Outcomes after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy for cT2-4N0-1 non–small cell lung cancer: A propensity-matched analysis

Objective

Comparative survival between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with cT2-4N0-1M0 non–small cell lung cancer has not been extensively studied.

Can EGFR mutation status be reliably determined in pre‐operative needle biopsies from adenocarcinomas of the lung?

The identification of EGFR mutations in non‐small‐cell lung cancer is important for selecting patients, who may benefit from treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The analysis is usually performed on cytological aspirates and/or histological needle biopsies, representing a small fraction of the tumour volume. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of this molecular test. We retrospectively included 201 patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the lung. EGFR mutation status (exon 19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutation) was evaluated on both pre‐operative biopsies (131 histological and 70 cytological) and on the surgical specimens, using PCR. Samples with low tumour cell fraction were assigned to laser micro‐dissection (LMD). We found nine (4.5%) patients with EGFR mutation in the lung tumour resections, but failed to identify mutation in one of the corresponding pre‐operative, cytological specimens. Several (18.4%) analyses of the pre‐operative biopsies were inconclusive, especially in case of biopsies undergoing LMD and regarding exon 21 analysis. Discrepancy of mutation status in one patient may reflect intra‐tumoural heterogeneity or technical issues. Moreover, several inconclusive results in the diagnostic biopsies reveal that attention must be paid on the suitability of pre‐operative biopsies for EGFR mutation analysis.     

What to expect when you're expecting a hepatopancreatobiliary surgeon: self-reported experiences of HPB surgeons from different training pathways

BackgroundHepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery fellowship training has multiple paths. Prospective trainees and employers must understand the differences between training pathways. This study examines self-reported fellowship experiences and current scope of practice across three pathways.MethodsAn online survey was disseminated to 654 surgeons. These included active Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA) members and recent graduates of HPB, transplant–HPB and HPB–heavy surgical oncology fellowships.ResultsA total of 416 (64%) surgeons responded. Most respondents were male (89%) and most were practising in an academic setting (83%). 290 (70%) respondents underwent formal fellowship training. Although fellowship experiences varied, current practice was largely similar. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and ultrasound were the most commonly identified areas of training deficiencies and were, respectively, cited as such by 47% and 34% of HPB-, 49% and 50% of transplant-, and 52% and 25% of surgical oncology-trained respondents. Non-HPB cases performed in current practice included gastrointestinal (GI) and general surgery cases (56% and 49%, respectively) for HPB-trained respondents, transplant and general surgery cases (87% and 21%, respectively) for transplant-trained respondents, and GI surgery and non-HPB surgical oncology cases (70% and 28%, respectively) for surgical oncology-trained respondents.ConclusionsFellowship training in HPB surgery varies by training pathway. Training in MIS and ultrasound is deficient in each pathway. The ultimate scope of non-transplant HPB practice appears similar across training pathways. Thus, training pathway choice is best guided by the training experience desired and non-HPB components of anticipated practice.