Traves D Crabtree1, Varun Puri2, Simon B Chen3, David S Gierada4, Jennifer M Bell2, Stephen Broderick2, A Sasha Krupnick2, Daniel Kreisel2, G Alexander Patterson2, Bryan F Meyers2. 1. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo. Electronic address: crabtreet@wudosis.wustl.edu. 2. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo. 3. Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo. 4. Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Controversy persists regarding appropriate radiographic surveillance strategies after lung cancer resection. We compared the impact of surveillance computed tomography scan versus chest radiography in patients who underwent resection for stage I lung cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing resection for pathologic stage I lung cancer from January 2000 to April 2013. After resection, follow-up included routine history and physical examination in conjunction with chest radiography or computed tomography at the discretion of the treating physician. Identification of successive lung malignancy (ie, recurrence at any new site or new primary) and survival were recorded. RESULTS: There were 554 evaluable patients, with 232 receiving routine postoperative computed tomography and 322 receiving routine chest radiography. Postoperative 5-year survival was 67.8% in the computed tomography group versus 74.8% in the chest radiography group (P = .603). Successive lung malignancy was found in 27% (63/232) of patients receiving computed tomography versus 22% (72/322) receiving chest radiography (P = .19). The mean time from surgery to diagnosis of successive malignancy was 1.93 years for computed tomography versus 2.56 years for chest radiography (P = .046). For the computed tomography group, 41% (26/63) of successive malignancies were treated with curative intent versus 40% (29/72) in the chest radiography group (P = .639). Cox proportional hazard analysis indicated imaging modality (computed tomography vs chest radiography) was not associated with survival (P = .958). CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance computed tomography may result in earlier diagnosis of successive malignancy versus chest radiography in stage I lung cancer, although no difference in survival was demonstrated. A randomized trial would help determine the impact of postoperative surveillance strategies on survival.
OBJECTIVES: Controversy persists regarding appropriate radiographic surveillance strategies after lung cancer resection. We compared the impact of surveillance computed tomography scan versus chest radiography in patients who underwent resection for stage I lung cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing resection for pathologic stage I lung cancer from January 2000 to April 2013. After resection, follow-up included routine history and physical examination in conjunction with chest radiography or computed tomography at the discretion of the treating physician. Identification of successive lung malignancy (ie, recurrence at any new site or new primary) and survival were recorded. RESULTS: There were 554 evaluable patients, with 232 receiving routine postoperative computed tomography and 322 receiving routine chest radiography. Postoperative 5-year survival was 67.8% in the computed tomography group versus 74.8% in the chest radiography group (P = .603). Successive lung malignancy was found in 27% (63/232) of patients receiving computed tomography versus 22% (72/322) receiving chest radiography (P = .19). The mean time from surgery to diagnosis of successive malignancy was 1.93 years for computed tomography versus 2.56 years for chest radiography (P = .046). For the computed tomography group, 41% (26/63) of successive malignancies were treated with curative intent versus 40% (29/72) in the chest radiography group (P = .639). Cox proportional hazard analysis indicated imaging modality (computed tomography vs chest radiography) was not associated with survival (P = .958). CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance computed tomography may result in earlier diagnosis of successive malignancy versus chest radiography in stage I lung cancer, although no difference in survival was demonstrated. A randomized trial would help determine the impact of postoperative surveillance strategies on survival.
Authors: Michael T Jaklitsch; Francine L Jacobson; John H M Austin; John K Field; James R Jett; Shaf Keshavjee; Heber MacMahon; James L Mulshine; Reginald F Munden; Ravi Salgia; Gary M Strauss; Scott J Swanson; William D Travis; David J Sugarbaker Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Waël C Hanna; Narinder S Paul; Gail E Darling; Hadas Moshonov; Frances Allison; Thomas K Waddell; Marcelo Cypel; Marc E de Perrot; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Shaf Keshavjee; Andrew F Pierre Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: David S Ettinger; Wallace Akerley; Hossein Borghaei; Andrew C Chang; Richard T Cheney; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Todd L Demmy; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Ramaswamy Govindan; Frederic W Grannis; Leora Horn; Thierry M Jahan; Mohammad Jahanzeb; Anne Kessinger; Ritsuko Komaki; Feng-Ming Kong; Mark G Kris; Lee M Krug; Inga T Lennes; Billy W Loo; Renato Martins; Janis O'Malley; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Gregory A Otterson; Jyoti D Patel; Mary C Pinder-Schenck; Katherine M Pisters; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Eric Rohren; Scott J Swanson; Douglas E Wood; Stephen C Yang; Miranda Hughes; Kristina M Gregory Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: V Westeel; D Choma; F Clément; M C Woronoff-Lemsi; J F Pugin; A Dubiez; A Depierre Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Feiran Lou; James Huang; Camelia S Sima; Joseph Dycoco; Valerie Rusch; Peter B Bach Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2012-11-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Henri G Colt; Septimiu D Murgu; Robert J Korst; Christopher G Slatore; Michael Unger; Silvia Quadrelli Journal: Chest Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Juliana B F Morellato; Marcos D Guimarães; Maria L L Medeiros; Hélio A Carneiro; Alex D Oliveira; João P O Medici; Marcus V B Baranauskas; Jefferson L Gross Journal: J Bras Pneumol Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 2.624
Authors: Catherine Byrd; Ureka Ajawara; Ryan Laundry; John Radin; Prasha Bhandari; Ann Leung; Summer Han; Stephen M Asch; Steven Zeliadt; Alex H S Harris; Leah Backhus Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 3.298
Authors: Leah M Backhus; Farhood Farjah; Chao-Kang Jason Liang; Hao He; Thomas K Varghese; David H Au; David R Flum; Steven B Zeliadt Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Erin M Schumer; Matthew C Black; Michael Bousamra; Jaimin R Trivedi; Mingxiao Li; Xiao-An Fu; Victor van Berkel Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 4.330