Staged management of cardiac disease and concomitant early lung cancer: a 20-year single-center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The association of unstable heart disease and resectable lung cancer is rare. The impacts of staged management, cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) versus angioplasty, on long-term survival and cancer recurrence remain debated. We report our experience using staged management. METHODS: From 1997 to 2016, 107 patients were treated at the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute: 72 underwent cardiac surgery with CPB (group 1), 35 were treated with angioplasty (group 2), followed by oncological pulmonary resection. RESULTS: Two postoperative deaths (3%) and 1 ischaemic heart complication (1%) were reported in group 1. One death (3%) was reported in group 2. Two-year overall survival was 82% (59/72) in group 1 and 80% (28/35) in group 2; 5-year overall survival was 62% (33/53) in group 1 and 63% (19/30) in group 2. Two-year disease-free survival in group 1 was 79% (57/72) and 77% (27/35) in group 2; 5-year disease-free survival was 58% (31/53) in group 1 and 60% (18/30) in group 2. The independent risk factors for death after thoracic surgery were transfusions (P = 0.004) and grade ≥3 complications (P = 0.034). Independent risk factors for recurrence included the cancer stage (P < 0.001) and, paradoxically, a shorter delay between cardiac and lung procedures (P = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: When a staged management remains feasible after cardiac procedure, oncological outcomes of patients with cardiopathy and lung cancer are satisfactory. CPB does not seem to be deleterious. The delay between procedures should intuitively be as small as possible but not at the expense of good recovery after the cardiac procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".