Peri- and postoperative management of stage I-III Non Small Cell Lung Cancer: Which quality of care indicators are evidence-based?

Improving care in lung cancer surgery: a review of quality measures and evolving standards

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Pulmonary resection, in addition to perioperative systemic therapies, is a cornerstone of treatment for operable patients with early-stage and locoregional disease. In recent years, increased emphasis has been placed on surgical quality metrics: specific and evidence-based structural, process, and outcome measures that aim to decrease variation in lung cancer care and improve long term outcomes. These metrics can be divided into potential areas of intervention or improvement in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care and form the basis of guidelines issued by organizations including the National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). This review focuses on established quality metrics associated with lung cancer surgery with an emphasis on the most recent research and guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past 18 months, quality metrics across the peri-operative care period were explored, including optimal invasive mediastinal staging preoperatively, the extent of intraoperative lymphadenectomy, surgical approaches related to minimally invasive resection, and enhanced recovery pathways that facilitate early discharge following pulmonary resection.

SUMMARY

Quality metrics in lung cancer surgery is an exciting and important area of research. Adherence to quality metrics has been shown to improve overall survival and guidelines supporting their use allows targeted quality improvement efforts at a local level to facilitate more consistent, less variable oncologic outcomes across centers.

Perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

Improvement in delivery of perioperative care depends on the ability to measure outcomes that can direct meaningful changes in practice. We sought to identify and provide an overview of perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery.

SOURCE

We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included systematic reviews examining perioperative indicators in patients ≥ 18 yr of age undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was any quality indicator specific to anesthesia. Indicators were classified by the Donabedian system and perioperative phase of care. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 criteria. Level of evidence of quality indicators was stratified by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our search returned 1,475 studies. After removing duplicates and screening of abstracts and full texts, 23 systematic reviews encompassing 3,164 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. There were 330 unique quality indicators. Process indicators were most common (n = 169), followed by outcome (n = 114) and structure indicators (n = 47). Few identified indicators were supported by high-level evidence (45/330, 14%). Level 1 evidence supported indicators of antibiotic prophylaxis (1a), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (1a), postoperative nausea/vomiting prophylaxis (1b), maintenance of normothermia (1a), and goal-directed fluid therapy (1b).

CONCLUSION

This umbrella review highlights the scarcity of perioperative quality indicators that are supported by high quality evidence. Future development of quality indicators and recommendations for outcome measurement should focus on metrics that are supported by level 1 evidence. Potential targets for evidence-based quality-improvement programs in anesthesia are identified herein.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); first registered 28 April 2020.

Comparison of Bronchial Sleeve Lobectomy with Pulmonary Arterioplasty versus Pneumonectomy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy of bronchial sleeve lobectomy with pulmonary arterioplasty by comparing to pneumonectomy in centrally located non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with bronchovascular invasion.

METHODS

The entire cohort consisted of 212 patients receiving pneumonectomy and 156 patients undergoing bronchial sleeve lobectomy with pulmonary arterioplasty. Propensity score matching was adopted to create a fully balanced cohort, after which, baseline characteristics, perioperative performance and oncological results were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Totally 139 pneumonectomy cases were matched with 139 sleeve lobectomy cases. In the matched cohort, bronchial sleeve lobectomy with pulmonary arterioplasty was associated with longer operative time (p<0.001), decreased perioperative transfusion rate (p=0.002), shorter postoperative hospital stays (p<0.001), shorter intensive care unit stays (p=0.040) and lower Clavien-dindo Classification (p=0.016). In respect to survival outcomes, Log-rank test revealed no significant difference in OS (p= 0.381) and RFS (p=0.619) between two surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Bronchial sleeve lobectomy with pulmonary arterioplasty could achieve superior perioperative outcomes and equivalent oncological efficacy in comparison with pneumonectomy, indicating that this complex procedure is safe and reliable for centrally located NSCLC concurrently involving the pulmonary artery and bronchus.

Outcomes of sleeve lobectomy versus pneumonectomy: A propensity score-matched study

OBJECTIVES

To compare short- and long-term outcomes between sleeve lobectomy and pneumonectomy for lung cancer in a single center during a 15-year period.

METHODS

One thousand nine hundred eighty-one patients who underwent either a sleeve lobectomy (n = 964; 48.7%) or a pneumonectomy (n = 1017; 51.3%) from January 2003 to December 2017 at the Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, were matched according to a propensity score to produce 2 groups of 665 patients each. The study period was divided into 3 5-year subperiods.

RESULTS

Sleeve lobectomy was associated with a lower 30- and 90-day mortality (0.60% and 0.90% vs 1.5% and 3.91%; P = .177 and P = .001, respectively, after matching), lower morbidity (4.36% vs 8.16%; P = .005 before matching, 3.61% vs 8.72%; P < .001 after matching), improved 5-year survival (62.7% vs 43.1%; P < .001 before matching and 61% vs 44.7%; P < .001 after matching), and 5-year disease-free survival after matching (56.6% vs 46.2%; P < .001). The sleeve lobectomy to pneumonectomy ratio increased by 78%, whereas 90-day mortality decreased by 66.81% between the first and the last subperiods.

CONCLUSIONS

Sleeve lobectomy is associated with improved short- and long-term outcomes and should be the resection of choice for centrally located lung cancers, when feasible.

Closing the gap: Contribution of surgical best practices to outcome differences between high- and low-volume centers for lung cancer resection

Background

Clinical outcomes for resected early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are superior at high‐volume facilities, but reasons for these differences remain unclear. Understanding these differences and optimizing outcomes across institutions are critical to the management of the increasing incidence of these cases. We evaluated the extent to which surgical best practices account for resected early‐stage NSCLC outcome differences between facilities according to case volume.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study for clinical stage 1 or 2 NSCLC undergoing surgical resection from 2004 to 2013 using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Surgical best practices (negative surgical margins, lobar or greater resection, lymph node (LN) dissection, and examination of > 10 LNs) were compared between the highest and lowest quartile volumes.

Results

A total of 150,179 patients were included in the cohort (89% white, 53% female, median age 68 years). In a multivariate model, superior overall survival (OS) was observed at highest volume centers compared to lowest volume centers (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82‐0.96; P = .002). After matching for surgical best practices, there was no significant OS difference (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87‐1.05; P = .32). Propensity score‐adjusted HR estimates indicated that surgical best practices accounted for 54% of the numerical OS difference between low‐volume and high‐volume centers. Each surgical best practice was independently associated with improved OS (all P ≤ .001).

Conclusion

Quantifiable and potentially modifiable surgical best practices largely account for resected early‐stage NSCLC outcome differences observed between low‐ and high‐volume centers. Adherence to these guidelines may reduce and potentially eliminate these differences.

Time-varying analysis of readmission and mortality during the first year after pneumonectomy

OBJECTIVES

Mortality rates of 5% to 10% after pneumonectomy have remained constant during the last decade. To understand the patterns of outcomes after pneumonectomy, we investigated the time-varying risks of readmission and death during the first postoperative year and examined the contributions of specific causes to these patterns over time.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all pneumonectomies for lung cancer at our institution from 2000 to 2018. The time-varying instantaneous risk of all-cause readmission and mortality up to 1 year after pneumonectomy was estimated using parametric analyses and was repeated for each primary cause of readmission (oncologic, infectious, pulmonary, cardiac, or other) and death (oncologic or nononcologic).

RESULTS

In our cohort of 355 patients who underwent pneumonectomy, risk of readmission was highest immediately after discharge and was halved by 14 days. This risk reached a nadir and remained constant from 4 to 8 months, after which it gradually increased. Pulmonary causes accounted for most readmissions within 90 days, after which oncologic causes predominated. Likewise, the overall risk of death was highest immediately after surgery, was halved by 7 days, reached a nadir at 90 days, and then increased throughout the remainder of the first year. All deaths during the first 90 days after surgery were due to nononcologic causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Nononcologic causes of readmission and death predominate in the first 90 days after pneumonectomy, after which oncologic causes prevail. We also identify specific causes that pose the highest risk of readmission immediately after discharge. Efforts are warranted to define the effects of specific causes of readmission on overall mortality after pneumonectomy.

Patient and Facility Demographics Related Outcomes in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Radiofrequency Ablation: A National Cancer Database Analysis

PURPOSE

To determine facility and patient demographics associated with survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with radiofrequency (RF) ablation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for cases of stage 1a NSCLC treated with RF ablation without chemotherapy or radiotherapy from 2004 to 2014. High-volume centers (HVCs) were defined as the top 95^th percentile of facilities by number of procedures performed. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons between survival curves were performed with the log-rank test. Propensity score-matched cohort analysis was performed. P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

In the final cohort, 967 cases were included. Estimated median survival and follow-up were 33.1 and 62.5 months, respectively. Of 305 facilities, 15 were determined to be HVCs, treating 13 or more patients from 2004 to 2014. A total of 335 cases (34.6%) were treated at HVCs. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, treatment at an HVC was independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.766; P = .006). After propensity score adjustment, 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS was 89.8%, 51.2%, and 27.7%, respectively, for patients treated at HVCs, compared to 85.2%, 41.5%, and 19.6%, respectively, for patients treated at non-HVCs (P = .015). Increasing age (HR = 1.012; P = .013) and higher T-classification (HR = 1.392; P < .001) were independently associated with worse OS.

CONCLUSION

Patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with RF ablation at HVCs experienced a significant increase in OS, suggesting regionalization of lung cancer management as a means of improving outcomes.

Oncologic Quality Indicators in Thoracic Surgery

This article outlines a structure for assessing thoracic surgical quality and provides an overview of evidence-based quality metrics for surgical care in both lung cancer and esophageal cancer, with a focus on process and outcome measures in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative setting.

[Surgical Quality Surveillance and Sustaining Improvement of Lung Cancer Surgery Based on Standard Operation Procedure (SOP): Experience of Single Surgical Team]

背景与目的

医疗流程标准化可提高治疗规范程度、控制合并症和住院时间，但国家制定的临床路径需根据各中心实际情况进行个体化调整。

方法

本研究分析单一手术组进行肺切除手术患者的围手术期信息，通过对比术后平均住院日、医疗费用、手术胸腔镜占比等多个因素，从结构性指标、过程性指标、结果性指标三个方面进行了手术质量持续改进的总结和探索，寻找适合本手术组实际情况的理想术后住院时间及质量评估指标。

结果

2016年的术后平均住院日较2013年明显缩短[(4.08±1.80) d vs (6.13±3.60) d, P < 0.001]，全胸腔镜手术占比（17%→48%→68%→73%）及单操作孔胸腔镜占比（0%→2%→52%→66%）四年来显著提高。

结论

通过外科单元进行自我质量监控和改进，能够显著降低术后平均住院日，减少术后并发症发生。