Lung cancer resection in high-risk patients: a narrative review

Shanghai chest Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.21037/shc-22-16
Akshay J. Patel, E. Bishay, B. Naidu
{"title":"Lung cancer resection in high-risk patients: a narrative review","authors":"Akshay J. Patel, E. Bishay, B. Naidu","doi":"10.21037/shc-22-16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"Background and Objective: The National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) 2022 report showed that for England in 2019, the curative treatment rates of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with stage I/II disease and good performance status were 81%, this metric fell to 73% in 2020 with resection rates falling from 20% to 15%. The impact of COVID-19 could well have influenced this and indeed lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2020 were more likely to have a worse performance status, diagnosed as emergency presentations and less likely to have a pathological diagnosis. Assessing risk in the current era and defining which patients are high-risk needs formal exploration and definition if we are to improve resection rates in a safe and equitable manner. Methods: We conducted a narrative literature review to explore the paradigm of risk in thoracic surgery and in particular address the concept of what is considered to be \"\"high risk\"\"for surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases using the OVID interface. We reviewed articles between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2021 and restricted this to full text papers only in the English language. Conference s were not considered. Key Content and Findings: A delineation must be made between the assessment of risk for an individual patient (usually peri-operative complication and death) and the assessment of risk for an entire cohort, i.e., determining safety, efficacy, and feasibility of an intervention for a particular group. Both components are necessary when communicating risk. There is no fixed model of the high-risk patient, but instead an individualised risk profile which should serve to employ pre-operative optimisation strategies, pulmonary rehabilitation, smoking cessation programmes, exercise rehabilitation and post-operative rehabilitation. Conclusions: By understanding risk and benchmarking patients appropriately and in a uniform way, one can be more objective and scientific in assessing suitability for resection. This is but one pillar of a multifaceted approach to help inform patients and healthcare providers in a constructive way and increase surgical rates in an appropriate and safe way. © Shanghai Chest. All rights reserved.\"","PeriodicalId":74794,"journal":{"name":"Shanghai chest","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shanghai chest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/shc-22-16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

"Background and Objective: The National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) 2022 report showed that for England in 2019, the curative treatment rates of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with stage I/II disease and good performance status were 81%, this metric fell to 73% in 2020 with resection rates falling from 20% to 15%. The impact of COVID-19 could well have influenced this and indeed lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2020 were more likely to have a worse performance status, diagnosed as emergency presentations and less likely to have a pathological diagnosis. Assessing risk in the current era and defining which patients are high-risk needs formal exploration and definition if we are to improve resection rates in a safe and equitable manner. Methods: We conducted a narrative literature review to explore the paradigm of risk in thoracic surgery and in particular address the concept of what is considered to be ""high risk""for surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases using the OVID interface. We reviewed articles between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2021 and restricted this to full text papers only in the English language. Conference s were not considered. Key Content and Findings: A delineation must be made between the assessment of risk for an individual patient (usually peri-operative complication and death) and the assessment of risk for an entire cohort, i.e., determining safety, efficacy, and feasibility of an intervention for a particular group. Both components are necessary when communicating risk. There is no fixed model of the high-risk patient, but instead an individualised risk profile which should serve to employ pre-operative optimisation strategies, pulmonary rehabilitation, smoking cessation programmes, exercise rehabilitation and post-operative rehabilitation. Conclusions: By understanding risk and benchmarking patients appropriately and in a uniform way, one can be more objective and scientific in assessing suitability for resection. This is but one pillar of a multifaceted approach to help inform patients and healthcare providers in a constructive way and increase surgical rates in an appropriate and safe way. © Shanghai Chest. All rights reserved."
高危患者肺癌切除:一项叙述性回顾
“背景和目的:2022年国家癌症审计(NLCA)报告显示,2019年英格兰非小细胞癌症(NSCLC)的治愈率I/II期疾病和良好表现的患者占81%,2020年这一指标降至73%,切除率从20%降至15%。新冠肺炎的影响很可能会影响这一点,事实上,2020年诊断的癌症患者更有可能表现更差,被诊断为紧急情况,病理诊断的可能性更小。如果我们要以安全和公平的方式提高切除率,就需要对当前时代的风险进行评估,并确定哪些患者是高危患者进行正式的探索和定义。方法:我们进行了一项叙述性文献综述,以探索胸部手术中的风险范式,特别是讨论手术中被认为是“高风险”的概念。我们使用OVID接口搜索MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane Library数据库。我们审查了2000年1月1日至2021年12月31日期间的文章,并将其限制为仅英文全文论文。会议没有得到审议。关键内容和发现:必须在单个患者的风险评估(通常是围手术期并发症和死亡)和整个队列的风险评估之间进行划分,即确定特定群体干预的安全性、有效性和可行性。在传达风险时,这两个组成部分都是必要的。高危患者没有固定的模型,而是有一个个性化的风险档案,用于采用术前优化策略、肺部康复、戒烟计划、运动康复和术后康复。结论:通过了解风险并以统一的方式对患者进行适当的基准测试,可以更客观、更科学地评估是否适合切除。这只是多方面方法的一个支柱,有助于以建设性的方式告知患者和医疗保健提供者,并以适当和安全的方式提高手术率。©上海胸科。保留所有权利。“
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信