Surgical decision-making in advanced-stage non–small cell lung cancer is influenced by more than just guidelines

Peng, Terrance; Farias, Albert J.; Shemanski, Kimberly A.; Kim, Anthony W.; Wightman, Sean C.; Atay, Scott M.; Canter, Robert J.; David, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2022.04.035

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another research examined the efficiency of VATS and open lobectomy in 243 patients with NSCLC. The study found that VATS patients had shorter hospital stays (median six days vs. days) and fewer complications (15.3% vs. 31.1%) than open surgery patients [31]. The two groups had no significant difference in 30-day mortality or blood loss.…”

Section: Literature Findingsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Differential Outcomes of VATS and Open Surgery in Lung Cancer Patients with Antecedent Oncological Diagnoses

Tanase,

Burlacu,

Nistor

et al. 2023

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primary lung cancer is a devastating disease with high morbidity and mortality rates. Patients with a previous oncological history may present with multiple comorbidities, unique clinical features, and unique outcomes after surgical intervention for primary lung cancer. This study aimed to compare the clinical features and outcomes of patients with a previous oncological history who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or open surgery (OS) for primary lung cancer. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 84 patients with a previous oncological history who underwent surgical intervention for primary lung cancer between January 2018 and January 2023. Among them, 55 patients underwent VATS, while 29 patients underwent OS. Demographic and clinical characteristics, perioperative variables, and postoperative outcomes of the two surgical groups were collected and compared. Most of the 84 patients were women (58.4%) with a high smoking prevalence (44.1%) and a median of 32.3 packs-year. The patients’ histories were most predominant for gynecologic cancers (44.4%) and colorectal cancers (18.6%). The results showed that the VATS group had a significantly shorter median hospital stay than the OS group (6.0 days vs. 12.0 days, p-value < 0.001). Additionally, the VATS group had lower incidences of air leaks 24 h post-surgery (12.7% vs. 48.3%, p-value < 0.001) and intractable pain (3.6% vs. 17.2%, p-value = 0.031), as well as significantly lower operative times (270 min vs. 350 min, p-value = 0.046). However, there were no significant differences between the VATS and OS groups in overall survival (log-rank p-value = 0.447). Furthermore, although the 3-month survival was significantly higher in the VATS group (98.2% vs. 79.3%, p-value = 0.003), only one patient from the VATS group (1.8%) and two patients from the OS group (6.9%) were still alive five years after the intervention. In conclusion, VATS is a safe and effective surgical option for patients with a previous oncological history who require surgical intervention for primary lung cancer, with shorter operative times, shorter hospital stays, and lower rates of complications compared to those of OS patients, without compromising oncological outcomes. Nevertheless, both surgical options failed to improve the 5-year survival rate, probably due to the high prevalence of comorbidities and the burden of previous cancer in this population.

show abstract

Section: Literature Findingsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Differential Outcomes of VATS and Open Surgery in Lung Cancer Patients with Antecedent Oncological Diagnoses

Tanase,

Burlacu,

Nistor

et al. 2023

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, physicians are responsible for diagnosing and treating medical conditions and establishing and maintaining the patient-physician relationship, serving as the foundation of patient-centered care (2). Second, as trusted healthcare providers, physicians bring their own expectations, beliefs, and preferences into their clinical practice, influencing the clinical decisions they make for their patients (3). Furthermore, trust and communication between physicians and patients are pivotal in achieving optimal health outcomes, patient satisfaction, and adherence to treatment plans (4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and psychometric validation of the hospitalized patients’ expectations for treatment scale-clinician version

Dai,

Xiao,

Wang

et al. 2024

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivePatient safety management systems in general hospitals require a comprehensive tool for assessing the expectations of inpatients across different wards. This study aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a new scale, the hospitalized patients’ expectations for treatment scale-clinician version (HOPE-C), to meet this requirement.MethodsWe interviewed 35 experts and 10 inpatients while developing the HOPE-C scale. The scale was initially designed with three dimensions: clinicians’ expectations regarding doctor-patient communication, clinicians’ expectations regarding treatment outcome, and clinicians’ expectations regarding disease management. We recruited 200 inpatients from a general hospital in China. At the same time, 51 clinicians were assigned to the enrolled patients who completed the HOPE-C to examine the reliability, validity, and psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire. We applied item analysis, assessed construct validity, evaluated internal consistency, and conducted a test-retest reliability analysis over 7 days.ResultsBoth exploratory and confirmatory analyses supported a 2-dimensional structure, comprising doctor-patient communication expectations and treatment outcome expectations, with favorable model fit parameters (root mean square residual [RMR] = 0.042, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.049, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.989, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = 0.984). Item analysis demonstrated appropriate item design (r = 0.744–0.961). The scale exhibited strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α values of 0.884, 0.816, and 0.840 for the overall scale, the doctor-patient communication expectation subscale, and the treatment outcome expectation subscale, respectively. The 7-day test-retest reliability was 0.996 (p < 0.001).ConclusionOur findings suggest that the HOPE-C is a reliable and valid assessment tool for measuring the expectations of inpatients in general hospitals. It effectively identifies patients’ expectations concerning doctor-patient communication and treatment outcomes.

show abstract

Surgical decision-making in advanced-stage non–small cell lung cancer is influenced by more than just guidelines

Cited by 2 publications

References 32 publications

Differential Outcomes of VATS and Open Surgery in Lung Cancer Patients with Antecedent Oncological Diagnoses

Differential Outcomes of VATS and Open Surgery in Lung Cancer Patients with Antecedent Oncological Diagnoses

Development and psychometric validation of the hospitalized patients’ expectations for treatment scale-clinician version

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About