Background: Primary chest wall tumors comprise a heterogeneous group of neoplasms arising from soft tissues and bones. While surgical excision is the standard of care for benign tumors, the management of malignant tumors requires multimodal treatment. We conducted a predictive analysis of outcome, recurrence-free and overall survival. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and pathological records of all patients treated in our center between 1998 and 2020. Results: 53 patients (15–85 years) were treated in our department. The average tumor diameter was 65 ± 35 mm (10–160 mm). Negative margins were obtained in 48 patients (90.6%), whereas in the remaining 5, R1 resection was accomplished. Median overall survival was 63,03 months (1–282 months). Overall survival was 90% at 1 year, 78% at 2 years, and 61% at 5 years. Our analysis identified tumor diameter, postoperative complications, and high grade of malignancy as factors that can influence prognosis. Conclusions: The treatment of primary chest wall tumors remains a very challenging process. Different histological types preclude definition of an unequivocal approach. Complete resection with healthy margins remains a definitive cornerstone in the treatment of these cancers as part of a more comprehensive approach.

Lung cancer continues to be the largest cause of cancer-related mortality among men and women globally, accounting for around 27% of all cancer-related deaths. Recent advances in lung cancer medicines, particularly for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), have increased the need for multidisciplinary disease care, thereby enhancing patient outcomes and quality of life. Different studies in the European community have evaluated the impact of multidisciplinary care on outcomes for lung cancer patients, including its impact on survival, adherence to guideline treatment, utilization of all treatment modalities, timeliness of treatment, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and referral to palliative care. This publication will examine the roles and duties of all multidisciplinary members and the influence of multidisciplinary care on lung cancer outcomes in Europe. Multidisciplinary treatment is the foundation of lung cancer treatment. The optimal setting for interdisciplinary collaboration between specialists with complementary functions is multidisciplinary meetings. Multidisciplinary care in lung cancer facilitates the delivery of a high-quality service, which may improve lung cancer patients’ survival, utilization of all treatment modalities, adherence to guideline management, and quality of life, despite the fact that only limited observational data have demonstrated these results. To confirm the relationship between multidisciplinary treatment and improved lung cancer patient outcomes, however, further research is required.

Objective: Our purpose is to define the learning curve for robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy by reporting the experience of a single surgeon. Material and methods: We progressively collected the data concerning the surgical performance of a single male thoracic surgeon, from the beginning of his robotic activity as first operator from January 2021 to June 2022. We evaluated several pre-, intra- and postoperative parameters concerning patients and intraoperative cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes of the surgeon, recorded during surgical interventions, in order to evaluate his cardiovascular stress. We used cumulative sum control charts (CUSUM) to analyze the learning curve. Results: A total of 72 lung lobectomies were performed by a single surgeon in this period. Analyzing the CUSUM of several parameters, the inflection point identifying the transition beyond the surgeon learning phase was reached at cases 28, 22, 27 and 33 when considering operating time, mean heart rate, max heart rate and mean respiratory rate, respectively. Conclusions: The learning curve for robotic lobectomy seems to be safe and feasible with a correct robotic training program. The analysis of a single surgeon from the beginning of his robotic activity demonstrates that confidence, competence, dexterity and security are achieved after about 20–30 procedures, without compromising efficiency and oncological radicality.

Many new treatment modalities for non-small-cell carcinoma (NSCLC) have been described in the last two decades. Surgical resections remain the gold standard for early stages and may be considered for locally advanced tumors. Medical treatment has changed drastically in recent years, especially for advanced stages, for which the development of immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapy significantly increased survival and quality of life. The addition of radical surgical resection following immunotherapy or immuno-chemotherapy is feasible and safe with low surgical-related mortality and morbidity in selected patients with initially unresectable NSCLC. However, data from multiple ongoing trials with overall survival as the primary endpoint should be awaited before this strategy is introduced into the standard of care.

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a hyperinflammatory syndrome that complicates hematologic malignancies. The Optimized HLH Inflammatory (OHI) index, based solely on the combined elevation of soluble CD25 (sCD25; >3900 U/mL) and ferritin (1000 ng/mL) levels, predicts mortality more effectively than the conventional HLH criteria. This study aimed to determine whether mortality in OHI-positive (OHI+) patients is primarily caused by lymphoma or inflammation-related causes. In a multicenter, retrospective study of patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma with sCD25 and ferritin measurements available, patients were classified as OHI+ or OHI negative (OHI−). The 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS), event-free survival, and causes of death were analyzed, along with predicted vs observed mortality based on other lymphoma-relevant prognostic indexes. Among 135 patients with lymphoma (70 OHI− and 65 OHI+), OHI+ patients had significantly lower OS at 1 year (33% vs 81%; P < .0001) with a median survival of 190 days. OHI+ patients had a 13-fold increased mortality risk (odds ratio, 13.3; 95% confidence interval, 6.0-28.5) despite similar predicted OS based on conventional indexes (72% vs 65%; P = .46). Mortality causes differed significantly. A total of 58% of OHI+ patients died from multiorgan failure, whereas only 6% died from progressive lymphoma. In contrast, 43% of the OHI− patients died from lymphoma progression. The incorporation of etoposide into lymphoma-directed treatment was associated with improved OS in OHI+ T–cell lymphomas (P = .007). These findings underscore the clinical significance of the OHI index as a prognostic tool in lymphoma, to elucidate the mechanisms of mortality, and to identify a high-risk subgroup for which tailored treatments may lead to improved outcomes.