RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) is usually a wide-spread, highly-lethal malignancy but occasionally presents as localized, limited stage cancer amenable to local treatment. We reviewed our experience using surgery or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to assess safety, survival rates and treatment toxicity in clinical stage I SCLC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic medical records of patients with clinical stage I lymph node-negative SCLC who underwent surgical resection or SBRT between 1996 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. A multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards model was constructed. RESULTS: Of 96 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 77 underwent resection and 19 underwent SBRT. Surgical patients were younger (mean 68.4 ± 9.2 years surgery versus 74.3 ± 6.6 years SBRT, P = .005) and had better pulmonary function (81.5 ± 19.6 FEV1% of predicted surgery versus 44.0 ± 20.9% SBRT, P < .001). SBRT patients had significantly more comorbidities. For both cohorts, 59 tumors were pure SCLC and 37 were mixed SCLC/NSCLC histology. Median survivals were 21 months versus 31 months for SBRT and surgery patients respectively (P = .07). There were no treatment-related mortalities. Mean length of hospital stay for surgical patients was 5.4 ± 5.7 days. Survival was longer in lymph node-negative surgery patients (median 48 months node-negative versus 19 months node-positive, P = .04). For node-negative-surgery patients, the estimated 2- and 5-year survival rates are 60% and 48%. CONCLUSIONS: Our single-institutional experience over 25 years demonstrates that local treatment with surgery or SBRT for clinical stage I SCLC is safe and effective, with survivals lower than similar stage non-small-cell carcinoma patients. However, our results compare favorably with prior small-cell surgical series and far better than reported results of chemoradiotherapy for similar stage patients, thereby validating current recommendations for employing surgery or SBRT for stage I SCLC.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Because patients' preoperative nutritional status influences the outcomes, we have used a preoperative nutrition program for surgical patients for a 2-year period and compared the results with those from a cohort treated in the previous 2 years. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed curative thoracic neoplasm resections from July 15, 2016, to July 15, 2018, in patients who had received a preoperative nutritional-enhanced recovery after surgery (N-ERAS) protocol. The protocol consisted of 5 days of an oral immunonutrition drink 3 times daily, daily receipt of probiotics, and a carbohydrate-loading drink the night before surgery. The historical control cohort (standard group) included those patients who had undergone surgery by the same surgeon during the previous 24 months. We excluded patients who had undergone esophageal, diagnostic, benign, emergency, or palliative procedures. Nonparametric and parametric statistical tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The data from 462 patients were analyzed: 229 N-ERAS patients and 233 standard patients. No significant demographic or caseload differences were found between the 2 groups. The major significant outcome differences included fewer postoperative complications (30 [13.1%] in the N-ERAS group vs 60 [25.8%] in the standard group; P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (3.8 ± 1.9 days for the N-ERAS group vs 4.4 ± 2.6 days for the standard group; P = .001). Use of the N-ERAS protocol resulted in a 16% reduction ($2198; P < .001) in the mean direct hospital costs/patient. Consequently, for the N-ERAS cohort, the hospital was likely saved $503,342 during the 2-year period for the 229 patients just by using the N-ERAS protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic surgeons should consider using the nontoxic, patient-compliant N-ERAS protocol for their patients, with an expectation of improved clinical results at lower hospital costs-an important consideration when exploring methods to decrease costs because hospitals are increasingly being paid by a negotiated prospective bundled payment reimbursement model.
