National trends, safety, and effectiveness of minimally invasive concomitant chest wall resection for locally advanced lung cancer.

Objective: Concomitant chest wall resection for locally advanced lung cancer is traditionally performed via an open approach. The safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive approaches for chest wall resections are unknown. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing lobectomy/bi-lobectomy with concomitant chest wall resection from 2010 to 2020. We stratified patients into those undergoing a minimally invasive resection (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery [VATS]/robotic) or open, while accounting for conversions. We also compared VATS with robotic approaches. The main outcomes were length of stay, mortality, readmissions, and overall survival. We used multivariable, Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional models to identify associations. Results: Of 2837 patients, 756 procedures (26.6%) were started minimally invasive, of which 23.1% were robotic. There were 237 (31.3%) conversions. Patients undergoing a minimally invasive operation were similar in terms of age (65.2 ± 9.8 years vs 66.0 ± 9.9 years), sex, race, tumor histology, and location (all P > .05) but had smaller cancers (5.4 ± 2.6 cm vs 6.2 ± 4.3 cm; P < .001) compared with those undergoing open. They also had shorter length of stay (8.6 ± 7.6 days vs 9.7 ± 9.3 days; P < .001) but similar unadjusted 90-day mortality (8.2% vs 8.0%; P = .999). Neoadjuvant therapy was associated with less minimally invasive approaches (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; P ≤ .001). Larger cancers were associated with less minimally invasive operations and greater rates of conversions. However, the robotic approach was associated with lower conversion rates than VATS across all tumor sizes. Overall survival was equivalent. Conclusions: The use of minimally invasive approaches to concomitant chest wall resection is increasing. Although conversions to open are common, this approach is safe and is associated with shorter hospital stays. Overall survival is equivalent to the open approach.

Laparoscopic versus open 1-stage resection of synchronous liver metastases and primary colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open and laparoscopic approaches for concomitant resection of synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2015, all patients undergoing combined resection of primary colorectal cancer and liver metastases were included in the study (n=43). Laparoscopic and open groups were compared regarding clinical, perioperative and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: There were 29 patients in the open group and 14 patients in the laparoscopic group. The groups were similar regarding demographics, comorbidities, histopathological characteristics of the primary tumor and liver metastases. Postoperative complication rate (44.8% vs. 7.1%, P=0.016) was higher, and hospital stay (10 vs. 6.4 days, P=0.001) longer in the open compared to the laparoscopic group. Overall survival (OS) was comparable between the groups (P=0.10); whereas, disease-free survival (DFS) was longer in laparoscopic group (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results, in patients, whose primary colorectal cancer and metastatic liver disease was amenable to a minimally invasive resection, a concomitant laparoscopic approach resulted in less morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes. This suggests that a laparoscopic approach may be considered in appropriate patients by surgeons with experience in both advanced laparoscopic liver and colorectal techniques.