Jeremiah T Martin1, Eric B Durbin2, Li Chen2, Tamas Gal2, Angela Mahan3, Victor Ferraris3, Joseph Zwischenberger3. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Electronic address: j.martin@uky.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent reports indicate that thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer may be associated with lower rates of surgical upstaging. We queried a statewide cancer registry for differences in upstaging rates and survival by surgical approach. METHODS: The Kentucky Cancer Registry (KCR) collects data, including centralized pathology reporting, on cancer patients treated statewide. We performed a retrospective review from 2010 to 2012 to examine clinical and pathologic stage. We assessed rates of upstaging and whether the surgical approach, thoracotomy (THOR) versus minimally invasive techniques (video-assisted thoracic surgery; VATS), had an impact on final pathologic stage and survival. RESULTS: The KCR database from 2010 to 2012 contained information on 2830 lung cancer cases, 1964 having THOR procedure and 500 having VATS resections. Preoperatively, 36.4% of THOR were clinically stage 1a versus 47.4% VATS (p = 0.0002). Of these, final pathologic stage remained stage 1a in 30.5% of THOR procedures and 38.0% of VATS (p = 0.0002). The overall nodal upstaging rate for THOR was 9.9% and 4.8% for VATS (p = 0.002). Decreased nodal upstaging was found with VATS, independent of tumor size and extent of resection (odds ratio 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.387 to 0.985, p = 0.04). However, improved survival was found with VATS compared with THOR (hazard ratio 0.733, 95% CI: 0.592 to 0.907, p = 0.0042). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other reports, we report a lower upstaging rate with VATS. Nevertheless, there is a survival advantage in VATS patients. Although selection bias may play a role in these observed differences, the improved quality of life measures associated with VATS may explain survival improvement despite lower surgical upstaging.
BACKGROUND: Recent reports indicate that thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer may be associated with lower rates of surgical upstaging. We queried a statewide cancer registry for differences in upstaging rates and survival by surgical approach. METHODS: The Kentucky Cancer Registry (KCR) collects data, including centralized pathology reporting, on cancerpatients treated statewide. We performed a retrospective review from 2010 to 2012 to examine clinical and pathologic stage. We assessed rates of upstaging and whether the surgical approach, thoracotomy (THOR) versus minimally invasive techniques (video-assisted thoracic surgery; VATS), had an impact on final pathologic stage and survival. RESULTS: The KCR database from 2010 to 2012 contained information on 2830 lung cancer cases, 1964 having THOR procedure and 500 having VATS resections. Preoperatively, 36.4% of THOR were clinically stage 1a versus 47.4% VATS (p = 0.0002). Of these, final pathologic stage remained stage 1a in 30.5% of THOR procedures and 38.0% of VATS (p = 0.0002). The overall nodal upstaging rate for THOR was 9.9% and 4.8% for VATS (p = 0.002). Decreased nodal upstaging was found with VATS, independent of tumor size and extent of resection (odds ratio 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.387 to 0.985, p = 0.04). However, improved survival was found with VATS compared with THOR (hazard ratio 0.733, 95% CI: 0.592 to 0.907, p = 0.0042). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other reports, we report a lower upstaging rate with VATS. Nevertheless, there is a survival advantage in VATS patients. Although selection bias may play a role in these observed differences, the improved quality of life measures associated with VATS may explain survival improvement despite lower surgical upstaging.
Authors: Subroto Paul; Nasser K Altorki; Shubin Sheng; Paul C Lee; David H Harpole; Mark W Onaitis; Brendon M Stiles; Jeffrey L Port; Thomas A D'Amico Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Thomas A D'Amico; Joyce Niland; Rizvan Mamet; Carrie Zornosa; Elisabeth U Dexter; Mark W Onaitis Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Rebecca P Petersen; DuyKhanh Pham; William R Burfeind; Steven I Hanish; Eric M Toloza; David H Harpole; Thomas A D'Amico Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Gerard A Silvestri; Michael K Gould; Mitchell L Margolis; Lynn T Tanoue; Douglas McCrory; Eric Toloza; Frank Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Stephen M Cattaneo; Bernard J Park; Andrew S Wilton; Venkatraman E Seshan; Manjit S Bains; Robert J Downey; Raja M Flores; Nabil Rizk; Valerie W Rusch Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Mark F Berry; Jennifer Hanna; Betty C Tong; William R Burfeind; David H Harpole; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark W Onaitis Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Daniel J Boffa; Andrzej S Kosinski; Subroto Paul; John D Mitchell; Mark Onaitis Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Eric M Robinson; Ilkka K Ilonen; Kay See Tan; Andrew J Plodkowski; Matthew Bott; Manjit S Bains; Prasad S Adusumilli; Bernard J Park; Valerie W Rusch; David R Jones; James Huang Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-08-31 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Pamela Samson; Traves Crabtree; Stephen Broderick; Daniel Kreisel; A Sasha Krupnick; G Alexander Patterson; Bryan Meyers; Varun Puri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 4.330