Lung lobectomy is the standard of care for early-stage lung cancer. Studies have suggested improved outcomes associated with lobectomy performed by specialized thoracic surgery providers. We ...hypothesized that disparities would exist regarding access to thoracic surgeons among patients receiving lung lobectomy for cancer.
The Premier Hospital Database was used to identify adult inpatients receiving lung lobectomy from 2009 to 2019. Patients were categorized as receiving their lobectomy from a thoracic surgeon, cardiovascular surgeon, or general surgeon. Sample-weighted multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with provider type.
When adjusted for sampling, 121,711 patients were analyzed, including 71,709 (58.9%) who received lobectomy by a thoracic surgeon, 36,630 (30.1%) by a cardiovascular surgeon, and 13,373 (11.0%) by a general surgeon. Multivariable analysis showed that thoracic surgeon provider type was less likely with Black patients, Medicaid insurance, smaller hospital size, in the western region, and in rural areas. In addition, non-thoracic surgery specialty was less likely to perform minimally-invasive (MIS) lobectomy (cardiovascular OR 0.80,
< 0.001, general surgery OR 0.85,
= 0.003).
In this nationally representative analysis, smaller, rural, non-teaching hospitals, and certain regions of the United States are less likely to receive lobectomy from a thoracic surgeon. Thoracic surgeon specialization is also independently associated with utilization of minimally invasive lobectomy. Combined, there are significant disparities in access to guideline-directed surgical care of patients receiving lung lobectomy.
Conventional CTCS images the mid/lower chest for coronary artery disease (CAD). Because many CAD patients are also at risk for lung malignancy, CTCS often discovers incidental pulmonary nodules ...(IPN). CTCS excludes the upper chest, where malignancy is common. Full-chest CTCS (FCT) may be a cost-effective screening tool for IPN.
A decision tree was created to compare a FCT to CTCS in a hypothetical patient cohort with suspected CAD. (Figure) The design compares the effects of missed cancers on CTCS with the cost of working up non-malignant nodules on FCT. The model was informed by results of the National Lung Screening Trial and literature review, including the rate of malignancy among patients receiving CTCS and the rate of malignancy in upper vs lower portions of the lung. The analysis outcomes are Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is generally considered beneficial when <$50,000/QALY.
Literature review suggests that rate of IPNs in the upper portion of the lung varied from 47 to 76%. Our model assumed that IPNs occur in upper and lower portions of the lung with equal frequency. The model also assumes an equal malignancy potential in upper lung IPNs despite data that malignancy occurs 61-66% in upper lung fields. In the base case analysis, a FCT will lead to an increase of 0.03 QALYs comparing to conventional CTCS (14.54 vs 14.51 QALY, respectively), which translates into an QALY increase of 16 days. The associated incremental cost for FCT is $278 ($1027 vs $748, FCT vs CTCS respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $10,289/QALY, suggesting significant benefit. Sensitivity analysis shows this benefit increases proportional to the rate of malignancy in upper lung fields.
Conventional CTCS may be a missed opportunity to screen for upper lung field cancers in high risk patients. The ICER of FCT is better than screening for breast cancer screening (mammograms $80 k/QALY) and colon cancer (colonoscopy $6 k/QALY). Prospective studies are appropriate to define protocols for FCT.
Abstract Objective Aneurysm rupture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and evidence suggests shared risk for both abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and intracranial aneurysms (IAs). We ...hypothesized that screening for AAA in patients with known IA is cost-effective. Methods We used a decision tree model to compare costs and outcomes of AAA screening vs no screening in a hypothetical cohort of patients with IA. We measured expected outcomes using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We performed a Monte Carlo simulation and additional sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of ranging base case variables on model outcomes and identified thresholds where a decision alternative dominated the model (both less expensive and more effective than the alternative). Results In our base case analysis, screening for AAA provided an additional 0.17 QALY (2.5-97.5 percentile: 0.11-0.27 QALY) at a saving of $201 (2.5-97.5 percentile: $−127 to $896). This yielded an ICER of $−1150/QALY (2.5-97.5 percentile: $−4299 to $6374/QALY), that is, screening saves $1150 per QALY gained. Conclusions Based on this model, screening for AAA in individuals with IA is cost-effective at an ICER of $1150/QALY, well below accepted societal thresholds estimated at $60,000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness of cross-screening in these populations is sensitive to aneurysm coprevalence and risk of rupture. Further prospective study is warranted to validate this finding.
Commentary: Test drive in cardiothoracic surgery Jiang, Boxiang; Worrell, Stephanie G.
The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery,
April 2022, 2022-04-00, 20220401, Letnik:
163, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Despite declining lung cancer mortality in the United States, survival differences remain among racial and ethnic minorities in addition to those with limited health care access. Improvements in lung ...cancer treatment can be obtained through clinical trials, yet there are disparities in clinical trial enrollment of other cancer types. This study aims to evaluate disparities in lung cancer clinical trial enrollment to inform future enrollment initiatives.
We analyzed patients with non-small cell lung cancer from the National Cancer Database (2004-2018), categorizing them as enrolled or not enrolled in clinical trials based on "rx_summ_other" data element. Clinical, demographic, and institutional factors associated with trial enrollment were assessed using bivariate and multivariate analysis, adjusting for institutional-level clustering.
A total of 1924 (0.12%) patients with lung cancer were enrolled in clinical trials. Enrolled patients were predominantly non-Hispanic White (82%), with greater socioeconomic status, treated at academic programs (67%), and had private insurance (42%) or Medicare (44%). They also traveled further for treatment compared with unenrolled patients (56 vs 27 miles, P < .001). After adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, lung cancer trial enrollment was significantly less likely among Black (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.7, P < .001) and Hispanic (0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.9, P = .01) patients. Patients with Medicaid or uninsured, in the lowest socioeconomic status group, and those treated at community-based cancer programs were the least likely to enroll.
Enrollment in lung cancer trials disproportionally excludes minority patients, those in the lowest socioeconomic status, community cancer programs, and the underinsured. These disparities in demographic and access for trial participation show a need for improved enrollment strategies.
Minimally invasive lung resection has been associated with improved outcomes; however, institutional characteristics associated with utilization are unclear. We hypothesized that the presence of ...surgical robots at institutions would be associated with increased utilization of minimally invasive techniques .
Patients with cT1/2N0M0 non–small cell lung cancer who underwent lung lobectomy between 2010 and 2020 in the National Cancer Database were identified. Patients were categorized by operative approach as minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open. Institutions were categorized as "high utilizers" of MIS technique if their proportion of MIS lobectomies was >50%. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine factors associated with proportion of procedures performed minimally invasively. Further multivariate models were used to evaluate the association of proportion of MIS procedures with 90-d mortality, hospital length of stay, and hospital readmission.
In multivariate analysis, passage of time by year (odds ratio OR 1.26; confidence interval CI 1.22-1.30) and presence of a robot at the facility (OR 3.48; CI 2.84-4.24) were associated with high MIS-utilizing facilities. High utilizers of MIS were associated with lower 90-d mortality (OR 0.89; CI 0.83-0.97) and hospital length of stay (coeff −0.88; CI −1.03 to −0.72). Hospital readmission was similar between high and low MIS-utilizing facilities (compared to low MIS-utilizing facilities: OR 1.06; CI 0.95-1.09).
Passage of time and the presence of surgical robots were independently associated with increased utilization of MIS lobectomy. In addition to being associated with improved patient-level outcomes, robotic surgery is correlated with a higher proportion of procedures being performed minimally invasively.
Clinical staging in lung cancer has implications for treatment planning and prognosis. We sought to determine the rate of inaccurate clinical stage (relative to pathologic), identify risk factors for ...inaccuracy, and evaluate the association of inaccuracy on survival. We hypothesized that inaccurate staging was associated with poor survival.
In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients who received surgical resection without neoadjuvant treatment for nonsmall cell lung cancer from 2004 to 2020 in the National Cancer Database were categorized by accuracy of clinical stage (relative to pathologic stage). Multivariate models were used to determine risk factors for inaccuracy. The association between inaccuracy and overall survival was also analyzed.
We identified 255,598 patients with lung cancer, including 84,543 patients (33.1%) who were inaccurately staged. Stage inaccuracy was associated with higher tumor, node, metastasis stage (T-category 3: odds ratio OR = 1.2, 95% confidence interval CI 1.15-1.28; N-category 2: OR = 2.6, 95% CI 2.47-2.79), greater quantity of lymph nodes evaluated, and more extensive resection (extended lobectomy/bilobectomy: OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.20-1.37; pneumonectomy: OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.54-1.74). Patients undergoing robotic surgery were less likely to be inaccurately staged (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.852-0.939). Inaccurate staging was associated with worse overall survival (5-y 67.5% accurate versus 55.4% inaccurate, P < 0.001). Inaccurate staging was also associated with worse survival in a multivariate Cox model (hazard ratio HR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.29-1.33). Both “understaging” (path > clinical) and “overstaging” (clinical > path) were associated with inferior survival.
Inaccurate clinical stage (relative to pathologic) occurs in one-third of patients receiving surgery for lung cancer. Inaccuracy is associated with poor survival. Quality improvement initiatives should focus on improving clinical staging accuracy.
The optimal minimally invasive surgical approach to mediastinal tumors is unknown. There are limited reports comparing the outcomes of resection with robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and ...video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) surgery. We hypothesized that patients who underwent RATS would have improved outcomes.
The National Cancer Database was queried for all patients who underwent a minimally invasive surgical approach for any mediastinal tumor from 2010 to 2016. Patients were determined to have an adverse composite outcome if they had any of the adverse perioperative outcomes: conversion to open procedure, 90-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and positive pathologic margins. Secondary outcomes of interest were length of stay and overall survival. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess likelihood of having a composite adverse outcome based on surgical approach.
The study included 856 patients: 402 (47%) underwent VATS and 454 (53%) underwent RATS. RATS resections were associated with fewer conversions (4.9% vs 14.7%, P < .001), fewer positive margins (24.3% vs 31.6%, P = .02), shorter length of stay (3.8 days vs 4.3 days, P = .01), and fewer composite adverse events (36.7% vs 51.3%, P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed RATS (odds ratio, 0.44; P < .001) was independently associated with a decreased likelihood of a composite adverse outcome, even among tumors exceeding 4 cm (odds ratio, 0.45; P = .001). Overall survival was similar between the 2 groups.
Among patients who underwent a minimally invasive surgical approach for a mediastinal tumor, RATS had fewer adverse outcomes than VATS, even for tumors 4 cm or larger. These data suggests that RATS may be the preferred technique for patients who are candidates for minimally invasive resection of mediastinal tumors.
PDF
