soft tissue origin are not common but are increasing in incidence. Given the rare and heterogeneous nature of the disease, deciding on an effective treatment approach to the patient can be challenging. Approximately 20-50% of patients with sarcoma will develop metastases to the lung via hematogenous spread. Despite improvements in systemic therapy options for patients with metastatic disease to the lung, surgical resection of metastases is often the preferred option in patients who are safe surgical candidates. Clearance of metastatic disease with surgical resection has been proven to be cost-effective and can improve chances for long term survival. Deciding on who may benefit from surgical resection is best achieved in a multidisciplinary setting.

Systematic Review of Single-Fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Early Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Lung Oligometastases: How to Stop Worrying and Love One and Done.

Adoption of single-fraction lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with medically inoperable early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or oligometastatic lung disease, even during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, was limited despite encouraging phase II trial results. Barriers to using single-fraction SBRT may include lack of familiarity with the regimen and lack of clarity about the expected toxicity. To address these concerns, we performed a systematic review of prospective literature on single-fraction SBRT for definitive treatment of early stage and oligometastatic lung cancer. A PubMed search of prospective studies in English on single-fraction lung SBRT was conducted. A systematic review was performed of the studies that reported clinical outcomes of single-fraction SBRT in the treatment of early stage non-small-cell lung cancer and lung oligometastases. The current prospective literature including nine trials supports the use of single-fraction SBRT in the definitive treatment of early stage peripheral NSCLC and lung oligometastases. Most studies cite local control rates of >90%, mild toxicity profiles, and favorable survival outcomes. Most toxicities reported were grade 1-2, with grade ≥3 toxicity in 0-17% of patients. Prospective trial results suggest potential consideration of utilizing single-fraction SBRT beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of a Thoracic Multidisciplinary Conference on Lung Cancer Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: With the complexity of cancer treatment rising, the role of multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs) in making diagnostic and treatment decisions has become critical. This study evaluated the impact of a thoracic MDC (T-MDC) on lung cancer care quality and survival. METHODS: Lung cancer cases over 7 years were identified from the Roswell Park cancer registry system. The survival rates and treatment plans of 300 patients presented at the MDC were compared with 300 matched patients. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines were used to define the standard of care. The compliance of care plans with NCCN guidelines was summarized using counts and percentages, with comparisons made using the Fisher exact test. Survival outcomes were summarized using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: There was improvement in median overall survival (36.9 vs 19.3 months; P < .001) and cancer-specific survival (48 vs 28.1 months; P < .001) for lung cancer patients discussed at the T-MDC compared with controls. These differences were statistically significant in patients with stages III/IV disease but not in patients with stages I/II disease. The NCCN guidelines compliance rate of treatment plans improved from 80% to 94% (P < .001) after MDC discussion. MDC recommendations resulted in treatment plan changes in 123 of 300 patients (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that lung cancer patients have a survival benefit from MDC discussion compared with controls. Patients with advanced disease (stages III and IV) benefited the most. Further research is necessary to understand the precise mechanisms that drive these results.

Correlation between perioperative outcomes and long-term survival for non-small lung cancer treated at major centers.

BACKGROUND: The public is placing increased emphasis on specialty specific rankings, thereby affecting patients' choices of clinical care programs. In the spirit of transparency, public reporting initiatives are underway or being considered by various surgical specialties whose databases rank programs based on short-term outcomes. Of concern, short-term risk avoidance excludes important comparative cases from surgical database participation and may adversely affect overall long-term oncologic treatment team results. To assess the validity of comparing short-term perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of all patients treated at major centers, we studied the correlations between these variables. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) between 2008 and 2012, yielding 5-year follow-up data for all patients at centers treating at least 100 patients annually. Mortality (30- and 90-day), unplanned 30-day readmissions, and hospital length of stay were modeled using logistic regression with sex, race, age, Charlson-Deyo combined comorbidity, extent of surgery, income, insurance status, histology, grade, and analytic stage as predictors, all with 2-way interaction terms. The differences between the predicted rates and observed rates were calculated for each short-term outcome, and the average of these was used to create a short-term metric (STM). A similar approach was used to create a long-term metric (LTM) that used overall survival as a single dependent variable. Centers were ranked into deciles based on these metrics. Visual plotting as well as correlation coefficients were used to judge correlation between STM and LTM. RESULTS: A total of 298,175 patients from 541 centers were included in this analysis, of whom 102,860 underwent surgical resection for NSCLC. The correlation between STM and LTM was negative using parametric estimates (Pearson correlation coefficient = -0.09 [P = .03] and -0.22 [P < .01]) and nonparametric estimates (Spearman rank correlation coefficient = -0.09 [P = .02] and -0.22 [P < .01]) for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term perioperative outcome rankings correlate poorly with long-term survival outcome rankings when cancer treatment centers are compared. Factors explaining this discrepancy merit further study. Rankings based on short-term outcomes alone may be incomplete for public reporting.

Exceeding Radiation Dose to Volume Parameters for the Proximal Airways with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Is More Likely for Ultracentral Lung Tumors and Associated with Worse Outcome.

The preferred radiotherapeutic approach for central (CLT) and ultracentral (UCLT) lung tumors is unclear. We assessed the toxicity and outcomes of patients with CLT and UCLT who underwent definitive five-fraction stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We reviewed the charts of patients with either CLT or UCLT managed with SBRT from June 2010-April 2019. CLT were defined as gross tumor volume (GTV) within 2 cm of either the proximal bronchial tree, trachea, mediastinum, aorta, or spinal cord. UCLT were defined as GTV abutting any of these structures. Propensity score matching was performed for gender, performance status, and history of prior lung cancer. Within this cohort of 83 patients, 43 (51.8%) patients had UCLT. The median patient age was 73.1 years with a median follow up of 29.9 months. The two most common dose fractionation schemes were 5000 cGy (44.6%) and 5500 cGy (42.2%) in five fractions. Multivariate analysis revealed UCLT to be associated with worse overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.9, p = 0.02) but not time to progression (TTP). Using propensity score match pairing, UCLT correlated with reduced non-cancer associated survival (p = 0.049) and OS (p = 0.03), but not TTP. Within the matched cohort, dosimetric study found exceeding a D4cc of 18 Gy to either the proximal bronchus (HR = 3.9, p = 0.007) or trachea (HR = 4.0, p = 0.02) was correlated with worse non-cancer associated survival. In patients undergoing five fraction SBRT, UCLT location was associated with worse non-cancer associated survival and OS, which could be secondary to excessive D4cc dose to the proximal airways.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2021.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and their respective biomarkers.

Prior Treatment for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Is Associated With Improved Survival in Patients who Undergo Definitive Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for a Subsequent Lung Malignancy: A Retrospective Multivariate and Matched Pair Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite occurring commonly, the prognoses of second early-stage non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) are not well known. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of inoperable patients who underwent thoracic stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) from February 2007 to April 2019. Those with previous small cell lung cancers or SBRT treatments for tumors other than NSCLC were excluded. Multivariate Cox regression and a matched pair cohort analyses evaluated the prognoses of patients undergoing definitive SBRT for a new second primary. RESULTS: Of 438 patients who underwent definitive SBRT for NSCLC, 84 had previously treated NSCLC. Univariate log-rank tests identified gender, Karnofksy performance status (KPS), prior lung cancer, anticoagulation use, and history of heart disease to correlate with overall survival (OS) (P<0.05). These factors were incorporated into a multivariate Cox regression model that demonstrated female sex (P=0.004, hazard ratio [HR]=0.68), KPS (P<0.001, HR=2.0), and prior lung cancer (P=0.049, HR=0.7) to be significantly associated with OS. A similar approach found only gender (P=0.017, HR=0.64) and tumor stage (P=0.02, HR=1.7) to correlate with relapse-free survival. To support the Cox regression analysis, propensity score matching was performed using gender, age, KPS, tumor stage, history of heart disease, and anticoagulation use. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis within the matched pairs found prior lung cancer to be associated with improved OS (P=0.011), but not relapse-free survival (P=0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with initial lung cancer SBRT inoperable cases, ablative radiotherapy for new primaries was associated with improved OS. Physicians should not be dissuaded from offering SBRT to such patients.

Approach to Resectable N1 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: In patients with clinical N1 disease, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has potentially better perioperative outcome compared to open thoracotomy. Additionally, whether adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy produces the best long-term survival is still debatable. METHODS: We queried The National Cancer Database for patients with clinical N1 NSCLC who underwent surgical resection between 2010 and 2014. Comparison between patients receiving MIS and patients who underwent open thoracotomy was done using an intention-to-treat analysis. Comparison was also done among neoadjuvant, adjuvant chemotherapy, and only surgery. Proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the effects of surgical approach and timing of chemotherapy on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 1440 and 3942 patients underwent MIS and open thoracotomy respectively. MIS achieved better surgical margins (90.0% versus 88.6%) and shorter length of stay (6.5 ± 6.5 versus 7.3 ± 6.4 d, P ≤ 0.01) compared to open thoracotomy. There were no differences in 30-day and 90-day mortality, nor readmission rates. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy were administered to 13.5% and 57.2% of patients respectively. There was no significant difference in the 5-year overall survival between MIS and open thoracotomy (46% versus 46% P = 0.08). There was significantly better 5-year overall survival in neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy versus only surgery, but no difference between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (48% versus 47% versus 44%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical N1 NSCLC, MIS does not compromise oncological quality or overall survival when compared to open thoracotomy. Overall survival improved in patients treated with chemotherapy but there is no difference when given as neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy.

Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy with Linear Stapled Anastomosis Associated with Low Leak and Stricture Rates.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive foregut surgery is increasingly performed for both benign and malignant diseases. We present a retrospective series of patients who underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE) with linear stapled anastomosis performed at two centers in the USA, with a focus on evaluating leak and stricture rates. METHODS: Patients treated from 2007 to 2018 were included, and data on demographics, oncologic treatment, pathology, and outcomes were analyzed. The surgical technique utilized laparoscopic and thoracoscopic access, with an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis using a 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side technique. RESULTS: A total of 124 patients were included and 114 resections (91.9%) were completed in a minimally invasive fashion with a 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side anastomosis. Patients were predominantly male (90.7%) with a median age of 66.0 years and body mass index of 28.8 kg/m2. Of 121 patients with malignancy, negative margins were obtained in 94.3% and median lymph node yield was 15 (IQR 12-22). In the intention to treat analysis, median operative time was 463 min (IQR 403-515), blood loss was 150 mL (IQR 100-200), and length of stay was 8 days (IQR 7-11). Postoperative complications were experienced by 64 patients (51.6%) including respiratory failure in 14 (11.3%) and pneumonia in 12 (9.7%). In patients who successfully underwent a 6-cm stapled side-to-side anastomosis, anastomotic leaks occurred in 6 patients (5.1%) without need for operative intervention, and anastomotic strictures occurred in 6 patients (5.1%) requiring endoscopic management. CONCLUSIONS: Ivor Lewis MIE with a 6-cm linear stapled anastomosis can be completed with a high technical success rate, and low rates of anastomotic leak and stricture.

The association of nodal upstaging with surgical approach and its impact on long-term survival after resection of non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Proponents of open thoracotomy (OPEN) and robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) claim its oncological superiority over video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in terms of the accuracy of lymph node staging. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing lobectomy without neoadjuvant therapy from 2010 to 2014. Nodal upstaging rates were compared using a surgical approach. Overall survival adjusted for confounding variables was examined using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 64 676 patients fulfilled the selection criteria. The number of patients who underwent lobectomy by RATS, VATS and OPEN approaches was 5470 (8.5%), 17 545 (27.1%) and 41 661 (64.4%), respectively. The mean number of lymph nodes examined for each of these approaches was 10.9, 11.3 and 10 (P < 0.01) and upstaging rates were 11.2%, 11.7% and 12.6% (P < 0.01), respectively. For patients with clinical stage I disease (N = 46 826; RATS = 4338, VATS = 13 416 and OPEN = 29 072), the mean lymph nodes examined were 10.6, 10.8 and 9.4 (P < 0.01), and upstaging rates were 10.8%, 11.1% and 12.1% (P < 0.01), respectively. A multivariable analysis suggested an association with improved survival with RATS and VATS compared with OPEN surgery [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.89 and 0.89, respectively; P < 0.01] for patients with all stages. In stage I disease, VATS but not RATS was associated with increased overall survival compared with the OPEN approach (HR = 0.81; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: RATS lobectomy is not superior to VATS lobectomy with respect to lymph node yield or upstaging of NSCLC. Increased nodal upstaging by the OPEN approach does not confer a survival advantage in any stage of NSCLC and may be associated with decreased overall survival.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 1.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in immunotherapy. For the 2020 update, all of the systemic therapy regimens have been categorized using a new preference stratification system; certain regimens are now recommended as "preferred interventions," whereas others are categorized as either "other recommended interventions" or "useful under certain circumstances."

Radiation With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Does Not Improve Outcomes in Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant treatment improves survival for patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Recent evidence suggests that neoadjuvant chemoradiation offers no advantage over chemotherapy alone before surgical resection for adenocarcinoma histology. We sought to examine if this applies to patients with squamous cell histology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus from 2004 to 2012. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before esophagectomy were compared with those undergoing chemotherapy and radiation before surgical resection. Associations between potential covariates and treatment were analyzed using the Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. Univariate and multivariate proportional hazards modeling results were used to assess the effect of treatment on overall survival. Relative prognosis was summarized using estimates and 95% confidence limits for the hazard ratio. Unadjusted differences in overall survival and disease-specific survival between the treatment are shown using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: A total of 902 patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy before surgical resection during the study period, with 827 receiving chemotherapy and radiation, and 75 receiving chemotherapy alone preoperatively. The 30- and 90-d mortality for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation followed by surgery were 5.4% and 10.4% compared to 5.5% and 11.1% for patients who received chemotherapy alone preoperatively (P = 0.963 and P = 0.856), respectively. Median overall survival for patients receiving chemotherapy and radiation was 36.0 mo versus 40.8 mo for chemotherapy alone. The 5-y survival was 39% for the chemotherapy and radiation group and 43% for the chemotherapy group (logrank P = 0.7212). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment before planned surgical resection of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus, the addition of radiation to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not improve long-term survival and did not appear to impact short-term outcomes postoperatively. Further study with a randomized phase III trial is needed.