Overall survival in low-comorbidity patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer who chose stereotactic body radiotherapy compared to surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in the utilization of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and to compare overall survival (OS) of patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing SBRT versus those undergoing surgery. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients without documented comorbidities who underwent surgical resection (lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection) or SBRT for clinical stage I NSCLC between 2012 and 2018. Peritreatment mortality and 5-year OS were compared among propensity score-matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 30,658 patients were identified, including 24,729 (80.7%) who underwent surgery and 5929 (19.3%) treated with SBRT. Between 2012 and 2018, the proportion of patients receiving SBRT increased from 15.9% to 26.0% (P < .001). The 30-day mortality and 90-day mortality were higher among patients undergoing surgical resection versus those receiving SBRT (1.7% vs 0.3%, P < .001; 2.8% vs 1.7%, P < .001). In propensity score-matched patients, OS favored SBRT for the first several months, but this was reversed before 1 year and significantly favored surgical management in the long term (5-year OS, 71.0% vs 41.8%; P < .001). The propensity score-matched analysis was repeated to include only SBRT patients who had documented refusal of a recommended surgery, which again demonstrated superior 5-year OS with surgical management (71.4% vs 55.9%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is being increasingly used to treat early-stage lung cancer in low-comorbidity patients. However, for patients who may be candidates for either treatment, the long-term OS favors surgical management.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Lung Cancer Screening Processes in a Northeast Tertiary Health Care Network.

ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted health care systems, including implementation of lung cancer screening programs. The impact and recovery from this disruption on screening processes is not well appreciated. Herein, the radiology database of a Northeast tertiary health care network was reviewed before and during the pandemic (2013-2022). In the 3 months before the pandemic, an average of 77.3 lung cancer screening with computed tomography scans (LCS-CT) were performed per month. The average dropped to 23.3 between April and June of 2020, whereas COVID-19 hospitalizations peaked at 1604. By July, average hospitalizations dropped to 50, and LCS-CTs rose to >110 per month for the remaining year. LCS-CTs did not decline during COVID-19 surges in December of 2021 and 2022. The LCS-CT performance grew by 4.5% in 2020, 69.6% in 2021, and 27.0% in 2022, exceeding projected growth by 722 examinations. This resiliency indicates a potentially smaller impact of COVID-19 on lung cancer diagnoses than initially feared.

Brief Report: Increasing Prevalence of Ground-Glass Nodules and Semisolid Lung Lesions on Outpatient Chest Computed Tomography Scans.

Introduction: The increased use of cross-sectional imaging frequently identifies a growing number of lung nodules that require follow-up imaging studies and physician consultations. We report here the frequency of finding a ground-glass nodule (GGN) or semisolid lung lesion (SSL) in the past decade within a large academic health system. Methods: A radiology system database review was performed on all outpatient adult chest computed tomography (CT) scans between 2013 and 2022. Radiology reports were searched for the terms "ground-glass nodule," "subsolid," and "semisolid" to identify reports with findings potentially concerning for an adenocarcinoma spectrum lesion. Results: A total of 175,715 chest CT scans were performed between 2013 and 2022, with a steadily increasing number every year from 10,817 in 2013 to 21,916 performed in the year 2022. Identification of GGN or SSL on any outpatient CT increased from 5.9% in 2013 to 9.2% in 2022, representing a total of 2019 GGN or SSL reported on CT scans in 2022. The percentage of CT scans with a GGN or SSL finding increased during the study period in men and women and across all age groups above 50 years old. Conclusions: The total number of CT scans performed and the percentage of chest CT scans with GGN or SSL has more than doubled between 2013 and 2022; currently, 9% of all chest CT scans report a GGN or SSL. Although not all GGN or SSL radiographic findings represent true adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions, they are a growing burden to patients and health systems, and better methods to risk stratify radiographic lesions are needed.

Comparing a Novel Hand-Held Device for Chest Tube Insertion to the Traditional Open Tube Thoracostomy for Simple Pneumothorax in a Porcine Model.

BACKGROUND: Tube thoracostomy is the most effective treatment for pneumothorax, and on the battlefield, is lifesaving. In combat, far-forward adoption of open thoracostomy has not been successful. Therefore, the ability to safely and reliably perform chest tube insertion in the far-forward combat theatre would be of significant value. The Reactor is a hand-held device for tube thoracostomy that has been validated for tension pneumothorax compared to needle decompression. Here we investigate whether the Reactor has potential for simple pneumothorax compared to open thoracostomy. Treatment of pneumothorax before tension physiology ensues is critical. METHODS: Simple pneumothoraces were created in 5 in-vivo swine models and confirmed with x-ray. Interventions were randomized to open technique (OT, n = 25) and Reactor (RT, n = 25). Post-procedure radiography was used to confirm tube placement and pneumothorax resolution. Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) was used to evaluate for iatrogenic injuries. 50 chest tubes were placed, with 25 per group. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the groups for insertion time, pneumothorax resolution, or estimated blood loss (p = .91 and .83). Injury rates between groups varied, with 28% (n = 7) in the Reactor group and 8% (n = 2) the control group (p = .06). The most common injury was violation of visceral pleura (10%, n = 5, both groups) and violation of the mediastinum (8%, n = 4, both groups). CONCLUSION: The Reactor device was equal compared to open thoracostomy for insertion time, pneumothorax resolution, and injury rates. The device required smaller incisions compared to tube thoracostomy and may be useful adjunct in simple pneumothorax management.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 1: a guide to decision-making.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: Based on a systematic review from 2000-2021, evidence regarding relevant outcomes was assembled, with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers. A framework was developed to present this information a format that enhances decision-making at the point of care for individual patients. Results: While patients often cross over several boundaries, the evidence fits into categories of healthy patients, compromised patients, and favorable tumors. In healthy patients with typical (i.e., solid spiculated) lung cancers, the impact on long-term outcomes is the major driver of treatment selection. This is only slightly ameliorated in older patients. In compromised patients increasing frailty accentuates short-term differences and diminishes long-term differences especially when considering non-surgical vs. surgical approaches; nuances of patient selection (technical treatment feasibility, anticipated risk of acute toxicity, delayed toxicity, and long-term outcomes) as well as patient values are increasingly influential. Favorable (less-aggressive) tumors generally have good long-term outcomes regardless of the treatment approach. Discussion: A framework is provided that organizes the evidence and identifies the major drivers of decision-making for an individual patient. This facilitates blending available evidence and clinical judgment in a flexible, nuanced manner that enhances individualized clinical care.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 2: systematic review of evidence regarding resection extent in generally healthy patients.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in generally healthy patients is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In healthy patients there is no short-term benefit to sublobar resection vs. lobectomy in randomized and non-randomized comparisons. A detriment in long-term outcomes is demonstrated by adjusted non-randomized comparisons, more marked for wedge than segmentectomy. Quality-of-life data is confounded by the use of video-assisted approaches; evidence suggests the approach has more impact than the resection extent. Differences in pulmonary function tests by resection extent are not clinically meaningful in healthy patients, especially for multi-segmentectomy vs. lobectomy. The margin distance is associated with the risk of recurrence. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in healthy patients with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation on which to build a framework for individualized clinical decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 3: systematic review of evidence regarding surgery in compromised patients or specific tumors.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in older patients, patients with limited pulmonary reserve and favorable tumors is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons (NRCs) with adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In older patients, perioperative mortality is minimally altered by resection extent and only slightly affected by increasing age; sublobar resection may slightly decrease morbidity. Long-term outcomes are worse after lesser resection; the difference is slightly attenuated with increasing age. Reported short-term outcomes are quite acceptable in (selected) patients with severely limited pulmonary reserve, not clearly altered by resection extent but substantially improved by a minimally invasive approach. Quality-of-life (QOL) and impact on pulmonary function hasn't been well studied, but there appears to be little difference by resection extent in older or compromised patients. Patient selection is paramount but not well defined. Ground-glass and screen-detected tumors exhibit favorable long-term outcomes regardless of resection extent; however solid tumors <1 cm are not a reliably favorable group. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in compromised patients and favorable tumors with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after SBRT or thermal ablation vs. resection is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: Short-term outcomes are meaningfully better after SBRT than resection. SBRT doesn't affect quality-of-life (QOL), on average pulmonary function is not altered, but a minority of patients may experience gradual late toxicity. Adjusted non-randomized comparisons demonstrate a clinically relevant detriment in long-term outcomes after SBRT vs. surgery. The short-term benefits of SBRT over surgery are accentuated with increasing age and compromised patients, but the long-term detriment remains. Ablation is associated with a higher rate of complications than SBRT, but there is little intermediate-term impact on quality-of-life or pulmonary function tests. Adjusted comparisons show a meaningful detriment in long-term outcomes after ablation vs. surgery; there is less difference between ablation and SBRT. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or thermal ablation vs. resection with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

Surgical Management of Pneumothorax and Pleural Space Disease.

Pleural space diseases constitute a wide range of benign and malignant conditions, including pneumothorax, pleural effusion and empyema, chylothorax, pleural-based tumors, and mesothelioma. The focus of this article is the surgical management of the 2 most common pleural disorders seen in modern thoracic surgery practice: spontaneous pneumothorax and empyema.

Association Between Food and Drug Administration Approval and Disparities in Immunotherapy Use Among Patients With Cancer in the US.

Importance: Clinical trials and compassionate use agreements provide selected patients with access to potentially life-saving treatments before approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approval from the FDA decreases a number of access barriers; however, it is unknown whether FDA approval is associated with increases in the equitable use of novel therapies and reductions in disparities in use among patients with cancer in the US. Objective: To assess the association between FDA drug approval and disparities in the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after approval of the first checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of patients with cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database to examine the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after FDA approval of the first checkpoint inhibitor therapies. A total of 402 689 patients 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or melanoma of the skin between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2018 (specific years varied by tumor type), were included. Exposures: Patient health (Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score and age), sociodemographic characteristics (sex, race, and ethnicity), and socioeconomic (insurance status and household income based on zip code of residence) characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association of patient characteristics with receipt of immunotherapy was evaluated in the 4 years before and the 3 years immediately after FDA approval using multivariable logistic regression modeling. Results: Among 402 689 patients (median [IQR] age, 68 [60-76 years]; 225 081 men [55.9%]), 347 233 had NSCLC, 43 714 had RCC, and 11 742 patients had melanoma. A total of 47 527 patients (11.8%) were Black, 15 763 (3.9%) were Hispanic, 375 874 (93.3%) were non-Hispanic, 335 833 (83.4%) were White, and 16 553 (4.1%) were of other races. Before FDA approval, 6271 patients (3.2%) with NSCLC, 1155 patients (4.8%) with RCC, and 504 patients (8.6%) with melanoma received immunotherapy compared with 23 908 patients (15.6%) with NSCLC, 3890 patients (19.7%) with RCC, and 1143 patients (19.3%) with melanoma after FDA approval. Before FDA approval, sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics were associated with variable immunotherapy administration by tumor type. For example, among those with NSCLC, Black patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI ,0.71-0.85; P < .001); among those with RCC, uninsured patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than privately insured patients (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.48; P < .001). After FDA approval, most disparities persisted, but several narrowed (eg, Black patients with NSCLC: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.91; P < .001]; uninsured patients with RCC: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.75; P < .001]). Although many disparities remained, some gaps across socioeconomic characteristics appeared to widen (eg, patients with NSCLC in the lowest vs highest income quartile: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83; P < .001), and new gaps emerged (eg, Black patients with RCC: OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, disparities in immunotherapy use existed across a number of sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics among patients with NSCLC, RCC, and melanoma before FDA approval, including during the important period when clinical trials were accruing patients. Although FDA approval was associated with a significant increase in the use of immunotherapy, gaps persisted, suggesting that FDA approval may not eliminate disparities in the use of novel therapies.

Revisiting Indications for Brain Imaging During the Clinical Staging Evaluation of Lung Cancer.

Introduction: Available guidelines are inconsistent as to whether patients with newly diagnosed clinical stage II NSCLC should receive routine brain imaging. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for the prevalence of isolated brain metastases among patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC in 2016 and 2017. Patients with metastases in locations other than the brain were excluded. The prevalences were then stratified by clinical T and N classifications and further stratified into a summary stage, which was calculated based on T and N classifications. The summary stage represents the clinical stage that would have been available at the time of decision for brain imaging. Results: A total of 6,949 of 149,958 patients (4.6%) with clinical stages I, II, III, or brain-limited stage IV NSCLC had dissemination limited to the brain. As T and N stages increased, prevalence of brain metastases generally increased. Among patients with node-negative (N0) NSCLC, the prevalence of brain-only metastases increased from 1.2% in patients with T1a to 3.8% among patients with T4 (p < 0.001). Among patients with T1a, the prevalence of brain-only metastases increased from 1.2% for patients with N0 to 7.9% for patients with N3 (p < 0.001). The prevalence of brain-limited metastases generally increased with increasing summary stage. The prevalence of brain-only metastases among patients with stage IA was 1.7% whereas that among patients with stage IIIA was 6.7% (p < 0.001). Of note, the prevalence of brain-limited metastases was approximately 6% for both summary stages II and III. Conclusions: Considering the similarity in prevalence of isolated brain metastases and the potential hazards associated with brain imaging in early stage NSCLC, practitioners may consider a more liberal use of brain imaging when interpreting conflicting guidelines.

A National Study of Surgically Managed Atypical Pulmonary Carcinoid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Atypical pulmonary carcinoid tumors represent a subset of non-small cell lung cancer; however, their relative infrequency has left prognosis, management and long-term survival associated with atypical carcinoids, incompletely characterized. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or more diagnosed with atypical or typical pulmonary carcinoid between 2010 and 2015 within the National Cancer Database were evaluated. Survival was measured using Kaplan-Meier survival and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for patient and tumor attributes. RESULTS: A total of 816 atypical and 5688 typical carcinoid patients were identified in the cohort. Patients with atypical carcinoids tended to be older, have larger tumors, and later stage disease. The unadjusted overall 5-year survival for atypical carcinoid patients was 84%, 74%, 52%, and 51% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The unadjusted 5-year survival for typical carcinoids was 93%, 93%, 89%, and 87% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Nodal upstaging (ie, lymph node metastases identified in surgical specimens of clinically staged N0 patients) was seen in 16% of atypical and 7% of typical carcinoid patients. Increasing age, comorbidities, and stage were identified as significant predictors of mortality for atypical patients in multivariable analysis. Extent of surgical resection (lobectomy vs sublobar) was not identified as a predictor of survival for atypical carcinoid. CONCLUSIONS: Atypical carcinoid tumors represent a distinct subset of carcinoid tumors, with a tendency toward more aggressive behavior. Further study of the optimal surgical management is warranted.

Navigating by Stars: Using CMS Star Ratings to Choose Hospitals for Complex Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed risk-adjusted "Star Ratings," which serve as a guide for patients to compare hospital quality (1 star = lowest, 5 stars = highest). Although star ratings are not based on surgical care, for many procedures, surgical outcomes are concordant with star ratings. In an effort to address variability in hospital mortality after complex cancer surgery, the use of CMS Star Ratings to identify the safest hospitals was evaluated. METHODS: Patients older than 65 years of age who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, colectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy) were evaluated in CMS Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files (2013-2016). The impact of reassignment was modeled by applying adjusted mortality rates of patients treated at 5-star hospitals to those at 1-star hospitals (Peters-Belson method). RESULTS: There were 105 823 patients who underwent surgery at 3146 hospitals. The 90-day mortality decreased with increasing star rating (1 star = 10.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.8% to 11.1%; and 5 stars = 6.4%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 6.8%). Reassignment of patients from 1-star to 5-star hospitals (7.8% of patients) was predicted to save 84 Medicare beneficiaries each year. This impact varied by procedure (colectomy = 47 lives per year; gastrectomy = 5 lives per year). Overall, 2189 patients would have to change hospitals each year to improve outcomes (26 patients moved to save 1 life). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality after complex cancer surgery is associated with CMS Star Rating. However, the use of CMS Star Ratings by patients to identify the safest hospitals for cancer surgery would be relatively inefficient and of only modest impact.

Invasive Staging Procedures Do Not Prevent Nodal Metastases From Being Missed in Stage I Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of clinical stage I lung cancer patients harbor lymph node metastases that go undetected (missed) during the clinical staging evaluation. We investigated to what degree the addition of invasive nodal staging procedures to imaging, as currently practiced, prevents radiographically occult nodal metastases from being missed during the clinical staging evaluation. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients, imaged by positron emission tomography and computed tomography, who underwent lobectomy for clinical stage I lung cancer from 2012 to 2017 in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database were studied. Rates of missed nodal metastases (MNM) (ie, nodal metastases in lobectomy specimens undetected during clinical staging evaluation) were determined. Risk factors were assessed with multivariable modeling. RESULTS: Of the 30,685 clinical stage I patients identified, 3895 (12.7%) underwent preoperative endobronchial ultrasound and 3341 (10.9%) underwent mediastinoscopy. Invasive staging was more common with tumors > 2 cm (66.4% vs 50.2%, P < .001) and squamous histology (26.9% vs 16.9%, P < .001). MNM were discovered in 14.7% of patients, including 20.1% of patients (95% confidence interval, 18.8%-21.5%) who had undergone endobronchial ultrasound and 18.2% (95% confidence interval, 16.7%-19.6%) who had undergone mediastinoscopy. Hilar nodes were most often "missed" (9.5%). Using cut-points in tumor size, histology, laterality, and age, patients could be stratified into particularly high-risk (25% MNM) and low-risk (6% MNM) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial risk of occult lymph node metastases persists in patients with clinical stage I lung cancer despite negative invasive nodal staging, positron emission tomography, and computed tomography. In the absence of a thorough surgical nodal evaluation, early-stage lung cancer patients are at risk of under-treatment.

Surgically Managed Signet Ring Cell Esophageal Carcinomas in the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Signet ring cell adenocarcinoma (SRC) is a less common histologic variant of esophageal adenocarcinoma (ACA). The low frequency of SRC limits the ability to make data-driven clinical recommendations for these patients. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients with clinical stage I, II, or III adenocarcinoma of the noncervical esophagus diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 and stratified by SRC versus all other ACA variants. Cox proportional hazard regression models were adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. The role of surgery in SRC was evaluated among patients treated with chemoradiation alone versus chemoradiation with esophagectomy. RESULTS: Of the 681 SRC and 13,543 ACA patients who underwent esophagectomy, no significant differences in age, sex, race, or comorbidities were identified. Patients with SRC were more likely to have high-grade tumors (84% vs 41%, P < .001) and stage III tumors (47% vs 39%, P < .001) compared with patients with ACA. Complete (R0) resection was less common in SRC (81% vs 90%, P < .001). Adjusted 5-year mortality risk from surgery was higher for SRC patients compared with ACA patients (hazard ratio, 1.242; 95% confidence interval, 1.126-1.369; P < .001). Among SRC tumors, chemoradiation with esophagectomy was associated with superior survival (hazard ratio, 0.429; 95% confidence interval, 0.339-0.546; P < .001) compared with chemoradiation alone. CONCLUSIONS: Among surgically managed patients SRC appears to have a worse prognosis than ACA, which may reflect the tendency of SRC tumors to be higher grade and more locally advanced. However SRC histology does not appear to diminish the role of esophagectomy in the management of locoregionally confined esophageal cancer.

Approach to the Subsolid Nodule.

Most focal persistent ground glass nodules (GGNs) do not progress over 10 years. Research suggests that GGNs that do not progress, those that do, and solid lung cancers are fundamentally different diseases, although histologically they seem similar. Surveillance of GGNs to identify those that gradually progress is safe and does not risk losing a window. GGNs with 5 mm solid component or less than 10 mm consolidation (mediastinal and lung windows, respectively, on thin slice CT) are highly curable with resection. The optimal type of resection is unclear; sublobar resection is reasonable but an adequate margin is critically important.

Postischemic conditioning does not reduce muscle injury after tourniquet-induced ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats.

BACKGROUND: The widespread application of tourniquets has reduced battlefield mortality related to extremity exsanguinations. Tourniquet-induced ischemia-reperfusion injury (I/R) can contribute to muscle loss. Postischemic conditioning (PostC) confers protection against I/R in cardiac muscle and skeletal muscle flaps. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of PostC on extremity muscle viability in an established rat hindlimb tourniquet model. METHODS: Rats were randomly assigned to PostC-1, PostC-2, or no conditioning ischemic groups (n = 10 per group). Postischemic conditioning, performed immediately after tourniquet release, consisted of four 15-second cycles (PostC-1) or eight 15-second cycles (PostC-2) of alternating occlusion and perfusion of hindlimbs. Twenty-four hours later, muscles were excised. The primary end points were muscle edema and viability; secondary end points were histologic and markers of oxidative stress. RESULTS: Ischemia-reperfusion injury decreased viability in all tourniquet limbs, but viability was not improved in either PostC group. Likewise, I/R resulted in substantial muscle edema that was not reduced by PostC. The predominant histologic feature was necrosis, but no significant differences were found among groups. Markers of oxidative stress were increased similarly among groups after I/R, although myeloperoxidase activity was significantly increased only in the no conditioning ischemic group. A protective effect from PostC was not observed in our model suggesting that PostC was not effective in reducing I/R skeletal muscle injury or any benefits of PostC were not sustained for 24 hours when tissues were assessed. CONCLUSION: These negative findings are pertinent as the military investigates different strategies to extend the safe time for tourniquet application.

Transfusion for shock in US military war casualties with and without tourniquet use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess whether emergency tourniquet use for transfused war casualties admitted to military hospitals is associated with survival. METHODS: A retrospective review of trauma registry data was made of US casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. Patients with major limb trauma, transfusion, and tourniquet use were compared with similar patients who did not receive tourniquet use. A propensity-matching analysis was performed by stratifying for injury type and severity by tourniquet-use status. Additionally, direct comparison without propensity matching was made between tourniquet use and no-tourniquet use groups. RESULTS: There were 720 casualties in the tourniquet use and 693 in the no-tourniquet use groups. Of the 1,413 casualties, 66% (928) also had nonextremity injury. Casualties with tourniquet use had worse signs of hemorrhagic shock (admission base deficit, admission hemoglobin, admission pulse, and transfusion units required) than those without. Survival rates were similar between the 2 groups (1% difference; 95% confidence interval -2.5% to 4.2%), but casualties who received tourniquets had worse shock and received more blood products. In propensity-matched casualties, survival rates were not different (2% difference; 95% confidence interval -6.7% to 2.7%) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Tourniquet use was associated with worse shock and more transfusion requirements among hospital-admitted casualties, yet those who received tourniquets had survival rates similar to those of comparable, transfused casualties who did not receive tourniquets.