Underutilization of Systemic Therapy in Patients With NSCLC Undergoing Pneumonectomy: A Missed Opportunity for Survival

Introduction

Recent trials have reported promising results with the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced NSCLC, but in practice, the proportion of patients who receive systemic therapy (ST) has historically been low. Underutilization of ST may be particularly apparent in patients undergoing pneumonectomy, in whom the physiologic insult and surgical complications may preclude adjuvant therapy (ADJ). We, therefore, evaluated the use of ST for patients with NSCLC undergoing pneumonectomy.

Methods

We queried the National Cancer Database, including all patients with NSCLC who underwent pneumonectomy between 2006 and 2018. Logistic regression was used to identify associations with ST and neo-ADJ (NEO). Overall survival was compared after propensity score matching (1:1) patients undergoing ST to those undergoing surgery alone using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods.

Results

A total of 2619 patients were identified. Among these, 12% received NEO, 43% received ADJ, and 45% surgery alone. Age younger than 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.53, 95% confidence interval; [CI]: 1.10-2.11), Asian ethnicity (aOR = 2.68, 95% CI: 1.37-5.23), treatment at a high-volume center (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.06-1.81), and private insurance (aOR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.05-1.94) were associated with NEO, whereas age younger than 65 years (aOR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.61-2.38), comorbidity index less than or equal to 1 (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.29-2.16), and private insurance (aOR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.20-1.80) were associated with any ST. In the matched cohort, ST was associated with better survival than surgery (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58-0.78).

Conclusions

A high proportion of patients who undergo pneumonectomy do not receive ST. Patient and socioeconomic factors are associated with the receipt of ST. Given its survival benefit, emphasis should be placed on multimodal treatment strategies, perhaps with greater consideration given to neoadjuvant approaches.

Fungating and Ulcerating Breast Cancer: Wound Closure Algorithm, Complications, and Survival Trends

Fungating breast cancer severely affects patients' daily lives, and patient management poses major oncology challenges. To present 10-year outcomes of unique tumor presentation, suggesting a focused algorithm for surgical management and providing deep analysis for factors affecting survival and surgical outcomes. Eighty-two patients with fungating breast cancer were enrolled in the period from January 2010 to February 2020 in the Mansoura University Oncology Center database. Epidemiological and pathological characteristics, risk factors, different surgical treatment techniques, and surgical and oncological outcomes were reviewed. Preoperative systemic therapy was used in 41 patients, with the majority (77.8%) showing progressive response. Mastectomy was performed in 81 (98.8%) patients, with primary wound closure in 71 (86.6%), and wide local excision in a single patient (1.2%). Different reconstructive techniques in non-primary closure operations were used. Complications were reported in 33 (40.7%) patients, of which 16 (48.5%) were of Clavien-Dindo grade II category. Loco-regional recurrence occurred in 20.7% of patients. The mortality rate during follow-up was 31.7% (n = 26). Estimated mean overall survival (with 95% CI) was 55.96 (41.98-69.9) months; estimated mean loco-regional recurrence-free survival (with 95% CI) was 38.01 (24.6-51.4) months. Surgery is a cornerstone fungating breast cancer treatment option, but at the expense of high morbidity. Sophisticated reconstructive procedures may be indicated for wound closure. A suggested algorithm based on the center's experience of wound management in difficult mastectomy cases is displayed.

Swiss Recommendations for Cutaneous Basal Cell Carcinoma

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common nonmelanoma skin cancer in Switzerland and worldwide. Most BCCs can be treated in a curative setting. However, patients can develop locally destructive and, rarely, metastatic tumors that require a different treatment approach. The clinical subtype of individual lesions provides prognostic information and influences management decisions. Surgical excision, topical therapies, and radiotherapy are highly effective in the majority of subtypes as well as in low- and high-risk diseases. For patients with low-risk diseases and superficial tumors not amenable to surgery, several nonsurgical alternatives are available. Systemic therapy is indicated for high-risk BCCs, which are not amenable to either surgery or radiotherapy. Hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HHI) are currently approved. Other therapeutic options such as immune checkpoint inhibitors show promising results in clinical trials. This first version of Swiss recommendations for diagnosis and management of BCC was prepared through extensive literature review and an advisory board consensus of expert dermatologists and oncologists in Switzerland. The present guidelines recommend therapies based on a multidisciplinary team approach and rate of recurrence for individual lesions. Based on the risk of recurrence, two distinct groups have been identified: low-risk (easy-to-treat) and high-risk (difficult-to-treat) tumors. Based on these classifications, evidence-based recommendations of available therapies are presented herein.

[Radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND

Due to an inverse stage migration, the proportion of patients with more aggressive and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) has increased over the last few years. The natural history in these patients shows a higher risk of local complications and worse oncologic outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the impact of radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with locally advanced PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the literature was performed using PubMed and MEDLINE databases focusing on articles addressing locally advanced PCa.

RESULTS

Current guidelines recommend local therapy in patients with locally advanced PCa among other treatment options. Thereby no strong evidence favoring radiotherapy or RP is present. Compared to patients without local treatment, RP may improve oncologic outcome and decrease the risk of local complications. Due to more difficult surgery and an increased need of multimodal therapy, higher perioperative morbidity and worse functional outcomes compared to patients with localized PCa are reported. No reliable prospective data indicating a widespread use of neoadjuvant treatment exists. Indication for further adjuvant or salvage therapies depends on pathologic results and postoperative course.

CONCLUSIONS

RP is one of the treatment options with good long-term results which can be offered to patients with locally advanced PCa. Nevertheless, patients need to be counselled especially about the worse postoperative functional outcome compared to patients with localized PCa.