The IASLC Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee has collected a new database of 94,708 cases donated from 35 sources in 16 countries around the globe. This has now been analysed by our statistical partners at Cancer Research And Biostatistics and, in close collaboration with the members of the committee proposals have been developed for the T, N, and M categories of the 8th edition of the TNM Classification for lung cancer due to be published late 2016. In this publication we describe the methods used to evaluate the resultant Stage groupings and the proposals put forward for the 8th edition.

This article proposes codes for the primary tumor categories of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) and a uniform way to measure tumor size in part-solid tumors for the eighth edition of the tumor, node, and metastasis classification of lung cancer. In 2011, new entities of AIS, MIA, and lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma were defined, and they were later incorporated into the 2015 World Health Organization classification of lung cancer. To fit these entities into the T component of the staging system, the Tis category is proposed for AIS, with Tis (AIS) specified if it is to be distinguished from squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCIS), which is to be designated Tis (SCIS). We also propose that MIA be classified as T1mi. Furthermore, the use of the invasive size for T descriptor size follows a recommendation made in three editions of the Union for International Cancer Control tumor, node, and metastasis supplement since 2003. For tumor size, the greatest dimension should be reported both clinically and pathologically. In nonmucinous lung adenocarcinomas, the computed tomography (CT) findings of ground glass versus solid opacities tend to correspond respectively to lepidic versus invasive patterns seen pathologically. However, this correlation is not absolute; so when CT features suggest nonmucinous AIS, MIA, and lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma, the suspected diagnosis and clinical staging should be regarded as a preliminary assessment that is subject to revision after pathologic evaluation of resected specimens. The ability to predict invasive versus noninvasive size on the basis of solid versus ground glass components is not applicable to mucinous AIS, MIA, or invasive mucinous adenocarcinomas because they generally show solid nodules or consolidation on CT.

SummaryBackgroundThe effects of extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) on survival and quality of life in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma have, to our knowledge, not been assessed in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of patients who were randomly assigned to EPP or no EPP in the context of trimodal therapy in the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) feasibility study.MethodsMARS was a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 12 UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older who had pathologically confirmed mesothelioma and were deemed fit enough to undergo trimodal therapy were included. In a prerandomisation registration phase, all patients underwent induction platinum-based chemotherapy followed by clinical review. After further consent, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to EPP followed by postoperative hemithorax irradiation or to no EPP. Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by surgical centre. The main endpoints were feasibility of randomly assigning 50 patients in 1 year (results detailed in another report), proportion randomised who received treatment, proportion eligible (registered) who proceeded to randomisation, perioperative mortality, and quality of life. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. This is the principal report of the MARS study; all patients have been recruited. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN95583524.FindingsBetween Oct 1, 2005, and Nov 3, 2008, 112 patients were registered and 50 were subsequently randomly assigned: 24 to EPP and 26 to no EPP. The main reasons for not proceeding to randomisation were disease progression (33 patients), inoperability (five patients), and patient choice (19 patients). EPP was completed satisfactorily in 16 of 24 patients assigned to EPP; in five patients EPP was not started and in three patients it was abandoned. Two patients in the EPP group died within 30 days and a further patient died without leaving hospital. One patient in the no EPP group died perioperatively after receiving EPP off trial in a non-MARS centre. The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival between the EPP and no EPP groups was 1·90 (95% CI 0·92–3·93; exact p=0·082), and after adjustment for sex, histological subtype, stage, and age at randomisation the HR was 2·75 (1·21–6·26; p=0·016). Median survival was 14·4 months (5·3–18·7) for the EPP group and 19·5 months (13·4 to time not yet reached) for the no EPP group. Of the 49 randomly assigned patients who consented to quality of life assessment (EPP n=23; no EPP n=26), 12 patients in the EPP group and 19 in the no EPP group completed the quality of life questionnaires. Although median quality of life scores were lower in the EPP group than the no EPP group, no significant differences between groups were reported in the quality of life analyses. There were ten serious adverse events reported in the EPP group and two in the no EPP group.InterpretationIn view of the high morbidity ...

This is the largest international database examining outcomes in surgically managed MPM patients. Survival differences reported from smaller databases are confirmed but suggest the need to revise tumor and node staging.

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.