Lung Cancer in Young Patients is Associated With More Advanced Disease but Better Overall Survival.

INTRODUCTION: It is unclear whether nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with more aggressive disease and worse overall survival (OS) among younger patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes in young patients. We hypothesize that young age is associated with more advanced disease upon presentation, but better OS. METHODS: We identified patients with NSCLC from 2004 to 2018 in the National Cancer Database. Patients were categorized in 3 groups: age≤50, 51-84, and ≥85 y. The outcomes were OS, stage IV NSCLC and clinical nodal metastasis. OS was analyzed using multivariate cox and Kaplan-Meier analysis accounting for stage, comorbidities, and other factors. The association of age, presentation with stage IV NSCLC and node positivity was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: In total 1,651,744 patients were identified: 92,506 (5.57%) age ≤50, 1,477,723 (88.90%) age 51-84, and 91,964 (5.53%) age ≥85. Multivariate model showed stage IV NSCLC was associated with age ≤50 (OR 1.17 (1.15-1.20) P < 0.001) and ≥85 (odds ratio (OR) 1.03 (1.02-1.04) P < 0.001). Clinical lymph node positivity was associated with age ≤50 (OR 1.27 (1.23-1.30) P < 0.001). Relative to patients 51-84, the ≤50 group was associated with better survival in Stage I (hazard ratio (HR) 0.61 versus 1.00), stage II (HR 1.12 versus 1.50), stage III (HR 2.12 versus 2.53), and stage IV (HR 6.65 versus 7.53). CONCLUSIONS: Patients ≤50-y-old present with more advanced NSCLC, but better OS compared to patients 51-84. These findings suggest the need for increased awareness regarding NSCLC among age groups seen as low risk.

Evaluating the Optimal Time Between Diagnosis and Surgical Intervention for Early-Stage Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus on the optimal timing for lung cancer surgery. We aim to evaluate the impact of timing of surgical intervention. We hypothesize delay in intervention is associated with worse overall survival and higher pathologic upstaging in early-stage lung cancer. METHODS: We identified patients with cT1/2N0M0 nonsmall cell lung cancer in the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2018. Patients were categorized by time to surgery groups: early (<26 d), average (26-60 d), and delayed (61-365 d). Primary outcome was overall survival and secondary outcome was pathologic upstaging. Multivariate models and survival analyses were used to determine factors associated with time from diagnosis to surgery, pathologic upstaging, and overall survival. RESULTS: In multivariate model, advanced age, non-Hispanic Black patients, nonprivate insurance, low median income and education, and treatment at low-volume facilities were less likely to undergo early intervention and compared to the average group were more likely to receive delayed intervention. Pathologic upstaging was more likely in the delayed group (odds ratio 1.11, 1.07-1.14) compared to early group (odds ratio 0.96, 0.93-0.99). Early intervention was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.93, 0.91-0.95), while delayed intervention was associated with inferior survival (hazard ratio 1.11, 1.09-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Expeditious surgical intervention is associated with lower rates of pathologic upstaging and improved overall survival in early-stage lung cancer. Delays in surgery are associated with social and economic factors, suggesting disparities in access to surgery. Lung cancer surgery should be performed as quickly as possible to maximize oncologic outcomes.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes following paraesophageal hernia repair among obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Although obesity is an established risk factor for adverse outcomes after paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR), many obese patients nonetheless receive PEHR. The purpose of this study was to explore risk factors for adverse outcomes of PEHR among this high-risk cohort. We hypothesized that obese patients may have other risk factors for adverse outcomes following PEHR. METHODS: A retrospective study of adult obese patients who underwent minimally invasive PEHR from 2017 to 2019 was performed. Patients were excluded for BMI < 30 or if they had concomitant bariatric surgery at time of PEHR. The primary outcome of interest was a composite adverse outcome (CAO) defined as having any of the four following outcomes after PEHR: persistent GERD > 30 d, persistent dysphagia > 30 d, recurrence, or reoperation. Chi-square and t-test analysis was used to compare demographic and clinical characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate independent predictors of CAO. RESULTS: In total, 139 patients met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up of 19.7 months (IQR 8.8-81). Among them, 51/139 (36.7%) patients had a CAO: 31/139 (22.4%) had persistent GERD, 20/139 (14.4%) had persistent dysphagia, 24/139 (17.3%) had recurrence, and 6/139 (4.3%) required reoperation. On unadjusted analysis, patients with a CAO were more likely to have a history of prior abdominal surgery (86.3% vs 70.5%, p = 0.04) and were less likely to have undergone a preoperative CT scan (27.5% vs 45.5%, p = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, previous abdominal surgery was independently associated with an increased likelihood of CAO whereas age and preoperative CT scan had a decreased likelihood of CAO. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were adverse outcomes among obese patients, minimally invasive PEHR may be feasible in a subset of patients at specialized centers. These findings may help guide the appropriate selection of obese patients for PEHR.

Disparities and access to thoracic surgeons among esophagectomy patients in the United States.

Esophagectomy is a complex operation with significant morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have shown that sub-specialization is associated with improved esophagectomy outcomes. We hypothesized that disparities would exist among esophagectomy patients regarding access to thoracic surgeons based on demographic, geographic, and hospital factors. The Premier Healthcare Database was used to identify adult inpatients receiving esophagectomy for esophageal and gastric cardia cancer, Barrett's esophagus, and achalasia from 2015 to 2019 using ICD-10 codes. Patients were categorized as receiving their esophagectomy from a thoracic versus non-thoracic provider. Survey methodology was used to correct for sampling error. Backwards selection from bivariable analysis was used in a survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors of esophagectomy provider specialization. During the study period, 960 patients met inclusion criteria representing an estimated population size of 3894 patients. Among them, 1696 (43.5%) were performed by a thoracic surgeon and 2199 (56.5%) were performed by non-thoracic providers. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with decreased likelihood of receiving care from a thoracic provider included Black (OR 0.41, p < 0.001), Other (OR 0.21, p < 0.001), and Unknown race (OR 0.22, p = 0.04), and uninsured patients (OR 0.53, p = 0.03). Urban hospital setting was associated with an increased likelihood of care by a thoracic provider (OR 4.43, p = 0.001). In this nationally representative study, Nonwhite race, rural hospital setting, and lower socioeconomic status were factors associated with decreased likelihood of esophagectomy patients receiving care from a thoracic surgeon. Efforts to address these disparities and provide appropriate access to thoracic surgeons is warranted.

Contemporary outcomes of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction neuroendocrine tumors.

Adenocarcinoma and squamous cell esophageal cancers have been extensively studied in the literature. Esophageal neuroendocrine (NET)/carcinoid tumors are less commonly studied and have only been described in small series. The purpose of this study was to describe the demographics and natural history of esophageal NETs, as well as optimal treatments. We hypothesized that surgical resection would be the best treatment of esophageal NETs. The National Cancer Database was used to identify adult patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer from 2004 to 2018. Patients were characterized as carcinoid/NET, adenocarcinoma, or squamous cell cancer. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared between the histology groups. The primary outcome was overall survival, which was assessed by multivariable Cox analysis. Multivariable Cox analysis was also used to analyze factors associated with survival among NET patients who underwent surgery. Among 206,321 patients with esophageal cancer, 1,563 were NETs (<0.01%). Relative to the other two histologies, NETs were associated with younger age, female sex, and advanced clinical stage at diagnosis. Multivariate analysis suggested that NETs were less likely to be treated with surgical resection (OR 0.51, P < 0.001). Nonetheless, surgical resection was associated with improved survival (HR 0.64, P = 0.003). Among patients with NETs who received surgery, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.38, P = 0.013). NET of the esophagus presents with more advanced disease than other common histologies. Among patients with nonmetastatic cancer, surgical resection appears to be the best treatment. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy may offer survival benefit, but future studies are necessary.

Are We Underestimating the Morbidity of Single Rib Fractures?

PURPOSE: Previous studies suggest that patients with multiple rib fractures have poor outcomes, but it is unknown how isolated single rib fractures (SRF) are associated with morbidity or mortality. We hypothesized that patients with poor outcomes after SRF can be identified by demographics and comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to model adverse outcome after single rib fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the 2016 National Inpatient Sample to identify patients with SRF associated with blunt trauma using ICD-10 coding. Comorbidities and abbreviated injury score (AIS) were also extracted. Patients with non-chest trauma were excluded. The primary outcome was an adverse composite outcome of death, pneumonia, tracheostomy, or hospitalization longer than twelve days. One-third of the cohort was reserved for validation. Backward selection multivariable modeling identified factors associated with adverse composite outcome. The model was used to create a nomogram to predict adverse composite outcome. The nomogram was then tested using the validation cohort. RESULTS: 2,398 patients with isolated SRF were divided into training (n = 1,598) and validation sets (n = 800). The average age was 69 and the majority were male (66%) and received care at academic institutions (61.6%). The adverse composite outcome occurred in 20.8%: 61 deaths (2.5%), 67 tracheostomies (2.8%), 319 pneumonias (13.3%), and 165 patients with hospital length of stay greater than twelve days (6.9%). Results of stepwise multivariable modeling had a C-statistic of 0.700. The multivariable model was used to create a nomogram which had a c-statistic of 0.672 in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: 20% of isolated SRF patients had an adverse outcome. Demographics and comorbidities can be used to identify and triage high-risk patients for specialized care and proper counseling.

Surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in clinical N3 esophageal cancer results in improved survival: a propensity-matched analysis.

Esophageal cancer patients with extensive nodal metastases have poor survival, and benefit of surgery in this population is unclear. The aim of this study is to determine if surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) improves overall survival (OS) in patients with clinical N3 (cN3) esophageal cancer relative to chemoradiation therapy (CRT) alone. The National Cancer Database was queried for all patients with cN3 esophageal cancer between 2010 and 2016. Patients who met inclusion criteria (received multiagent chemotherapy and radiation dose ≥30 Gy) were divided into two cohorts: CRT alone and nCRT + surgery. 769 patients met inclusion criteria, including 560 patients who received CRT alone, and 209 patients who received nCRT + surgery. The overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in the CRT alone group compared to the nCRT + surgery group (11.8% vs 18.0%, P < 0.001). A 1:1 propensity matched cohort of CRT alone and nCRT + surgery patients also demonstrated improved survival associated with surgery (13.11 mo vs 23.1 mo, P < 0.001). Predictors of survival were analyzed in the surgery cohort, and demonstrated that lymphovascular invasion was associated with worse survival (HR 2.07, P = 0.004). Despite poor outcomes of patients with advanced nodal metastases, nCRT + surgery is associated with improved OS. Of those with cN3 disease, only 27% underwent esophagectomy. Given the improved OS, patients with advanced nodal disease should be considered for surgery. Further investigation is warranted to determine which patients with cN3 disease would benefit most from esophagectomy, as 5-year survival remains low (18.0%).

Eliminating Hands-Off Handoffs: Improvement in Perioperative Handoff Communication With a Multidisciplinary Tool Initiative.

INTRODUCTION: Handoffs between the operating room (OR) and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) require a high volume and quality of information to be transferred. This study aimed to improve perioperative communication with a handoff tool. METHODS: Perioperative staff at a quaternary care center was surveyed regarding perception of handoff quality, and OR to PACU handoffs were observed for structured criteria. A 25-item tool was implemented, and handoffs were similarly observed. Staff was then again surveyed. A multidisciplinary team led this initiative as a collaboration. RESULTS: After implementation, nursing reported improved perception of time spent (2.63-3.68, p = .02) and amount of information discussed (2.85-3.73, p = .05). Anesthesia also reported improved personal communication (3.69-4.43, p = .004), effectiveness of handoffs (3.43-3.82, p = .02), and amount of information discussed (4.26-4.76, p = .05). After implementation, observed patient information discussed during handoffs increased for both surgical and anesthesia team members. The frequency of complete and near-complete handoffs increased (40%-74%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A structured handoff tool increased the amount of essential information reported during handoffs between the OR and PACU and increased team members' perception of handoffs.

Is Minimally Invasive Resection of Large Thymoma Appropriate?

BACKGROUND: Current practice patterns suggest open rather than minimally invasive (MIS) approaches for thymomas >4 cm. We hypothesized there would be similar perioperative outcomes and overall survival between open and MIS approaches for large (>4 cm) thymoma resection. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent thymectomy from 2010 to 2020. Surgical approach was characterized as either open or MIS. The primary outcome was overall survival and secondary outcomes were margin status, and length of stay (LOS). Differences between approach cohorts were compared after a 1:1 propensity match. RESULTS: Among 4121 thymectomies, 2474 (60%) were open and 1647 (40%) were MIS. Patients undergoing MIS were older, had fewer comorbidities, and had smaller tumors (median; 4.6 vs 6 cm, P < .001). In the unmatched cohort, MIS and open had similar 90-day mortality (1.1% vs 1.8%, P = .158) and rate of positive margin (25.1% vs 27.9%, P = .109). MIS thymectomy was associated with shorter LOS (2 (1-4) vs 4 (3-6) days, P < .001). Propensity matching reduced the bias between the groups. In this cohort, overall survival was similar between the groups by log-rank test (P = .462) and multivariate cox hazard analysis (HR .882, P = .472). Multivariable regression showed shorter LOS with MIS approach (Coef -1.139, P < .001), and similar odds of positive margin (OR 1.130, P = .150). DISCUSSION: MIS has equivalent oncologic benefit to open resection for large thymomas, but is associated with shorter LOS. When clinically appropriate, MIS thymectomy may be considered a safe alternative to open resection for large thymomas.

Primary hyperparathyroidism after radioactive iodine therapy: Is it a distinct clinical entity?

BACKGROUND: Radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment is considered a rare cause of primary hyperparathyroidism (pHPT). METHOD: A multi-institutional retrospective review of patients with pHPT who underwent parathyroidectomy from 1990 to 2020 was completed to evaluate the prevalence and latency time for development of RAI-associated pHPT and determine clinical differences in pHPT patients with or without prior RAI treatment. RESULTS: 1929 patients with sporadic pHPT underwent parathyroidectomy; 48 (2.5%) had prior RAI treatment and 1881 (97.5%) did not. RAI treatment was for thyrotoxicosis in 43 (90%) patients. Average latency was 24 years (3-59 years) and inversely correlated with age. Patients with prior RAI treatment had lower preoperative calcium and PTH levels (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed in age, symptoms, pathology, ectopic glands and cure rate. CONCLUSION: RAI is a potential causative factor for pHPT, accounting for 2.5% of sporadic pHPT. RAI-associated pHPT may be a less severe form of sporadic pHPT and latency inversely correlates with age.

The Effect of Diabetes on Pathologic Complete Response Among Patients With Esophageal Cancer.

Diabetes is a common comorbidity in the U.S. and is associated with adverse outcomes in a variety of disease processes. Other cancer specialties have shown an association of diabetes with poor oncologic outcomes. We hypothesized that pathologic complete response (pCR) would be less likely among diabetic patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by esophagectomy resulting in worse overall survival (OS). We performed a retrospective chart review at 2 high-volume academic hospitals of all patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by esophagectomy from 2010-2019. Patients were excluded if they had histology other than squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, did not receive multi-agent chemotherapy or received a radiation dose <39.6 Gy. The primary outcome of interest was pCR and secondary outcome was OS. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the likelihood of pCR and Cox hazard analysis was used to assess OS. In total, 244 patients met inclusion criteria: 190 (77.9%) were non-diabetic and 54 (22.1%) were diabetic. Diabetic and non-diabetic patients were similar in age, sex, institution where they received treatment, ASA class, comorbidities, histologic sub-type, clinical T and N stage, chemotherapy regimen and radiation dose. Diabetic patients were more likely to have a higher body mass index (29.1 vs 25.9, p < 0.001) and hypertension (87.0% vs 47.9%, p < 0.001). On univariable analysis, diabetes was the only factor associated with decreased likelihood of pCR (p = 0.04). Multivariable analysis showed diabetes was again the only factor associated with a decreased likelihood of pCR (OR 0.32, p = 0.03). Cox survival analysis showed that older age (HR 1.03, p = 0.02) and overall posttreatment pathologic stage 2 (HR 2.16, p = 0.03), stage 3 (HR 3.25, p < 0.001), and stage 4 (HR 5.75, p < 0.001) compared to pCR were associated with worse OS, however diabetes alone had no effect (HR 1.01, p = 0.98). This multi-institutional study shows that diabetes adversely affects pCR in patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. Almost a quarter of patients with esophageal cancer have diabetes suggesting implications for management of these patients. Future studies are warranted to determine the optimal neoadjuvant treatment strategy for esophageal cancer patients with diabetes.

Morbidity After Esophagectomy Is Higher for Benign Than Malignant Disease.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality. The most common indication for esophagectomy is esophageal cancer, with fewer than 5% of esophagectomies performed for benign disease. We hypothesized that esophagectomy for benign disease is associated with a higher risk of operative and postoperative complications. METHODS: A retrospective study of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database was performed to identify all patients who had an esophagectomy from 2010 to 2018. Patients who had an emergent or palliative esophagectomy were excluded. Patients were compared based on the indication for operation, malignant vs benign disease. A 1:1 propensity score matching of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk factors was performed and outcomes compared between the matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of 16,392 patients, 14,871 (91%) had malignant disease and 1521 (9%) had benign disease that met inclusion criteria. Patients with malignant disease were older (P < .001), more likely to be male (83% vs 56%, P < .001), and had more comorbidities (P < .001). There were 1362 propensity-matched pairs. Malignant esophagectomies were more likely to be performed with a minimally invasive vs an open approach (P < .001). Benign operations had more intraoperative blood transfusions (P < .001). Patients undergoing esophagectomy for benign disease had more prolonged intubations (P = .02) and postoperative blood transfusions (P = .001). Benign disease had more major morbidities (P = .001) but similar postoperative mortality (P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomy for benign disease is associated with worse perioperative morbidity compared with esophagectomy for malignant disease. Given these findings patients should be counseled on expected outcomes, and this variable should be considered for inclusion in the composite score for risk assessment.

Contemporary outcomes of surgical resection for chest wall chondrosarcoma.

Objective: Chondrosarcoma is the most common primary malignant chest wall tumor and is historically associated with poor prognosis. Recommendations regarding surgical excision are on the basis of small, single-institution studies. We used a large national database to assess outcomes of surgery for chest wall chondrosarcoma (CWC) hypothesizing that surgical excision remains standard of care. Methods: The National Cancer Databases for bone and soft tissue were merged to identify patients with chondrosarcoma from 2004 to 2018. Clinical and demographic characteristics of CWC were compared with chondrosarcoma from other sites. The primary outcome was overall survival described using Kaplan-Meier estimate. Univariable and multivariable Cox analysis was used to determine risk factors for poor survival among CWC patients who underwent surgery. Multivariable analysis of predictors of margin status was performed because of worse prognosis associated with positive margins. Results: Among 11,925 patients with chondrosarcoma, 1934 (16.2%) had a CWC. Relative to other sites, CWC was associated with older age, male sex, White race, surgical resection, and care at a nonacademic institution. CWC was associated with 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival of 91.5%, 82.0%, 75.5%, and 62.7%, respectively. In univariable analysis, survival was associated with surgery (hazard ratio, 0.02; P < .001) and adversely affected by positive margins (hazard ratio, 2.66; P < .001). Multivariable analysis showed larger tumor size was independently associated with increased risk for positive margins (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.011-1.075). Conclusions: CWC represents a different cohort of patients relative to chondrosarcoma from other sites. Surgical excision remains the optimal treatment, and positive margins are associated with poor prognosis.

Disparities in Access to Thoracic Surgeons among Patients Receiving Lung Lobectomy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Lung lobectomy is the standard of care for early-stage lung cancer. Studies have suggested improved outcomes associated with lobectomy performed by specialized thoracic surgery providers. We hypothesized that disparities would exist regarding access to thoracic surgeons among patients receiving lung lobectomy for cancer. METHODS: The Premier Hospital Database was used to identify adult inpatients receiving lung lobectomy from 2009 to 2019. Patients were categorized as receiving their lobectomy from a thoracic surgeon, cardiovascular surgeon, or general surgeon. Sample-weighted multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with provider type. RESULTS: When adjusted for sampling, 121,711 patients were analyzed, including 71,709 (58.9%) who received lobectomy by a thoracic surgeon, 36,630 (30.1%) by a cardiovascular surgeon, and 13,373 (11.0%) by a general surgeon. Multivariable analysis showed that thoracic surgeon provider type was less likely with Black patients, Medicaid insurance, smaller hospital size, in the western region, and in rural areas. In addition, non-thoracic surgery specialty was less likely to perform minimally-invasive (MIS) lobectomy (cardiovascular OR 0.80, p < 0.001, general surgery OR 0.85, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationally representative analysis, smaller, rural, non-teaching hospitals, and certain regions of the United States are less likely to receive lobectomy from a thoracic surgeon. Thoracic surgeon specialization is also independently associated with utilization of minimally invasive lobectomy. Combined, there are significant disparities in access to guideline-directed surgical care of patients receiving lung lobectomy.

Surgical subspecialization is associated with higher rate of rib fracture stabilization: a retrospective database analysis.

Background: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is performed on only a small subset of patients who meet guideline-recommended indications for surgery. Although previous studies show that provider specialization was associated with SSRF procedural competency, little is known about the impact of provider specialization on SSRF performance frequency. We hypothesize that provider specialization would impact performance of SSRF. Methods: The Premier Hospital Database was used to identify adult patients with rib fractures from 2015 and 2019. The outcome of interest was performance of SSRF, defined using International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision Procedure Coding System coding. Patients were categorized as receiving their procedures from a thoracic, general surgeon, or orthopedic surgeon. Patients with missing or other provider types were excluded. Multivariate modeling was performed to evaluate the effect of surgical specialization on outcomes of SSRF. Given a priori assumptions that trauma centers may have different practice patterns, a subgroup analysis was performed excluding patients with 'trauma center' admissions. Results: Among 39 733 patients admitted with rib fractures, 2865 (7.2%) received SSRF. Trauma center admission represented a minority (1034, 36%) of SSRF procedures relative to other admission types (1831, 64%, p=0.15). In a multivariable analysis, thoracic (OR 6.94, 95% CI 5.94-8.11) and orthopedic provider (OR 2.60, 95% CI 2.16-3.14) types were significantly more likely to perform SSRF. In further analyses of trauma center admissions versus non-trauma center admissions, this pattern of SSRF performance was found at non-trauma centers. Conclusion: The majority of SSRF procedures in the USA are being performed by general surgeons and at non-trauma centers. 'Subspecialty' providers in orthopedics and thoracic surgery are performing fewer total SSRF interventions, but are more likely to perform SSRF, especially at non-trauma centers. Provider specialization as a barrier to SSRF may be related to competence in the SSRF procedures and requires further study. Type: Therapeutic/care management. Level of evidence: IV.

Surgical Repair vs Stent for Esophageal Perforation: A Multi-institutional Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic esophageal stenting is used as an alternative to surgical repair for esophageal perforation. Multi-institutional studies supporting stenting are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical repair and esophageal stenting in patients with esophageal perforation using a nationally representative database. We hypothesized that mortality between these approaches would not be different. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database was used to compare adult inpatients with esophageal perforation receiving either surgical repair or esophageal stenting from 2009 to 2019. Patients receiving intervention ≤7 days of admission were included in the analysis. Patients receiving both stent and repair on the same day were excluded. The composite outcome of interest was death or discharge to hospice. Logistic regression was used to evaluate independent predictors of death or hospice, adjusting for comorbidities. RESULTS: There were 2543 patients with esophageal perforation identified who received repair (1314 [51.7%]) or stenting (1229 [48.3%]). Stenting increased from 7.0% in 2009 to 78.1% in 2019. Patients receiving repair were more likely to be female and White and had fewer Elixhauser comorbidities. Death or discharge to hospice was more common after stent (134/1314 [10.2%] repair vs 199/1229 [16.2%] stent; P < .001); however, after adjustment for comorbidities, logistic regression suggested that death or hospice discharge was similar between approaches (stent vs repair: odds ratio, 1.074; 95% CI, 0.81-1.42; P = .622). Hospital length of stay was shorter after stenting (stent vs repair coefficient, -4.09; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with esophageal perforation, the odds for death or discharge to hospice were similar for esophageal stenting compared with surgical repair.

Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion is Associated With Increased Utilization of Minimally Invasive Lung Resection for Early Stage Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive lung resection (MILR) is underutilized in the United States. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 39 states adopted Medicaid expansion, while 12 did not. Although Medicaid expansion has been associated with improved access to cancer care, its effect on utilization of MILR is unclear. We hypothesize that MILR would increase in Medicaid expansion states. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients from 2010 to 2018 with cT1/2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer who received surgical resection by wedge, segmentectomy, or lobectomy. Patients were grouped by whether they received care in a state without Medicaid expansion vs expansion in January 2014. The outcome of interest was MILR (defined as video-assisted or robotic-assisted thoracoscopy) relative to open. Multivariable difference in differences (DID) cross-sectional analysis was used to estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) of Medicaid expansion. RESULTS: There were 41,439 patients who met inclusion criteria: 20,446 (49.3%) in expansion states and 20,993 (50.7%) in non-expansion states. Multivariable DID analysis showed that Medicaid expansion was associated with an increase in Medicaid insurance type with an ATE of 7.4% (95% CI 7.1-7.7%, P = .002). Medicaid expansion was also associated with increased MILR utilization in unadjusted analysis (10,278/20,446 (50.3%) vs 9,953/20,993 (47.4%), p < .001) and in multivariable DID analysis (ATE 0.6%, 95% CI 0.3-0.8%, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Although Medicaid expansion was associated with increased utilization of MILR for early stage lung cancer, the treatment effect was modest. This suggests that barriers in access to MILR are larger than simply access to care.

Robotic Approach Has Improved Outcomes for Minimally Invasive Resection of Mediastinal Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The optimal minimally invasive surgical approach to mediastinal tumors is unknown. There are limited reports comparing the outcomes of resection with robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) surgery. We hypothesized that patients who underwent RATS would have improved outcomes. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for all patients who underwent a minimally invasive surgical approach for any mediastinal tumor from 2010 to 2016. Patients were determined to have an adverse composite outcome if they had any of the adverse perioperative outcomes: conversion to open procedure, 90-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and positive pathologic margins. Secondary outcomes of interest were length of stay and overall survival. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess likelihood of having a composite adverse outcome based on surgical approach. RESULTS: The study included 856 patients: 402 (47%) underwent VATS and 454 (53%) underwent RATS. RATS resections were associated with fewer conversions (4.9% vs 14.7%, P < .001), fewer positive margins (24.3% vs 31.6%, P = .02), shorter length of stay (3.8 days vs 4.3 days, P = .01), and fewer composite adverse events (36.7% vs 51.3%, P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed RATS (odds ratio, 0.44; P < .001) was independently associated with a decreased likelihood of a composite adverse outcome, even among tumors exceeding 4 cm (odds ratio, 0.45; P = .001). Overall survival was similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent a minimally invasive surgical approach for a mediastinal tumor, RATS had fewer adverse outcomes than VATS, even for tumors 4 cm or larger. These data suggests that RATS may be the preferred technique for patients who are candidates for minimally invasive resection of mediastinal tumors.

Impact of Diabetes on Pathologic Response to Multimodality Therapy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal cancer has increased faster than that of most cancers. Evidence from other malignant neoplasms suggests that diabetic patients have a worse response to multimodality therapy. We hypothesized that diabetic patients with esophageal cancer will have a decreased response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy compared with nondiabetic patients. METHODS: A retrospective study of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database identified all patients who had an esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer between 2012 and 2019. Patients were compared on the basis of the presence of diabetes. A pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as ypT0 N0. The χ2 and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare patients' demographic and clinical characteristics between those with and those without diabetes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the predictors of response to neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Of the 9171 patients who met inclusion criteria, 2011 (22%) patients were diabetic and 7160 (78%) patients were nondiabetic. Patients with diabetes were older, more likely to be male, and more likely to have all comorbidities. Univariate analysis revealed that diabetic patients were less likely to have pCR (16% vs 18%; P = .026). Although multivariable analysis showed a trend toward diabetic patients' having lower odds of achieving pCR, diabetes was not independently associated with pCR (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78-1.01; P = .075). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients may be less likely than nondiabetic patients to achieve pCR after neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal cancer. This suggests the need for further exploration as diabetic patients with esophageal cancer can potentially benefit from different treatment paradigms compared with their nondiabetic counterparts.