ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To examine the effect of radiotherapy field size on survival outcomes and patterns of recurrence in patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 216 patients with T1-4 N1-2 NSCLC following surgery and PORT using whole mediastinum (WM) or high-risk (HR) nodal fields from 1998 to 2015. Survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards modeling for outcomes and logistic regression analysis for treatment toxicities. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 28 months (interquartile range [IQR] 13-75 months) and 38 months (IQR 19-73 months) for WM (n = 131) and HR (n = 84) groups, respectively. Overall survival (OS) was not significantly different between groups (median OS: HR 49 vs. WM 32 months; P = .08). There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS), freedom from locoregional recurrence (LRR), or freedom from distant metastasis (P > .2 for all). Field size was not associated with OS, PFS, or LRR (P > .40 for all). LRR rates were 20% for HR and 26% for WM groups (P = .30). There was no significant difference in patterns of initial site of LRR between groups (P > .1). WM fields (OR 3.73, P = .001) and concurrent chemotherapy (odds ratio 3.62, P = .001) were associated with grade ≥2 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Locoregional control and survival rates were similar between PORT groups; an improved toxicity profile was observed in the HR group. Results from an ongoing prospective randomized clinical trial will provide further insight into the consequences of HR PORT fields.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/therapy , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Radiotherapy, Conformal/methods , Aged , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Progression-Free Survival , Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/methods , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: For patients with bilateral pulmonary metastases, staged resections have historically been the preferred surgical intervention. During the spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic made patient travel to the hospital challenging and necessitated reduction in operative volume so that resources could be conserved. We report our experience with synchronous bilateral metastasectomies for the treatment of disease in both lungs. METHODS: Patients with bilateral pulmonary metastases who underwent simultaneous bilateral resections were compared with a cohort of patients who underwent staged resections. We used nearest-neighbor propensity score (1:1) matching to adjust for confounders. Perioperative outcomes were compared between groups using paired statistical analysis techniques. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2020, 36 patients underwent bilateral simultaneous metastasectomies. We matched 31 pairs of patients. The length of stay was significantly shorter in patients undergoing simultaneous resection (median 3 vs. 8 days, p < .001) and operative time was shorter (156 vs. 235.5 min, p < .001) when compared to the sum of both procedures in the staged group. The groups did not significantly differ with regard to postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: In a carefully selected patient population, simultaneous bilateral metastasectomy is a safe option. A single procedure confers benefits for both the patient as well as the hospital resource system.
Subject(s)
Lung Neoplasms/secondary , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Female , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Male , Metastasectomy/methods , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Pneumonectomy/methods , Retrospective Studies , Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted/methods , Thoracotomy/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the multi-specialty strategy and initial guidelines of a Case Review Committee in triaging oncologic surgery procedures in a large Comprehensive Cancer Center and to outline current steps moving forward after the initial wave. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The impetus for strategic rescheduling of operations is multifactorial and includes our societal responsibility to minimize COVID-19 exposure risk and propagation among patients, the healthcare workforce, and our community at large. Strategic rescheduling is also driven by the need to preserve limited resources. As many states have already or are considering to re-open and relax stay-at-home orders, there remains a continued need for careful surgical scheduling because we must face the reality that we will need to co-exist with COVID-19 for months, if not years. METHODS: The quality officers, chairs, and leadership of the 9 surgical departments in our Division of Surgery provide specialty-specific approaches to appropriately triage patients. RESULTS: We present the strategic approach for surgical rescheduling during and immediately after the COVID-19 first wave for the 9 departments in the Division of Surgery at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer surgeons should continue to use their oncologic knowledge to determine the window of opportunity for each surgical procedure, based on tumor biology, preoperative treatment sequencing, and response to systemic therapy, to safely guide patients through this cautious recovery phase.