Objective: To assess the association between the timing of surgery relative to the development of Covid-19 and the risks of postoperative complications. Summary Background Data: It is unknown whether patients who recovered from Covid-19 and then underwent a major elective operation have an increased risk of developing postoperative complications. Methods: The risk of postoperative complications for patients with Covid-19 undergoing 18 major types of elective operations in the Covid-19 Research Database was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Patients were grouped by time of surgery relative to SARS-CoV-2 infection; that is, surgery performed: (1) before January 1, 2020 (“pre-Covid-19”), (2) 0 to 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection (“peri-Covid-19”), (3) 4 to 8 weeks after infection (“early post-Covid-19”), and (4) ≥8 weeks after infection (“late post-Covid-19”). Results: Of the 5479 patients who met study criteria, patients with peri-Covid-19 had an elevated risk of developing postoperative pneumonia [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 6.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.06–10.27], respiratory failure (aOR, 3.36; 95% CI: 2.22–5.10), pulmonary embolism (aOR, 2.73; 95% CI: 1.35–5.53), and sepsis (aOR, 3.67; 95% CI: 2.18–6.16) when compared to pre-Covid-19 patients. Early post-Covid-19 patients had an increased risk of developing postoperative pneumonia when compared to pre-Covid-19 patients (aOR, 2.44; 95% CI: 1.20–4.96). Late post-Covid-19 patients did not have an increased risk of postoperative complications when compared to pre-Covid-19 patients. Conclusions: Major, elective surgery 0 to 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Surgery performed 4 to 8 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection is still associated with an increased risk of postoperative pneumonia, whereas surgery 8 weeks after Covid-19 diagnosis is not associated with increased complications.

Objective To determine the effect of the introduction of low dose computed tomography screening in 2013 on lung cancer stage shift, survival, and disparities in the stage of lung cancer diagnosed in the United States. Design Quasi-experimental study using Joinpoint modeling, multivariable ordinal logistic regression, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling. Setting US National Cancer Database and Surveillance Epidemiology End Results program database. Participants Patients aged 45-80 years diagnosed as having non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2018. Main outcome measures Annual per cent change in percentage of stage I NSCLC diagnosed among patients aged 45-54 (ineligible for screening) and 55-80 (potentially eligible for screening), median all cause survival, and incidence of NSCLC; multivariable adjusted odds ratios for year-to-year changes in likelihood of having earlier stages of disease at diagnosis and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios for changes in hazard of death before versus after introduction of screening. Results The percentage of stage I NSCLC diagnosed among patients aged 55-80 did not significantly increase from 2010 to 2013 (from 27.8% to 29.4%) and then increased at 3.9% (95% confidence interval 3.0% to 4.8%) per year from 2014 to 2018 (from 30.2% to 35.5%). In multivariable adjusted analysis, the increase in the odds per year of a patient having one lung cancer stage lower at diagnosis during the time period from 2014 to 2018 was 6.2% (multivariable adjusted odds ratio 1.062, 95% confidence interval 1.048 to 1.077; P<0.001) higher than the increase in the odds per year from 2010 to 2013. Similarly, the median all cause survival of patients aged 55-80 did not significantly increase from 2010 to 2013 (from 15.8 to 18.1 months), and then increased at 11.9% (8.9% to 15.0%) per year from 2014 to 2018 (from 19.7 to 28.2 months). In multivariable adjusted analysis, the hazard of death decreased significantly faster after 2014 compared with before 2014 (P<0.001). By 2018, stage I NSCLC was the predominant diagnosis among non-Hispanic white people and people living in the highest income or best educated regions. Non-white people and those living in lower income or less educated regions remained more likely to have stage IV disease at diagnosis. Increases in the detection of early stage disease in the US from 2014 to 2018 led to an estimated 10 100 averted deaths. Conclusions A recent stage shift toward stage I NSCLC coincides with improved survival and the introduction of lung cancer screening. Non-white patients and those living in areas of greater deprivation had lower rates of stage I disease identified, highlighting the need for efforts to increase access to screening in the US.

PURPOSE: Pack-year smoking history is an imperfect and biased measure of cumulative tobacco exposure. The use of pack-year smoking history to determine lung cancer screening eligibility in the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline may unintentionally exclude many high-risk individuals, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups. It is unclear whether using a smoking duration cutoff instead of a smoking pack-year cutoff would improve the selection of individuals for screening. METHODS: We analyzed 49,703 individuals with a smoking history from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) and 22,126 individuals with a smoking history from the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) to assess eligibility for screening under the USPSTF guideline versus a proposed guideline that replaces the ≥20-pack-year criterion with a ≥20-year smoking duration criterion. Results: Under the USPSTF guideline, only 57.6% of Black patients with lung cancer in the SCCS would have qualified for screening, whereas a significantly higher percentage of White patients with lung cancer (74.0%) would have qualified ( P < .001). Under the proposed guideline, the percentage of Black and White patients with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening increased to 85.3% and 82.0%, respectively, eradicating the disparity in screening eligibility between the groups. In the BWHS, using a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff increased the percentage of Black women with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening from 42.5% to 63.8%. Conclusion: Use of a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff greatly increases the proportion of patients with lung cancer who would qualify for screening and eliminates the racial disparity in screening eligibility between Black versus White individuals; smoking duration has the added benefit of being easier to calculate and being a more precise assessment of smoking exposure compared with pack-year smoking history.