Institutional Experience With Robotic Lobectomy After Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy and Chemotherapy

{"title":"Institutional Experience With Robotic Lobectomy After Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy and Chemotherapy","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.atssr.2024.02.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The real-world safety of robotic resections after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy remains poorly defined in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Due to reported increased operative challenges after neoadjuvant immunotherapy, we aim to describe our early institutional experience and outcomes after robotic resection in this clinical context.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent a robotic lobectomy, comparing patients from June 1, 2022, through October 31, 2023, who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy consistent with the Checkmate-816 protocol and a control group with upfront resection.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 21 patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and robotic lobectomy in our cohort, and 64 patients were in the control group. Compared with control, the median tumor size was 3.2 cm vs 2.0 cm (<em>P</em> = .001). The most common clinical stage was IIIA (11 patients, 52%) in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group and IA2 in the control group (26 patients, 45%) (<em>P</em> &lt; .001). Operative time was greater in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group (224 vs 177 minutes, <em>P</em> = .011). The median quantity of lymph nodes resected in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group was greater (21 vs 16.5, <em>P</em> = .042). A R0 resection was achieved in all cases and no conversions to an open lobectomy occurred. Postoperative length of stay was 2 days in both groups (<em>P</em> = .92), and there were similar rates of postoperative air leak (33% vs 48%, <em>P</em> = .23) and acute post-hemorrhagic anemia (19% vs 14%, <em>P</em> = .58).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In our cohort, robotic-assisted lobectomy was safe and of comparable quality in the setting of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72234,"journal":{"name":"Annals of thoracic surgery short reports","volume":"2 3","pages":"Pages 453-457"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772993124001116/pdfft?md5=8cbaa50fd93cade796322fdd11c03196&pid=1-s2.0-S2772993124001116-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of thoracic surgery short reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772993124001116","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

The real-world safety of robotic resections after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy remains poorly defined in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Due to reported increased operative challenges after neoadjuvant immunotherapy, we aim to describe our early institutional experience and outcomes after robotic resection in this clinical context.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent a robotic lobectomy, comparing patients from June 1, 2022, through October 31, 2023, who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy consistent with the Checkmate-816 protocol and a control group with upfront resection.

Results

A total of 21 patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and robotic lobectomy in our cohort, and 64 patients were in the control group. Compared with control, the median tumor size was 3.2 cm vs 2.0 cm (P = .001). The most common clinical stage was IIIA (11 patients, 52%) in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group and IA2 in the control group (26 patients, 45%) (P < .001). Operative time was greater in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group (224 vs 177 minutes, P = .011). The median quantity of lymph nodes resected in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group was greater (21 vs 16.5, P = .042). A R0 resection was achieved in all cases and no conversions to an open lobectomy occurred. Postoperative length of stay was 2 days in both groups (P = .92), and there were similar rates of postoperative air leak (33% vs 48%, P = .23) and acute post-hemorrhagic anemia (19% vs 14%, P = .58).

Conclusions

In our cohort, robotic-assisted lobectomy was safe and of comparable quality in the setting of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新辅助免疫疗法和化疗后进行机器人肺叶切除术的机构经验
背景在非小细胞肺癌患者中,新辅助化疗免疫治疗后机器人切除术的实际安全性仍不明确。据报道,新辅助免疫疗法后的手术难度增加,因此我们旨在描述在这种临床情况下机器人切除术的早期机构经验和结果。方法我们对接受机器人肺叶切除术的非小细胞肺癌患者进行了回顾性病历审查,比较了2022年6月1日至2023年10月31日期间接受符合Checkmate-816方案的新辅助化疗免疫治疗的患者和接受前期切除术的对照组患者。与对照组相比,中位肿瘤大小为3.2厘米对2.0厘米(P = .001)。新辅助化疗免疫疗法组最常见的临床分期为IIIA期(11例患者,52%),对照组为IA2期(26例患者,45%)(P = .001)。新辅助化疗免疫疗法组的手术时间更长(224分钟对177分钟,P = .011)。新辅助化疗免疫疗法组切除的淋巴结中位数更多(21 对 16.5,P = .042)。所有病例都实现了R0切除,没有患者转为开放性肺叶切除术。两组患者的术后住院时间均为2天(P = .92),术后漏气率(33% vs 48%,P = .23)和急性出血性贫血后出血率(19% vs 14%,P = .58)相似。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
53 days
期刊最新文献
Erratum Contents Perceptions of Frailty and Prehabilitation Among Thoracic Surgeons: Findings From a National Survey Pulmonary Artery Vasa Vasorum Damage in Severe COVID-19–Induced Pulmonary Fibrosis Single-Stage Surgical Approach to Aortoesophageal Fistula After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1