Jennifer M. Bell

Patterns of failure after stereotactic body radiation therapy or lobar resection for clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare patterns of failure between lobar resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with clinical stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: From January 2004 to January 2008, 338 patients underwent definitive treatment for pathologically confirmed clinical stage I NSCLC with lobar resection (n = 260) or SBRT (n = 78). Most surgical patients underwent lobectomy (n = 237). SBRT patients received a biologically effective dose of at least 100 Gy10. Lobar resection patients were younger, healthier, and had superior pulmonary function, whereas most of the patients in the SBRT group had T1 tumors. Final pathology upstaged 32.7% of surgery patients, and 20.0% received adjuvant chemotherapy. No SBRT patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: In an unmatched comparison, 4-year lobar local control (98.7% versus 93.6%, p = 0.015) was greater for lobar resection versus SBRT, respectively, though primary tumor (98.7% versus 95.3%, p = 0.088), regional (82.9% versus 78.1%, p = 0.912), and distant control (76.1% versus 54.0%, p = 0.152) were similar. Overall survival (OS, 63.5% versus 29.6%, p < 0.0001) was greater for lobar resection, though cause-specific survival (CSS, 81.3% versus 75.3%, p = 0.923) was similar. In a T-stage matched comparison of 152 patients, there was no significant difference in patterns of failure or CSS, whereas OS favored surgery. Conclusion: Lobectomy/pneumonectomy or SBRT results in comparable patterns of failure for clinical stage I NSCLC. In this retrospective comparison, OS was superior for surgery, though CSS was similar. Randomized trials are necessary to control for fundamental differences in comorbidity, which impact interpretation of both tumor control and survival.

Postoperative Radiotherapy for Pathologic N2 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Review of the National Cancer Data Base

PURPOSE To investigate the impact of modern postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) on overall survival (OS) for patients with N2 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated nationally with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with pathologic N2 NSCLC who underwent complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy from 2006 to 2010 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base and stratified by use of PORT (≥ 45 Gy). A total of 4,483 patients were identified (PORT, n = 1,850; no PORT, n = 2,633). The impact of patient and treatment variables on OS was explored using Cox regression. RESULTS Median follow-up time was 22 months. On univariable analysis, improved OS correlated with younger age, treatment at an academic facility, female sex, urban population, higher income, lower Charlson comorbidity score, smaller tumor size, multiagent chemotherapy, resection with at least a lobectomy, and PORT. On multivariable analysis, improved OS remained independently predicted by younger age, female sex, urban population, lower Charlson score, smaller tumor size, multiagent chemotherapy, resection with at least a lobectomy, and PORT (hazard ratio, 0.886; 95% CI, 0.798 to 0.988). Use of PORT was associated with an increase in median and 5-year OS compared with no PORT (median OS, 45.2 v 40.7 months, respectively; 5-year OS, 39.3% [95% CI, 35.4% to 43.5%] v 34.8% [95% CI, 31.6% to 38.3%], respectively; P = .014). CONCLUSION For patients with N2 NSCLC after complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy, modern PORT seems to confer an additional OS advantage beyond that achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy alone.

Cox-Maze IV Results for Patients With Lone Atrial Fibrillation Versus Concomitant Mitral Disease

BACKGROUND This study compared Cox-Maze IV (CMIV) outcomes for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with lone AF vs those with AF and mitral valve (MV) disease. METHODS Since 2002, 200 patients have undergone a CMIV procedure for lone AF (n=101) or concomitantly with MV operations (n=99). Preoperative, perioperative, and late outcomes between these groups were compared. Data were collected prospectively and reported at 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS Lone AF patients had AF of longer duration; patients with AF and MV disease were older, with larger left atria and worse New York Heart Association classification (p<0.05). Operative mortality (1% vs 4%, p>0.05, respectively) was similar between both groups. Perioperative atrial tachyarrhythmias were more prevalent in patients with concomitant MV operations (57% vs 41%, p=0.03); however, freedom from AF and antiarrhythmics was similar for both groups at 12 months (76% and 77%). The only predictor for atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence or arrhythmic drug dependence was failure to isolate the posterior left atrium (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS Patients with AF and MV disease have distinct comorbidities compared with patients with lone AF. However, the CMIV is safe and effective in both groups and should be considered for patients with AF undergoing MV operations. Patients with MV disease had more atrial tachyarrhythmias at 3 months, but freedom from AF and antiarrhythmics was similar to patients with lone AF at 1 year. The posterior left atrium should be isolated in every patient, because this was the only predictor for failure of the CMIV for either group.

A comparison of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage I lung cancer in high-risk patients: A decision analysis

OBJECTIVE We sought to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy in high risk patients with clinical stage I lung cancer (non-small cell lung cancer). METHODS We compared patients chosen for surgical intervention or SBRT for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Propensity score matching was used to adjust estimated treatment hazard ratios for the confounding effects of age, comorbidity index, and clinical stage. We assumed that Medicare-allowable charges were

Treatment Outcomes in Stage I Lung Cancer: A Comparison of Surgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

15,034 for surgical intervention and

Unexpected readmission after lung cancer surgery: A benign event?

13,964 for stereotactic body radiation therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated as the cost per life year gained over the patients remaining lifetime by using a decision model. RESULTS Fifty-seven patients in each arm were selected by means of propensity score matching. Median survival with surgical intervention was 4.1 years, and 4-year survival was 51.4%. With stereotactic body radiation therapy, median survival was 2.9 years, and 4-year survival was 30.1%. Cause-specific survival was identical between the 2 groups, and the difference in overall survival was not statistically significant. For decision modeling, stereotactic body radiation therapy was estimated to have a mean expected survival of 2.94 years at a cost of

National patterns of care and outcomes after combined modality therapy for stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer.

14,153 and mean expected survival with surgical intervention was 3.39 years at a cost of

Adjuvant Therapy for Positive Nodes After Induction Therapy and Resection of Esophageal Cancer.

17,629, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of

Completion Pneumonectomy: Outcomes for Benign and Malignant Indications

7753. CONCLUSIONS In our analysis stereotactic body radiation therapy appears to be less costly than surgical intervention in high-risk patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. However, surgical intervention appears to meet the standards for cost-effectiveness because of a longer expected overall survival. Should this advantage not be confirmed in other studies, the cost-effectiveness decision would be likely to change. Prospective randomized studies are necessary to strengthen confidence in these results.

Right ventricular assist device with membrane oxygenator support for right ventricular failure following implantable left ventricular assist device placement

Introduction: The relative roles of surgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy in stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are evolving particularly for marginally operable patients. Because there is limited prospective comparative data for these treatment modalities, we evaluated their relative use and outcomes at the population level using a national database. Methods: Patient variables and treatment-related outcomes were abstracted for patients with clinical stage I NSCLC from the National Cancer Database. Patients receiving surgery were compared with those undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in exploratory unmatched and subsequent propensity matched analyses. Results: Between 1998 and 2010, 117,618 patients underwent surgery or SBRT for clinical stage I NSCLC. Of these, 111,731 (95%) received surgery, whereas 5887 (5%) underwent SBRT. Patients in the surgery group were younger, more likely to be males, and had higher Charlson comorbidity scores. SBRT patients were more likely to have T1 (versus T2) tumors and receive treatment at academic centers. Thirty-day surgical mortality was 2596 of 109,485 (2.4%). Median overall survival favored the surgery group in both unmatched (68.4 versus 33.3 months, p < 0.001) and matched analysis based on patient characteristics (62.3 versus 33.1 months, p < 0.001). Disease-specific survival was unavailable from the data set. Conclusion: In a propensity matched comparison, patients selected for surgery have improved survival compared with SBRT. In the absence of information on cause of death and with limited variables to characterize comorbidity, it is not possible to assess the relative contribution of patient selection or better cancer control toward the improved survival. Rigorous prospective studies are needed to optimize patient selection for SBRT in the high-risk surgical population.