Antenatal corticosteroid administration in late-preterm gestations: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: To evaluate whether administration of antenatal late-preterm betamethasone is cost-effective in the immediate neonatal period.Study design: Cost-effectiveness analysis of late-preterm betamethasone administration with a time horizon of 7.5 days was conducted using a health-system perspective. Data for neonatal outcomes, including respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN), and hypoglycemia, were from the Antenatal Betamethasone for Women at Risk for Late-Preterm Delivery trial. Cost data were derived from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and utilities of neonatal outcomes were from the literature. Outcomes were total costs in 2017 United States dollars and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each individual infant as well as for a theoretical cohort of the 270 000 late-preterm infants born in 2015 in the USA.Results: For an individual patient, compared to withholding betamethasone, administering betamethasone incurred a higher total cost ($6592 versus $6265) and marginally lower QALYs (0.02002 QALYS versus 0.02006 QALYs) within the studied time horizon. For the theoretical cohort of 270 000 patients, administration of betamethasone was $88 million more expensive ($1780 million versus $1692 million) with lower QALYs (5402 QALYs versus 5416 QALYs), compared to withholding betamethasone. For administration of betamethasone to be cost-effective, the rate of hypoglycemia, RDS, or TTN among late-preterm infants receiving betamethasone would need to be less than 20.0, 4.5, and 2.4%, respectively.Conclusion: Administration of betamethasone in the late-preterm period is likely not cost-effective in the short-term.

Trends in Treatment of T1N0 Esophageal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore nationwide trends in treatment and outcomes of T1N0 esophageal cancer. BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment has become an accepted option for early-stage esophageal cancer, but nationwide utilization rates and outcomes are unknown. METHODS: T1N0 esophageal cancers were identified in the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2014. We assessed trends in treatment; compared endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, chemoradiation, and no treatment; and performed a subgroup analysis of T1a and T1b patients from 2010 to 2014 (AJCC 7). RESULTS: A total of 12,383 patients with clinical T1N0 esophageal cancer were analyzed. Over a decade, use of endoscopic therapy increased from 12.7% to 33.6%, whereas chemoradiation and esophagectomy decreased, P < 0.01. The rise in endoscopic treatment of T1a disease from 42.7% to 50.6% was accompanied by a decrease in esophagectomies from 21.7% to 12.8% (P < 0.01). For T1b disease, the rise in endoscopic treatment from 16.9% to 25.1% (P = 0.03) was accompanied by decreases in no treatment and chemoradiation, whereas the rate of esophagectomies remained approximately 50%. Unadjusted median survival was longer for patients undergoing resection: esophagectomy, 98.6 months; endoscopic therapy, 77.7 months; chemoradiation, 17.3 months; no treatment, 8.2 months; P < 0.01. Risk-adjusted Cox modeling showed esophagectomy was associated with improved survival [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85], and chemoradiation (HR: 1.79) and no treatment (HR: 3.57) with decreased survival, compared to endoscopic therapy (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Use of endoscopic therapy for T1 esophageal cancer has increased significantly: for T1a, as an alternative to esophagectomy; and for T1b, as an alternative to no treatment or chemoradiation. Despite upfront risks, long-term survival is highest for patients who can undergo esophagectomy.

Imaging Surveillance for Surgically Resected Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Is More Always Better?

Objective: Routine surveillance imaging for patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer is standard for the detection of disease recurrence and new primary lung cancers. However, surveillance intensity varies widely in practice, and its impact on long-term outcomes is poorly understood. We hypothesized that surveillance intensity was not associated with 5-year overall survival in patients with resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Additionally, we examined patterns of recurrence and new primary lung cancer development. Methods: Cancer registrars at Commission on Cancer accredited institutions re-abstracted records to augment National Cancer Database patient data with information on comorbidities, imaging surveillance including intent and result of imaging, and recurrence (2007-2012). Pathologic stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing computed-tomography surveillance were placed into three imaging surveillance groups based on clinical practice guidelines: high intensity (3 month), moderate intensity (6 month), and low intensity (annual). Kaplan Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to compare overall survival among the three surveillance groups. Results: 2442 patients were identified, with 805 (33%), 1216 (50%), and 421 (17%) patients in the high, moderate, and low surveillance intensity groups, respectively. Five-year overall survival was similar between intensity groups (p=0.547). Surveillance on asymptomatic patients detected 210 (63%) cases of locoregional recurrences and 128 (72%) cases of new primary lung cancer. Conclusions: In a unique national dataset of long-term outcomes for stage I non-small cell lung cancer, surveillance intensity was not associated with 5-year overall survival.

Induction Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Does Dose Affect Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Wide variation is seen in the dosage of preoperative induction radiation therapy for esophageal cancer. We investigated associations between outcomes after esophagectomy and dosage of induction radiation therapy. METHODS: Patients undergoing induction radiation therapy (30 to 70 Gy), followed by esophagectomy, were identified from the National Cancer Database and classified as low (<40 Gy), standard (40 to 50.4 Gy), and high dose (>50.4 Gy). Perioperative outcomes and overall survival were compared. Subgroup analysis compared two common dosages: 45 Gy and 50.4 Gy. RESULTS: From 2004 to 2014, 10,738 patients (84.7%) received standard-dose radiation, increasing from 69.7% in 2004 to 93.6% in 2014 (p < 0.001), 1,329 (10.5%) received low-dose radiation, and 608 (4.8%) received high-dose radiation. Higher rates of pathologic complete response (pCR; low: 11.7%, standard: 16.2%, high: 21.0%; p < 0.001) and downstaging (low: 52.0%, standard: 56.4%, high: 63.1%, p = 0.001) were observed as the dosage increased. On multivariable analysis, compared with standard-dose, high-dose radiation was associated with higher 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.11; p < 0.001) without a higher likelihood of downstaging or pCR. Low-dose radiation was associated with lower likelihood of downstaging (OR, 0.85; p = 0.04) and pCR (OR, 0.67; p < 0.001) without lowering the risk of 30-day mortality. The dose of 50.4 Gy was associated with higher likelihood of pCR (OR, 1.12; p = 0.04), without affecting 30-day mortality, compared with 45 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose induction radiation (>50.4 Gy) is associated with increased perioperative death after esophagectomy, without a significant improvement in tumor response. Low-dose radiation (<30 Gy) is associated with worse tumor response without a lower risk of perioperative death. Within standard dosages, 50.4 Gy is associated with higher likelihood of pCR without adversely affecting perioperative mortality compared with 45 Gy.

Postoperative Pneumonia Prevention in Pulmonary Resections: A Feasibility Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia after pulmonary resection occurs in 5% to 12% of patients and causes substantial morbidity. Oral hygiene regimens lower the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonias; however, the impact in patients undergoing elective pulmonary resection is unknown. We conducted a prospective pilot study to assess the feasibility of an oral hygiene intervention in this patient cohort. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective pulmonary resection were prospectively enrolled in a single-arm interventional study with time-matched controls. Participants were asked to brush their teeth with 0.12% chlorhexidine three times daily for 5 days before their operations and 5 days or until the time of discharge after their operations. Patients were eligible if they had known or suspected lung cancer and were undergoing (1) any anatomic lung resection or (2) a wedge resection with forced expiratory volume in 1 second or diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide less than 50% predicted. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were enrolled in the pilot intervention group and compared with a contemporaneous cohort of 611 patients who met surgical inclusion criteria. Preoperative adherence to the chlorhexidine toothbrushing regimen was high: median 100% (interquartile range: 87% to 100%). Postoperatively, 80% of patients continued toothbrushing, whereas 20% declined further participation. Among those who participated postoperatively, median adherence was 86% (interquartile range: 53% to 100%). There was a trend toward reduction in postoperative pneumonia: 1.6% (1 of 62) in the intervention cohort versus 4.9% (30 of 611) in the time-matched cohort (p = 0.35). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of pneumonia was 30 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated patients can comply with an inexpensive perioperative oral hygiene regimen that may be promising for reducing morbidity (Clinical Trials Registry: NCT01446874).

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in Thoracic Surgery.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways are protocolled collections of perioperative decisions designed to improve outcomes that are becoming increasingly popular across surgical subspecialties. In this article, we review 5 recent manuscripts focused on ERAS for elective pulmonary resections, focusing on the components of the pathways and the resultant outcomes. Overall, we observed that ERAS protocols can be safely implemented without increasing hospital readmission or mortality. The benefit is largely seen in shortened length of stay, though there is some promise for decreasing rates of important perioperative complications, especially in patients receiving thoracotomies. More research is needed into the specific elements that impact care, as well as the effect on overall patient experience.

Comparative effectiveness of upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation in clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer: A decision analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the effectiveness of upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy for overall survival in patients with clinical T2N0 (cT2N0) esophageal cancer. We also assessed the influence of the diagnostic uncertainty of endoscopic ultrasound on the expected benefit of chemoradiation. METHODS: We created a decision analysis model representing 2 treatment strategies for cT2N0 esophageal cancer: upfront esophagectomy that may be followed by adjuvant therapy for upstaged patients and induction chemoradiation for all patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer followed by esophagectomy. Parameter values within the model were obtained from published data, and median survival for pathologic subgroups was derived from the National Cancer Database. In sensitivity analyses, staging uncertainty of endoscopic ultrasound was introduced by varying the probability of pathologic upstaging. RESULTS: The baseline model showed comparable median survival for both strategies: 48.3 months for upfront esophagectomy versus 45.9 months for induction chemoradiation and surgery. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated induction chemoradiation was beneficial, with probability of upstaging > 48.1%, which is within the published range of 32% to 65% probability of pathologic upstaging after cT2N0 diagnosis. The presence of any of 3 key variables (size larger than 3 cm, high grade, or lymphovascular invasion) was associated with > 48.1% risk of upstaging, thus conferring a survival advantage to induction chemoradiation. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal treatment strategy for cT2N0 esophageal cancer depends on the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound staging. High-risk features that confer increased probability of upstaging can inform clinical decision making to recommend induction chemoradiation for select cT2N0 patients.

Office-Based Spirometry: A New Model of Care in Preoperative Assessment for Low-Risk Lung Resections.

BACKGROUND: Formal pulmonary function testing with laboratory spirometry (LS) is the standard of care for risk stratification before lung resection. LS and handheld office spirometry (OS) are clinically comparable for forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity. We investigated the safety of preoperative risk stratification based solely on OS. METHODS: Patients at low-risk for cardiopulmonary complications were enrolled in a single-center prospective study and underwent preoperative OS. Formal LS was not performed when forced expiratory volume in 1 second was more than 60% by OS. Propensity score matching was used to compare patients in the OS group to low-risk institutional database patients (2008 to 2015) who underwent LS and lung resection. Standardized mean differences determined model covariate balance. The McNemar test and log-rank test were performed, respectively, for categorical and continuous paired outcome data. RESULTS: There were 66 prospectively enrolled patients who received OS and underwent pulmonary resection, and 1,290 patients received preoperative LS, resulting in 52 propensity score-matched pairs (83%). There were no deaths and two 30-day readmissions per group. The major morbidity risk was similar in each group (7.7%). All analyses of discordant pair morbidity had p exceeding 0.56. There was no association between length of stay and exposure to OS vs LS (p = 0.31). The estimated annual institutional cost savings from performing OS only and avoiding LS was $38,000. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk patients undergoing lung resection can be adequately and safely assessed using OS without formal LS, with significant cost savings. With upcoming bundled care reimbursement paradigms, such safe and effective strategies are likely to be more widely used.