Santos, Pedro Reck dos

AbstractBackgroundThere is a knowledge gap regarding lobar versus sublobar resection for atypical carcinoid (AC) of the lung. As such, the authors sought to understand and analyze the outcomes of sublobar resection versus lobectomy in this patient population.MethodsA retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database was performed to compare overall survival (OS) between patients treated with lobectomy and patients treated with sublobar resection for AC of the lung between the years 2004 and 2016. Patient characteristics were compared with χ2 tests. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate OS distributions, and the log‐rank test was used to compare distributions by treatment strategy. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess associations between the treatment strategy and OS. A propensity score matching method was also implemented to further eliminate treatment selection bias in the study sample.ResultsThe database identified 669 patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 lung ACs that were surgically resected. Unadjusted Kaplan–Meier survival curves did not demonstrate an OS difference between lobectomy and sublobar resection (p = .094). After propensity score matching, curves demonstrated a numerical improvement in OS with lobectomy; however, it was not statistically significant (p = .5). In a subgroup analysis, lobectomy and node‐negative disease were associated with the best OS, whereas sublobar resection and node‐positive disease were associated with the worst OS (p < .0001). Nodal involvement was associated with worse survival, regardless of surgical treatment (p < .0001).ConclusionsIn patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 ACs of the lung, lobectomy was not associated with an improvement in OS in comparison with sublobar resection.

Lung transplantation is the most effective modality for the treatment of patients with end-stage lung diseases. Unfortunately, many people cannot benefit from this therapy due to insufficient donor availability. In this review and update article, we discuss donation after circulatory death (DCD), which is undoubtedly essential among the strategies developed to increase the donor pool. However, there are ethical and legislative considerations in the DCD process that are different from those of donation after brain death (DBD). Among others, the critical aspects of DCD are the concept of the end of life, cessation of futile treatments, and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. In addition, this review describes a rationale for using lungs from DCD donors and provides some important definitions, highlighting the key differences between DCD and DBD, including physiological aspects pertinent to each category. The unique ability of lungs to maintain cell viability without circulation, assuming that oxygen is supplied to the alveoli-an essential aspect of DCD-is also discussed. Furthermore, an updated review of the clinical experience with DCD for lung transplantation across international centers, recent advances in DCD, and some ethical dilemmas that deserve attention are also reported.