Steering group , Alessandro Brunelli, Herbert Decaluwe, Michel Gonzalez, Dominique Gossot, Rene Petersen, Expert panel , Florian Augustin, Jalal Assuad, Jean Ma

Introduction: Surgical treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) usually consists of bullectomy and any form of pleurodesis to reduce risk of disease recurrence. Whether pleurectomy is superior to pleural abrasion is still a matter of debate with recurrence rates especially high when performed with a video‐assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) approach. Aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the two methods in prevention of recurrence of pneumothorax in a minimally invasive setting.Materials and methods: Between 01/2005 and 12/2015, 107 patients younger than 40 years with PSP underwent VATS bullectomy and either partial pleurectomy or pleural abrasion. Medical records of patients were reviewed retrospectively.Results: Pleural abrasion was performed in 34/107 patients, 73/107 patients underwent partial pleurectomy. There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, body mass index or smoking history at time of surgery. There was no significant difference in major postoperative complications (p = 0.3022). Nine (8.4%) patients had a recurrence of pneumothorax during follow‐up. Incidence of recurrence in those undergoing pleural abrasion was significantly higher than those undergoing apical pleurectomy (8/34 vs. 1/73, p < 0.001). Surgical technique was the only factor associated with a recurrence of PSP after surgical intervention.Discussion: In our analysis, a VATS partial pleurectomy proved to be effective for prevention of recurrent PSP. Recurrence rates were low despite a minimally invasive approach and significantly lower than in the pleural abrasion group. According to these findings, VATS pleurectomy might be considered as the primary choice for surgical pleurodesis in patients with PSP.

Patient pathways from first suspicious imaging until final surgical treatment vary and in some instances cause considerable delay. This study aims to investigate the impact of this delay on survival of lung cancer patients. The institutional database was queried to identify patients with primary lung cancer who were treated with primary surgery. Time intervals were defined as date of first suspicious medical images until date of surgical treatment. All patients received PET-CT staging and tissue confirmation prior to treatment planning in a multidisciplinary tumor board. Patients with unknown date of first contact, follow-up CT-scans of pulmonary nodules, or neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. In total, 287 patients treated between 2009 and 2017 were included for further analysis. Median time between first suspicious medical imaging and surgical therapy was 62 (range 23–120) days and did not differ between male and female patients. Patients were then classified into two groups according to the duration of the medical work-up: group A up to 60 days, and group B from 61 to 120 days. Clinical T and N stages were comparable between the groups. There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups. In the subgroup of cT2 tumors (87 patients), there was a significant survival benefit for patients in group A (p = 0.043), while nodal stages, stage migration, lymphatic vessel invasion, grading and other potentially survival-influencing clinical parameters were comparable between the groups. Delay between diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer may result in dismal outcome. Efforts need to focus on improving and streamlining patient pathways to shorten the delay until surgical treatment to a minimum. Process improvement might be achieved by stringent interdisciplinary work-up and a patient-centered approach.