No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: There are limited small, single-institution observational studies examining the role of surgery in large cell neuroendocrine cancer (LCNEC). We investigated the outcomes of surgery for stage I to IIIA LCNEC by using the National Cancer Database. Methods: Patients with stage I to IIIA LCNEC were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004-2015) and grouped by treatment: definitive chemoradiation versus surgery. Overall survival, by stage, was the primary outcome. Outcomes of surgical patients were also compared with those of patients with SCLC or other non-small cell histotypes. Results: A total of 6092 patients met the criteria: 96%, 94%, 75%, and 62% of patients received an operation for stage I, II, IIIA, and cN2 disease, respectively. Complete resection was achieved in at least 85% of patients. The 5year survival rates for patients undergoing an operation for stage I and II LCNEC were 50% and 45%, respectively. Surgical patients with stage IIIA and N2 disease had 36% and 32% 5-year survival rates, respectively. When compared with stereotactic body radiation in stage I disease and chemoradiation in patients with stage II to IIIA disease, surgery was associated with a survival benefit. Patients with LCNEC who underwent an operation generally experienced worse survival by stage than did those with adenocarcinoma but experienced improved survival compared with patients with SCLC. Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved survival for pathologic stage II to IIIA disease. Conclusions: Surgery is associated with reasonable outcomes for stage I to IIA LCNEC, although survival is generally worse than for adenocarcinoma. Surgery should be offered to medically fit patients with both early and locally advanced LCNEC, with guideline-concordant induction or adjuvant therapy.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES Aortic insufficiency (AI) is common in patients with proximal aortic disease, but limited options exist to facilitate aortic valve repair (AVr) in this population. This study reports ‘real-world’ early results of AVr using newly FDA-approved trileaflet and bicuspid geometric annuloplasty rings for patients with AI undergoing proximal aortic repair (PAR) in a single referral centre. METHODS All patients undergoing AVr with a rigid internal geometric annuloplasty ring (n = 47) in conjunction with PAR (ascending +/− root +/− arch) were included. Thirty-six patients underwent AVr with a trileaflet ring, and 11 patients underwent AVr with a bicuspid ring. The rings were implanted in the subannular position, and concomitant leaflet repair was performed if required for cusp prolapse identified after ring placement. RESULTS The median age was 58 years [interquartile range (IQR) 46–70]. PAR included supracoronary ascending replacement in 26 (55%) patients and remodelling valve-sparing root replacement with selective sinus replacement in 20 (42%) patients. Arch replacement was performed in 38 (81%) patients, including hemi-arch in 34 patients and total arch in 4 patients. There was no 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Preoperative AI was 3–4+ in 37 (79%) patients. Forty-one (87%) patients had zero–trace AI on post-repair transoesophageal echocardiography, and 6 patients had 1+ AI. The median early post-repair mean gradient was 13 mmHg (IQR 5–20). Follow-up imaging was available in 32 (68%) patients at a median of 11 months (IQR 10–13) postsurgery. AI was ≤1+ in 97% of patients with 2+ AI in 1 patient. All patients were alive and free from aortic valve reintervention at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Early results with geometric rigid internal ring annuloplasty for AVr in patients undergoing PAR appear promising and allow a standardized approach to repair with annular diameter reduction and cusp plication when needed. Longer-term follow-up will be required to ensure the durability of the procedure.

Background There is no standard of care with respect to the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis with data from a single institution and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify whether the use of NAC impacts survival in resectable MPM. Methods Patients with MPM who had surgery with curative intent at Duke University from 1995 to 2017 were selected, and the 2004–2015 NCDB was used to identify MPM patients with clinical stage I–IIIB who underwent definitive surgery. For both cohorts, patients were stratified by receipt of NAC. Primary outcomes were overall survival and postresection survival (RS), which were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Results A total of 257 patients met inclusion criteria in the Duke cohort. Compared with immediate resection (IR), NAC was associated with similar overall survival but an increased risk for postresection mortality in both unmatched (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21 to 2.83) and propensity-matched (HR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.55) cohorts. A total of 1949 NCDB patients were included: 1597 (81.9%) IR and 352 (18.1%) NAC. RS was worse for patients undergoing NAC in both unmatched (HR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.83) and propensity-matched (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.57) analyses compared with patients receiving IR. Conclusions In this intention-to-treat study, NAC was associated with worse RS compared with IR in patients with MPM. The risks and benefits of induction therapy should be weighed before offering it to patients with resectable MPM.

No abstract

Objective: Determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with a survival benefit in high risk T2-4a, pathologically node-negative distal esophageal adenocarcinoma. Summary of Background Data: There is minimal literature to substantiate the NCCN guidelines recommending adjuvant therapy for patients with distal esophageal adenocarcinoma and no pathologic evidence of nodal disease. Methods: The National Cancer Database was used to identify adult patients with pT2-4aN0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent definitive surgery (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015) and had characteristics considered high risk by the NCCN. Patients were stratified by receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation. The primary outcome was overall survival, which was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards models. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was also performed to compare survival between the groups. Results: Four hundred three patients met study criteria: 313 (78%) without adjuvant therapy and 90 who received adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation (22%). In both unadjusted and multivariable analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation was not associated with a significant survival benefit compared to no adjuvant therapy. In a subgroup analysis of 335 patients without high risk features by NCCN criteria, adjuvant chemotherapy was not independently associated with a survival benefit. Conclusion: In this analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation was not associated with a significant survival benefit in completely resected, pathologically node-negative distal esophageal adenocarcinoma, independent of presence of high risk characteristics. The risks and benefits of adjuvant therapy should be weighed before offering it to patients with completely resected pT2-4aN0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma.