Two Interventions on Pathologic Nodal Staging in a Population-Based Lung Cancer Resection Cohort.


Journal

The Annals of thoracic surgery
ISSN: 1552-6259
Titre abrégé: Ann Thorac Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 15030100R

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Sep 2023
Historique:
received: 18 04 2023
revised: 24 07 2023
accepted: 14 08 2023
pubmed: 8 9 2023
medline: 8 9 2023
entrez: 7 9 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Despite its prognostic importance, poor pathologic nodal staging of lung cancer prevails. We evaluated the impact of 2 interventions to improve pathologic nodal staging. We implemented a lymph node specimen collection kit to improve intraoperative lymph node collection (surgical intervention) and a novel gross dissection method for intrapulmonary node retrieval (pathology intervention) in nonrandomized stepped-wedge fashion, involving 12 hospitals and 7 pathology groups. We used standard statistical methods to compare surgical quality and survival of patients who had neither intervention (group 1), pathology intervention only (group 2), surgical intervention only (group 3), and both interventions (group 4). Of 4019 patients from 2009 to 2021, 50%, 5%, 21%, and 24%, respectively, were in groups 1 to 4. Rates of nonexamination of lymph nodes were 11%, 9%, 0%, and 0% and rates of nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes were 29%, 35%, 2%, and 2%, respectively, in groups 1 to 4 (P < .0001). Rates of attainment of American College of Surgeons Operative Standard 5.8 were 22%, 29%, 72%, and 85%; and rates of International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer complete resection were 14%, 21%, 53%, and 61% (P < .0001). Compared with group 1, adjusted hazard ratios for death were as follows: group 2, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.15); group 3, 0.91 (0.78-1.03); and group 4, 0.75 (0.64-0.87). Compared with group 2, group 4 adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72 (0.57-0.91); compared with group 3, it was 0.83 (0.69-0.99). These relationships remained after exclusion of wedge resections. Combining a lymph node collection kit with a novel gross dissection method significantly improved pathologic nodal evaluation and survival.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Despite its prognostic importance, poor pathologic nodal staging of lung cancer prevails. We evaluated the impact of 2 interventions to improve pathologic nodal staging.
METHODS METHODS
We implemented a lymph node specimen collection kit to improve intraoperative lymph node collection (surgical intervention) and a novel gross dissection method for intrapulmonary node retrieval (pathology intervention) in nonrandomized stepped-wedge fashion, involving 12 hospitals and 7 pathology groups. We used standard statistical methods to compare surgical quality and survival of patients who had neither intervention (group 1), pathology intervention only (group 2), surgical intervention only (group 3), and both interventions (group 4).
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 4019 patients from 2009 to 2021, 50%, 5%, 21%, and 24%, respectively, were in groups 1 to 4. Rates of nonexamination of lymph nodes were 11%, 9%, 0%, and 0% and rates of nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes were 29%, 35%, 2%, and 2%, respectively, in groups 1 to 4 (P < .0001). Rates of attainment of American College of Surgeons Operative Standard 5.8 were 22%, 29%, 72%, and 85%; and rates of International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer complete resection were 14%, 21%, 53%, and 61% (P < .0001). Compared with group 1, adjusted hazard ratios for death were as follows: group 2, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.15); group 3, 0.91 (0.78-1.03); and group 4, 0.75 (0.64-0.87). Compared with group 2, group 4 adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72 (0.57-0.91); compared with group 3, it was 0.83 (0.69-0.99). These relationships remained after exclusion of wedge resections.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Combining a lymph node collection kit with a novel gross dissection method significantly improved pathologic nodal evaluation and survival.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37678613
pii: S0003-4975(23)00927-X
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.08.026
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Investigateurs

Christopher Golembeski (C)
Christopher Giampapa (C)
Hetal D Patel (HD)
Amal Anga (A)
Ganpat Valaulikar (G)
Stephen Locke (S)
Daniel R Stevenson (DR)
Elizabeth Sales (E)
Horace L Wiggins (HL)
Sherry Okun (S)
Vishal Sachdev (V)
David Talton (D)
Albert M Koury (AM)
Paul S Levy (PS)
Bradley Wolf (B)
Thomas Ng (T)

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Raymond U Osarogiagbon (RU)

Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee. Electronic address: rosarogi@bmhcc.org.

Meredith A Ray (MA)

School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee.

Carrie Fehnel (C)

Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee.

Olawale Akinbobola (O)

Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee.

Andrea Saulsberry (A)

Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee.

Kourtney Dortch (K)

Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee.

Nicholas R Faris (NR)

Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee.

Anberitha T Matthews (AT)

Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee.

Matthew P Smeltzer (MP)

School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee.

David Spencer (D)

Pathology Group of the Mid-South, Memphis, Tennessee.

Classifications MeSH