Background: Primary mediastinal germ cell tumors (PMGCT) represent a rare but sometimes highly aggressive type of mediastinal tumors. The current prognostic models for PMGCT are insufficient. This study was undertaken to establish and validate an individualized nomogram for predicting the overall survival (OS) of patients with PMGCT. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with PMGCT diagnosed between 2000 and 2018 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database in the United States. Clinical variables included surgery subtype, gender, treatment regimens, age, histology, tumor size, stage, chemotherapy, radiation, race, and survival-related information. The main outcome measure was survival duration. The Kaplan-Meier method along with the log-rank test were utilized to estimate the OS. Independent prognostic factors were identified by performing the univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, from which an individualized nomogram was constructed to predict 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS of patients with PMGCT. The concordance index (C-index) and calibration curve were used to verify the discrimination and accuracy of the nomogram. Results: A total of 845 patients with PMGCT were recruited from the SEER database and further randomly assigned to a training set (n=635) and a validation set (n=210) at a ratio of 7:3. The 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS for overall PMGCT was 70.0%, 67.1%, and 63.9%, respectively. Cox regression analysis indicated that age, tumor size, stage, chemotherapy, radiation, histology, and surgery type were as independent factors for OS in patients with PMGCT (P<0.05). An individualized nomogram for OS was constructed utilizing these variables, with the C-index of 0.714 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.695 to 0.743] and 0.756 (95% CI: 0.735 to 0.787) in the training and validation groups. Moreover, good levels of agreement were observed according to the calibration curve between the predicted and actual 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates both in the training and validated cohorts, showing that the model could accurately predict patient prognosis. Conclusions: This study documented the first attempt at establishing and validating a novel nomogram for predicting the 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS probabilities of PMGCT. The prognostic nomogram was demonstrated to have good performance for predicting individualized OS of patients with PMGCT.

Objective: To explore the safety and feasibility of thoracoscopic surgery in patients with lung cancer under non-intubation anesthesia, and to evaluate the advantages of the non-intubation anesthesia compared with intubation anesthesia on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in which 100 patients who underwent thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery from January 2020 to February 2021 in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University were included and divided into non-intubation group (n = 50) and intubation group (n = 50). The primary outcome was the comparison of intra-and postoperative parameters. Secondary outcomes included inflammatory response indicators and intra-and postoperative complications.Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in anesthesia effect score, blood loss, lowest pulse oxygen saturation, operation time, postoperative chest tube indwelling time (P > 0.05). Non-intubation group had less intraoperative remifentanil dosage, less change of blood pressure and heart rate, lower postoperative pain numerical score(NRS), less medical costs, smaller incidence rate of throat discomfort (P < 0.05). The non-intubation group was also associated with less extubation time, postanesthesia care unit recovery time, ambulation time, food intake time, postoperative antibiotic use time, and hospital stay (P < 0.05). The increase of C-reactive protein in the non-intubation group was lower than that in the intubation group (P < 0.05). Conclusion:Non-intubation anesthesia for thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery is safe and feasible. Compared with the intubation anesthesia, it has advantages in ERAS and reducing medical costs.