Do the surgical results in the National Lung Screening Trial reflect modern thoracic surgical practice?

The Smokers Health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) Trial: Study Design and Results of the Baseline Round

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality in high-risk subjects. Cigarette smoking is linked to up to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Even more so, it is a key risk factor for many other cancers and cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of an integrated program based on the early detection of smoking-related thoraco-cardiovascular diseases in high-risk subjects, combined with primary prevention. A new multi-component screening design was utilized to strengthen the framework on conventional lung cancer screening programs. We report here the study design and the results from our baseline round, focusing on oncological findings.

METHODS

High-risk subjects were defined as being >55 years of age and active smokers or formers who had quit within 15 years (>30 pack/y). A PLCOm2012 threshold >2% was chosen. Subject outreach was streamlined through media campaign and general practitioners' engagement. Eligible subjects, upon written informed consent, underwent a psychology consultation, blood sample collection, self-evaluation questionnaire, spirometry, and LDCT scan. Blood samples were analyzed for pentraxin-3 protein levels, interleukins, microRNA, and circulating tumor cells. Cardiovascular risk assessment and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring were performed. Direct and indirect costs were analyzed focusing on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years gained in different scenarios. Personalized screening time-intervals were determined using the "Maisonneuve risk re-calculation model", and a threshold <0.6% was chosen for the biennial round.

RESULTS

In total, 3228 subjects were willing to be enrolled. Out of 1654 eligible subjects, 1112 participated. The mean age was 64 years (M/F 62/38%), with a mean PLCOm2012 of 5.6%. Former and active smokers represented 23% and 77% of the subjects, respectively. At least one nodule was identified in 348 subjects. LDCTs showed no clinically significant findings in 762 subjects (69%); thus, they were referred for annual/biennial LDCTs based on the Maisonneuve risk (mean value = 0.44%). Lung nodule active surveillance was indicated for 122 subjects (11%). Forty-four subjects with baseline suspicious nodules underwent a PET-FDG and twenty-seven a CT-guided lung biopsy. Finally, a total of 32 cancers were diagnosed, of which 30 were lung cancers (2.7%) and 2 were extrapulmonary cancers (malignant pleural mesothelioma and thymoma). Finally, 25 subjects underwent lung surgery (2.25%). Importantly, there were zero false positives and two false negatives with CT-guided biopsy, of which the patients were operated on with no stage shift. The final pathology included lung adenocarcinomas (69%), squamous cell carcinomas (10%), and others (21%). Pathological staging showed 14 stage I (47%) and 16 stage II-IV (53%) cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCTs continue to confirm their efficacy in safely detecting early-stage lung cancer in high-risk subjects, with a negligible risk of false-positive results. Re-calculating the risk of developing lung cancer after baseline LDCTs with the Maisonneuve model allows us to optimize time intervals to subsequent screening. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial offers solid support for policy assessments by policymakers. We trust that this will help in developing guidelines for the large-scale implementation of lung cancer screening, paving the way for better outcomes for lung cancer patients.

A decade of surgical outcomes in a structured lung cancer screening program

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer screening can decrease mortality. The majority of screen-detected cancers are early stage and undergo surgical resection. However, there are little data regarding the outcomes of surgical treatment outside of clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of curative resection for screen-detected lung cancers with nonscreened, incidentally detected cancers at an institution with a structured screening program.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lung cancer curative resection from January 2012 to June 2021 were identified from a prospective database. Baseline patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes were compared between cancer detected from screening and cancer detected incidentally.

RESULTS

There were 199 patients in the incidental group and 82 patients in the screened group. Mean follow-up was 33.3 ± 25 months. The screened group had more African Americans (P = .04), a higher incidence of emphysema (P = .02), less prior cancers (P < .01), and more pack-years smoked (P < .01). The screened group had a smaller size (1.74 vs 2.31 cm, P < .01); however, pathologic stage was similar, with the majority being stage I. Postoperative morbidity, 30-day mortality, and overall and recurrence-free survival were similar between groups. Only 48.7% of the incidental group met current US Preventative Services Task Force screening criteria (age 50-80 years, ≥20 pack-year smoking history).

CONCLUSIONS

Screen-detected lung cancers have excellent postoperative and long-term outcomes with curative resection, similar to incidentally detected cancers. A large portion of incidentally detected lung cancers do not meet current screening guidelines, which is an opportunity for further refinement of eligibility.

Diffusion of Minimally Invasive Approach for Lung Cancer Surgery in France: A Nationwide, Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The minimally invasive approach (MIA) has gained popularity thanks to its efficacy and safety. Our work consisted of evaluating the diffusion of the MIA in hospitals and the variability of this approach (within and between regions).

METHODS

All patients who underwent limited resection or lobectomy for lung cancer in France were included from the national hospital administrative database (2013-2020). We described between-hospital differences in the MIA rate over four periods (2013-2014, 2015-2016, 2017-2018, and 2019-2020). The potential influence of the hospital volume, hospital type, and period on the adjusted MIA rate was estimated by a multilevel linear regression.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2020, 77,965 patients underwent a lobectomy or limited resection for lung cancer. The rate of the MIA increased significantly over the four periods (50% in 2019-2020). Variability decreased over time in 7/12 regions. The variables included in the multilevel model were significantly related to the adjusted rate of the MIA. Variability between regions was considerable since 18% of the variance was due to systematic differences between regions.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirm that the MIA is part of the surgical techniques used on a daily basis for the treatment of lung cancer. However, this technology is mostly used by surgeons in high volume institutions.

Surgical markup in lung cancer resection, 2015-2020

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess procedure markup (charge-to-cost ratio) across lung resection procedures and examine variability by geographic region.

Methods

Provider-level data for common lung resection operations was obtained from the 2015 to 2020 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data datasets using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes. Procedures studied included wedge resection; video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; and open lobectomy, segmentectomy, and mediastinal and regional lymphadenectomy. Procedure markup ratio and coefficient of variation (CoV) was assessed and compared across procedure, region, and provider. The CoV, a measure of dispersion defined as the ratio of the SD to the mean, was likewise compared across procedure and region.

Results

Median markup ratio across all procedures was 3.56 (interquartile range, 2.87-4.59) with right skew (mean, 4.13). Median markup ratio was 3.59 for lymphadenectomy (CoV, 0.51), 3.13 for open lobectomy (CoV, 0.45), 3.55 for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy (CoV, 0.59), 3.77 for segmentectomy (CoV, 0.74), and 3.80 for wedge resection (CoV, 0.67). Increased beneficiaries, services, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System score (total) were associated with a decreased markup ratio (P < .0001). Markup ratio was highest in the Northeast at 4.14 (interquartile range, 3.09-5.56) and lowest in the South (Markup ratio 3.26; interquartile range, 2.68-4.02).

Conclusions

We observe geographic variation in surgical billing for thoracic surgery.

Impact of Comorbidities on Lung Cancer Screening Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

We used data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial to examine the impact of self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus on diagnostic complications in lung cancer screening evaluation.

METHODS

In our analysis, we included individuals from the usual care and intervention (annual chest x-ray) of the lung cancer screening trial with equal or greater than 55 years of age with a 20 pack-year smoking history who had undergone an invasive procedure. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to estimate the association of comorbidity on procedure complication. Our primary outcome was the incidence of major or moderate complications.

RESULTS

Features associated with high-risk complication included older age (OR = 1.03 per year, P = .001), history of coronary artery disease (OR = 1.40, P = .03), history of diabetes mellitus (OR = 0.41, P < .001, current smoking status (OR = 1.46, P ≤ .001), surgical biopsy (OR = 7.39, P < .001), needle biopsy (OR = 1.94, P < .001), and other invasive procedure (OR = 1.58, P < .001). We did not find an associated with complication and history of stroke (OR = 0.84, P = .53) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.27, P = .06).

CONCLUSION

Patient and procedure-level factors may alter the benefits of lung cancer screening. Data concerning individual risk factors and high-risk complications should therefore be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms to optimize clinical benefit and minimize harm. Further study and validation of the risk factors identified herein are warranted.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening on lung cancer surgical volume: The urgent need in health workforce education and training

This study aimed to investigate the time trend variation in the surgical volume and prognostic outcome of patients with lung cancer after the gradual prolonged implementation of a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening program.Using the hospital-based cancer registry data on number of patients with lung cancer and deaths from 2008 to 2017, we conducted a retrospective study using a hospital-based cohort to investigate the relationship between changes in lung cancer surgical volume, the proportion of lung-sparing surgery, and prolonged prognostic outcomes after the gradual implementation of the LDCT lung cancer screening program in recent years.From 2008 to 2017, 3251 patients were diagnosed with lung cancer according to the hospital-based cancer registry. The 5-year mortality rate decreased gradually from 83.54% to 69.44% between 2008 and 2017. The volume of total lung cancer surgical procedures and proportion of lung-sparing surgery performed gradually increased significantly from 2008 to 2017, especially from 2014 to 2017 after implementation of a large volume of LDCT lung cancer screening examinations. In conclusion, our real-world data suggest that there will be an increase in cases of operable early-stage lung cancers, which in turn will increase the surgical volume and proportion of lung-sparing surgery, after the gradual implementation of the LDCT lung cancer screening program in recent years. These findings suggest the importance of a successful national policy regarding LDCT screening programs, regulation of shortage of thoracic surgeons, thoracic radiologist workforce training positions, and education programs.

Sublobar resection is comparable to lobectomy for screen-detected lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

Sublobar resection is frequently offered to patients with small, peripheral lung cancers, despite the lack of outcome data from ongoing randomized clinical trials. Sublobar resection may be a particularly attractive surgical strategy for screen-detected lung cancers, which have been suggested to be less biologically aggressive than cancers detected by other means. Using prospective data collected from patients undergoing surgery in the National Lung Screening Trial, we sought to determine whether extent of resection affected survival for patients with screen-detected lung cancer.

METHODS

The National Lung Screening Trial database was queried for patients who underwent surgical resection for confirmed lung cancer. Propensity score matching analysis (lobectomy vs sublobar resection) was done (nearest neighbor, 1:1, matching with no replacement, caliper 0.2). Demographics, clinicopathologic and perioperative outcomes, and long-term survival were compared in the entire cohort and in the propensity-matched groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was done to identify factors associated with increased postoperative morbidity or mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 1029 patients who underwent resection for lung cancer in the National Lung Screening Trial, including 821 patients (80%) who had lobectomy and 166 patients (16%) who had sublobar resection, predominantly wedge resection (n = 114, 69% of sublobar resection). Patients who underwent sublobar resection were more likely to be female (53% vs 41%, P = .004) and had smaller tumors (1.5 cm vs 2 cm, P < .001). The sublobar resection group had fewer postoperative complications (22% vs 32%, P = .010) and fewer cardiac complications (4% vs 9%, P = .033). For stage I patients undergoing sublobar resection, there was no difference in 5-year overall survival (77% for both groups, P = .89) or cancer-specific survival (83% for both groups, P = .96) compared with patients undergoing lobectomy. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, sublobar resection was the only factor associated with lower postoperative morbidity/mortality (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.98). To compare surgical strategies in balanced patient populations, we propensity matched 127 patients from each group undergoing sublobar resection and lobectomy. There were no differences in demographics or clinical and tumor characteristics among matched groups. There was again no difference in 5-year overall survival (71% vs 65%, P = .40) or cancer-specific survival (75% vs 73%, P = .89) for patients undergoing lobectomy and sublobar resection, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with screen-detected lung cancer, sublobar resection confers survival similar to lobectomy. By decreasing perioperative complications and potentially preserving lung function, sublobar resection may provide distinct advantages in a screened patient cohort.

External validity of a model to predict postoperative atrial fibrillation after thoracic surgery

OBJECTIVES

A prediction model developed by Passman et al. stratifies patients' risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after major non-cardiac thoracic surgery using 3 simple factors (sex, age and preoperative resting heart rate). The model has neither undergone external validation nor proven to be relevant in current thoracic surgery practice.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre analysis of all patients who underwent major non-cardiac thoracic surgery (2008-2017) with prospective documentation of incidence and severity of POAF was used for external validation of Passman's derivation sample (published in 2005 with 856 patients). The model calibration was assessed by evaluating the incidence of POAF and patients' risk scores (0-6).

RESULTS

A total of 2054 patients were included. Among them, POAF occurred in 164 (7.9%), compared to 147 (17.2%) in Passman's study. Differences in our sample compared to Passman's sample included mean heart rate (75.7 vs 73.7 bpm, P < 0.001), proportion of patients with hypertension (46.1 vs 29.4%, P < 0.001), proportion of extensive lung resections, particularly pneumonectomy (6.1 vs 21%, P < 0.001) and proportion of minimally invasive surgeries (56.6% vs 0%). The model demonstrated a positive correlation between risk scores and POAF incidence (risk score 1.2% vs 6.16%).

CONCLUSIONS

The POAF model demonstrated good calibration in our population, despite a lower overall incidence of POAF compared to the derivation study. POAF rates were higher among patients with a higher risk score and undergoing procedures with greater intrathoracic dissection. This tool may be useful in identifying patients who are at risk of POAF when undergoing major thoracic surgery and may, therefore, benefit from targeted prophylactic therapy.

Lung cancer screening: who pays? Who receives? The European perspectives

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and its early detection is critical to achieving a curative treatment and to reducing mortality. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a highly sensitive technique for detecting noninvasive small lung tumors in high-risk populations. We here analyze the current status of lung cancer screening (LCS) from a European point of view. With economic burden of health care in most European countries resting on the state, it is important to reduce costs of screening and improve its effectiveness. Current cost-effectiveness analyses on LCS have indicated a favorable economic profile. The most recently published analysis reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3,297 per 1 life-year gained adjusted for the quality of life (QALY) and €2,944 per life-year gained, demonstrating a 90% probability of ICER being below €15,000 and a 98.1% probability of being below €25,000. Different risk models have been used to identify the target population; among these, the PLCOM2012 in particular allows for the selection of the population to be screened with high sensitivity. Risk models should also be employed to define screening intervals, which can reduce the general number of LDCT scans after the baseline round. Future perspectives of screening in a European scenario are related to the will of the policy makers to implement policy on a large scale and to improve the effectiveness of a broad screening of smoking-related disease, including cardiovascular prevention, by measuring coronary calcium score on LDCT. The employment of artificial intelligence (AI) in imaging interpretation, the use of liquid biopsies for the characterization of CT-detected undetermined nodules, and less invasive, personalized surgical treatments, will improve the effectiveness of LCS.

Applicability of the PACIFIC trial results in patients not eligible for the PACIFIC trial: Canadian rapid consensus statement and recommendations

BACKGROUND

The PACIFIC study established durvalumab as a standard of care for consolidation therapy in patients treated with radical intent chemoradiation for stage III inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. In clinical practice, many patients are not eligible for trials, yet radical intent chemoradiation may still be used.

METHODS

A virtual anonymous tumour board Delphi-model was used in order to generate consensus on the use of durvalumab in six clinical situations where chemoradiation is used in clinical practice and recommended in guidelines, yet not PACIFIC eligible. Two anonymous iterations were sent and recommendations were circulated for approval and comment. Results are presented using a modified PICOT format (patients, intervention, control, outcomes, and ongoing trials).

RESULTS

In three of the scenarios, consensus was reached and recommendations were for the use of consolidation durvalumab, but being respectful of potentially increased toxicity/reduced benefit in comparison to PACIFIC results (treatment of stage IIB inoperable, recurrent mediastinal disease, and residual gross disease post attempted surgical removal). There was a recommendation against using durvalumab in resected stage III disease with R1 or R0 margins, even if chemoradiation were considered. There was not consensus on the use of consolidation durvalumab in the setting of oligometastatic disease or in the setting of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma or combined small cell carcinoma.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of 'real-world' lung cancer often involves chemoradiation in settings outside of stage III and eligible for the PACIFIC study. This paper offers recommendations in these scenarios based on a consensus approach.

Surgical Outcomes of Lobectomy Versus Limited Resection for Clinical Stage I Ground-Glass Opacity Lung Adenocarcinoma 2 Centimeters or Smaller

BACKGROUND

To compare the surgical outcomes of patients with clinical stage I ground-glass opacity (GGO) lung adenocarcinomas with maximum diameters of ≤ 2 cm who underwent lobectomy versus limited resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed cases of clinical stage I GGO lung adenocarcinoma with a diameter ≤ 2 cm that were treated via lobectomy or limited resection in our department between January 2011 and September 2018. The clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes were analyzed using a propensity score-matched comparison and a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 552 patients were identified; 128 patients with pure GGO were excluded. Four hundred twenty-four patients met our criteria, including 242 (57.1%) who underwent lobectomy and 182 (42.9%) who underwent limited resection. No perioperative mortality occurred in either group. The overall 5-year survival rate of the entire cohort was 88%. Patients who underwent limited resection tended to have a shorter operation time, smaller blood loss volume, fewer removed nodes, and a shorter postoperative stay. However, the groups did not differ in terms of postoperative complications. Lobectomy and limited resection could lead to equivalent overall survival in patients with GGO-dominant tumor, while lobectomy showed better overall survival than limited resection in patients with solid-dominant tumor.

CONCLUSION

Patients with small GGO lung adenocarcinoma had a favorable prognosis after surgery. The oncologic surgical procedures of lobectomy and limited resection yielded comparable outcomes in patients with clinical stage I GGO-dominant lung adenocarcinomas ≤ 2 cm, while lobectomy showed better survival than limited resection in patients with solid-dominant tumor.

Surgery and invasive diagnostic procedures for benign disease are rare in a large low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening program

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer screening with low-dose chest computed tomography improves survival. However, concerns about overdiagnosis and unnecessary interventions persist. We reviewed our lung cancer screening program to determine the rate of surgery and invasive procedures for nonmalignant disease.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients undergoing lung cancer screening from January 2012 to June 2017 with follow-up through January 2019. Patients with suspicious findings (Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System 4) were referred for further evaluation.

RESULTS

Of 3280 patients screened, 345 (10.5%) had Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System 4 findings. A total of 311 patients had complete follow-up, of whom 93 (29.9%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. Eighty-three patients underwent lung surgery (2.5% of screened patients). Forty patients underwent lobectomy (48.2%), 3 patients (3.6%) underwent bilobectomy, and 40 patients (48.2%) underwent sublobar resection. Fourteen patients underwent surgery for benign disease (0.43% of screened patients). Fifty-four patients, 5 with benign disease, had at least 1 invasive diagnostic procedure but never underwent surgery. The incidence of any invasive intervention for nonmalignant disease was 0.95% (31/3280 patients). There were no postprocedural deaths within 60 days. Twenty-five patients (0.76%) underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy; 19 patients (76%) had presumed lung cancer without pretreatment pathologic confirmation.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical resection for benign disease occurred in 0.43% of patients undergoing lung cancer screening. The combined incidence of any invasive diagnostic or therapeutic intervention, including surgical resection, for benign disease was only 0.95%. Periprocedural complications were rare. These results indicate that concern over unnecessary interventions is overstated and should not hinder adoption of lung cancer screening. A multidisciplinary team approach, including thoracic surgeons, is critical to maintain an appropriate rate of interventions in lung cancer screening.

The Year in Thoracic Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2019

THIS special article is the 4th in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief, Dr. Kaplan; the associate editor-in-chief, Dr. Augoustides; and the editorial board for the opportunity to expand this series, the research highlights of the year that specifically pertain to the specialty of thoracic anesthesia. The major themes selected for 2019 are outlined in this introduction, and each highlight is reviewed in detail in the main body of the article. The literature highlights in this specialty for 2019 include updates in the preoperative assessment and optimization of patients undergoing lung resection and esophagectomy, updates in one lung ventilation (OLV) and protective ventilation during OLV, a review of recent meta-analyses comparing truncal blocks with paravertebral catheters and the introduction of a new truncal block, meta-analyses comparing nonintubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with those performed using endotracheal intubation, a review of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) recent composite score rating for pulmonary resection of lung cancer, and an update of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for both lung and esophageal surgery.