This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Background: The impact of COVID-19 has been felt in every field of medicine. We sought to understand how lung cancer surgery was affected at a high volume institution. We hypothesized that patients would wait longer for surgery, have more advanced tumors, and experience more complications during the COVID-19 crisis.Methods: A retrospective review was conducted, comparing pathologically confirmed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) surgical cases performed in 2019 to cases performed from March to May 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 crisis. Clinical and pathologic stage, tumor size, time to surgery, follow up time, and complications were evaluated. Results: A total of 375 cases were performed in 2019 vs. 58 cases in March to May 2020. Overall, there were no differences in the distribution of clinical stages or in the distribution of median wait times to surgery between groups (COVID-19 16.5 days vs. pre-COVID-19 17 days, P=0.54), nor were there differences when subdivided into Stage I-II and Stage III-IV. Case volume was lowest in April 2020 with 6 cases vs. 37 in April 2019, P<0.01. Tumor size was clinically larger in the COVID-19 group (median 2.1 vs. 1.9 cm, P=0.05) but not at final pathology. No differences in complications were observed between groups (COVID-19 31.0% vs. pre-COVID-19 30.9%, P=1.00). No patients from the COVID-19 group tested positive for the disease during their hospital stay or by the median 15 days to first follow-up.Conclusions: Surgical wait time, pathologic tumor size, and complications were not different among patients undergoing surgery before vs. during the pandemic. Importantly, no patients became infected as a result of their hospital stay. The significant decrease in surgical cases is concerning for untreated cancers that may progress without proper treatment.
BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment strategies and factors influencing overall survival (OS) and disease‐free survival (DFS) in resectable, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mediastinal (N2) lymph node metastasis.MethodsAll patients undergoing surgery for NSCLC with N2 disease between 2006 and 2016 were included. Treatment approaches included surgery only, neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, and neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy (triple therapy). Patient clinical and pathologic data were retrospectively collected.ResultsA total of 281 patients were included in the study. In total, 209 patients had neoadjuvant therapy, 47.4% of which went on to received additional adjuvant therapy. The pathologic complete response rate was 12.9%. The treatment strategy which included triple therapy was isolated as a significant contributor to improved OS and DFS. Nodal downstaging (N0) after induction therapy conferred an OS benefit (38.3% vs. 15.6%, p = .03). Patients with single‐station N2 disease experienced higher DFS. Video‐assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) lobectomy completion rates were higher at the end of the study period compared to the beginning (p < .001).ConclusionsPatients who undergo neoadjuvant therapy for N2‐positive NSCLC may benefit from additional adjuvant therapy. Single‐station N2 disease confers higher DFS. VATS completion rates for lobectomy increase as experience increases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.