Virtual Library
Start Your Search
K. Li
Author of
-
+
P2.16 - Surgery (ID 717)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Surgery
- Presentations: 2
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P2.16-013 - Peripheral or Central Lung Nodules: How do Thoracic Surgeons Define it? (ID 9534)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): K. Li
- Abstract
Background:
“Peripheral” is ubiquitously used in thoracic surgery literature, but definitions differ. Our purpose was to ascertain opinions of thoracic surgeons on CT images and assess the frequency of peripheral nodules according to their definitions.
Method:
We developed a survey and obtained an IRB exemption. Surgeons were asked to choose one of methods A-D to define the peripheral pleura: A=costal pleura, B=costal and mediastinal pleura (diaphragmatic pleura also on coronal and sagittal views), C=costal and fissural pleura, D=any pleural surfaces on: Question#1) axial images, Question#2) coronal images, Question#3) sagittal images. Question#4 asked whether the peripheral lung was: 1, 2, or 3 cm, outer 1/3, outer 1/2 or outer 2/3. Question#5 asked whether the measurement from the nodule to the pleura started at the inner edge, center, or outer edge of the nodule. By applying the possible choices to a database of 76 patients with documented lung cancer we determined the frequency of peripheral cancers for each combination.
Result:
Ten thoracic surgeons participated, all had different answers. The most frequent response to Question#1 was Method A (n=4), Question#2 Method A (n=5), and Question#3 Method B (n=4). The most frequent answer for Question#4 was the outer 1/3 of the lungs (n=6), and for Question#5, the outer border of the nodule, closest to the relevant pleura (n=5). The frequency of nodules classified as peripheral according to these answers ranged from 13% (10/78) to 91% (71/78).
Conclusion:
There was no consensus. Standardization and rationale for this would be highly useful.
-
+
P2.16-014 - Deconstructing Surgical Decision Making (ID 9543)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): K. Li
- Abstract
Background:
With the increase in number of individuals undergoing CT screening, lung cancers are now being detected at an earlier stage. Curative treatment can thus be performed on these patients, resulting in better lung cancer survival. Effective surgical decision making depends upon the degree of knowledge and experience the treating surgeon has about the outcome of actions, ability to assess risk and its subsequent impact. Use of a gnostic expert system would increase cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Our objective is to garner experts’ tacit knowledge about surgical decision making in a form of probability function.
Method:
Nine surgeons with extensive experiences in thoracic surgery were presented with a set of hypothetical cases, specified by indicators for surgical treatment (lobectomy or limited resection). Their choice of surgery and probability of performing limited resection were recorded for each case. Probabilities were translated into a logistic probability function for limited resection by 1) taking logits of the probabilities: Y=log[P/(1-P)], then 2) applying a general linear model for the mean of Y, Ŷ=β~1~+ β~2~X~2~+ β~3~X~3~+ β~4~X~4~+ β~5~X~5~+ β~6~X~6~+ β~7~X~7~ + ε. Standardized coefficients were computed and ranked to determine the effect of each indicator on limited resection.
Result:
Across the 24 cases, the median probabilities of limited resection among experts ranged from 0.0% to 100.0%, their case-specific IQR had values from 5 to 90 (Q3-Q1) percentage points, and ranges had values from 10-100(max-min) percentage points. Considering the expert-specific median probabilities, five out of eight experts favored lobectomy (median probabilities of limited resection ≤12.5%). Two other experts had median probabilities of 42.5% and 49% while the remaining expert favored limited resection (median probability 65%). The effect of each indicator on preferring limited resection over lobectomy varied between surgeons. Overall, distance from relevant pleura and nodule size were important factors for considering limited resection.
Conclusion:
There was great inter-surgeons variability on surgical decision making. Garnering experts’tacit knowledge on surgical decision making will enhance efficiency of health care and potentially change surgical practice.
-
+
P3.13 - Radiology/Staging/Screening (ID 729)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Radiology/Staging/Screening
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P3.13-028 - Controversies on Lung Cancers Manifesting as Part-Solid Nodules (ID 10074)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): K. Li
- Abstract
Background:
Questions have been raised about the appropriate treatment of lung cancers manifesting as subsolid nodules (nonsolid nodules (NSNs) and part-solid nodules (PSNs)), as these have very high reported survival rates and have been observed in up to 10% of screening participants. Our goal in this report is to summarize the publications on survival of patients with resected lung cancers manifesting as PSNs and to further the development of consensus definitions of the CT appearance and the workup of such nodules.
Method:
PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for all studies/ clinical trials on CT-detected lung cancer in English before Dec 21, 2015 to identify surgically-resected lung cancers manifesting as PSNs. Outcome measures were lung cancer-specific survival (LCS), overall survival (OS), or disease free survival (DFS). All PSNs were classified by the percentage of solid component to the entire nodule diameter into: Category PSNs < 80% or Category PSNs ≥ 80%.
Result:
Twenty studies reported on PSNs < 80%: 7 reported DFS and 2 OS of 100%, 6 DFS 96.3-98.7%, and 11 OS 94.7-98.9% (median DFS 100% and OS 97.5%). Twenty-seven studies reported on PSNs ≥ 80%: 1 DFS and 2 OS of 100%, 19 DFS 48.0%-98.0% (median 82.6%), and 16 reported OS 43.0%-98.0% (median DFS 82.6%, OS 85.5%). Both DFS and OS were always higher for PSNs<80%.
Conclusion:
A clear definition of the upper limit of solid component of a PSN is needed to avoid misclassification because cell-types and outcomes are different for PSN and solid nodules. The workup should be based on the size of the solid component.
