No abstract

Background Whether there is a difference in survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (CRT‐S) compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) in patients with locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) remains controversial. Methods Patients with SCC who underwent curative treatment from 2008 to 2014 were identified from the Taiwan Cancer Registry. Propensity score matching was undertaken to balance pretreatment clinical variables. Overall survival was compared between patients undergoing CRT‐S or dCRT. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for overall survival. Results A total of 5832 patients with clinical stage II and III oesophageal SCC receiving CRT‐S (1754) or dCRT (4078) were included. After propensity score matching, each group included 1661 patients. The 3‐year overall survival rate for patients treated with CRT‐S was 41·1 per cent compared with 17·9 per cent for those who had dCRT (P < 0·001). In multivariable analysis, treatment modality was an independent prognostic factor in the overall cohort before propensity score matching: hazard ratio 0·45 (95 per cent c.i. 0·40 to 0·51) for CRT‐S versus dCRT (P < 0·001). In separate analyses of patients with clinical stage II and those with stage III disease, CRT‐S was associated with significantly better overall survival than dCRT. Conclusion Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy is associated with better overall survival than dCRT in patients with stage II and III oesophageal SCC.

Computed tomography (CT)-guided transthoracic lung biopsy is a common procedure for the diagnosis of pulmonary lesion. Pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage and hemoptysis are the most common complications of the procedure. Air embolism is a rare serious complication. We reported a case with air embolism related acute ischemic stroke and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) simultaneously after percutaneous transthoracic lung biopsy.

Contributions: (I) Conception and design: YF Cheng; (II) Administrative support: BY Wang; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: HC Chen;

Background Uniport video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has been applied widely for the treatment of lung cancer in recent years. Some studies have reported that uniport VATS might provide better outcomes than multiport VATS. However, the perioperative outcomes of uniport VATS compared with two-port and three-port VATS, respectively, have yet to be studied at a comprehensive scale. This meta-analysis study compares the perioperative efficacy among uniport, two-port, and three-port VATS. Methods We searched studies published before October 1, 2019, by using Web of Science databases, Ovid Medline, Embase, and PubMed. Studies that compared uniport VATS with two-port or three-port VATS for patients with lung cancer were included. Operative time, perioperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes retrieved, conversion rate, duration of postoperative chest tube drainage, length of hospital stay (LoS), visual analogue pain scores on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD 3, and overall morbidity were evaluated. Results Sixteen studies that compared uniport VATS with two-port or three-port VATS in the treatment of lung cancer were included. Uniport VATS showed less blood loss, a shorter duration of postoperative drainage and a lower visual analogue pain score on POD 3 than two-port VATS; it showed a shorter duration of postoperative drainage, a shorter LoS, and lower visual analogue pain scores on POD 1 and POD 3 than three-port VATS. There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes retrieved, operative time, conversion rate, and overall morbidity rate when comparing uniport VATS with two-port VATS or three-port VATS. Conclusions Uniport VATS might provide better perioperative outcomes than either two-port or three-port VATS in lung cancer treatment.