All Members

Breakthrough research to be presented at the 2026 Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Annual Meeting suggests that more comprehensive lymph node assessment during surgery is critical to accurately staging and treating patients with clinically node-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Christopher Seder, MD, thoracic surgeon and professor of surgical sciences at Rush University Medical Center, will present the J. Maxwell Chamberlain Memorial Paper in General Thoracic Surgery, Association Between Nodal Assessment, Upstaging, and Survival in Resected Clinically Node-negative Non-small Cell Lung Cancer, on Saturday, Jan. 31, at 7:35 a.m. during the “Research in Focus: Distinguished Abstracts” session.

Image

Although imaging may indicate that NSCLC has not spread to lymph nodes, global surgical standards vary widely regarding how many nodes should be removed and evaluated. In North America, guidelines introduced in 2021 recommend assessment of one N1 node in the hilar or root of the lung and three N2 nodes in the mediastinum. Using data from the STS General Thoracic Surgery Database, researchers found that this approach may miss disease spread, as cancer was more frequently identified in N1 nodes than in N2 nodes, with many metastatic nodes located adjacent to the bronchi. The study recommends removal and evaluation of more than one N1 node in addition to at least three N2 nodes.

The analysis examined a large, multi-center cohort of clinically node-negative NSCLC patients treated over a three-year period. Patients underwent wedge resection, segmentectomy, or lobectomy, and a meaningful proportion were upstaged after surgery when lymph node dissection revealed more advanced disease than initially diagnosed. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, underwent preoperative mediastinoscopy, lacked PET-CT imaging, or had incomplete pathology data were excluded. Expanded nodal assessment improved detection of occult disease, enabling more accurate staging and more appropriate use of chemotherapy and additional treatments.  

“We are narrowing down the best techniques for lymph node dissections in patients with lung cancer to give the best chance of identifying any cancer that is there and improving survival,” says Dr. Seder. “The onus here is not only on surgeons to dissect out more lymph nodes, but on pathologists to take this lung specimen we give them and do a very thorough evaluation of that lung specimen to get all the additional lymph nodes with cancer that are hiding in the specimen.”
 

During the Saturday, Jan. 31, 7:50 a.m. presentation of the James S. Tweddell Memorial Paper for Congenital Heart Surgery, Elaine Griffeth, MD, of Mayo Clinic, will present new research as part of the “Research in Focus: Distinguished Abstracts” session at the 2026 Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Annual Meeting. Her talk, Extended Validation of an Institutional Machine Learning Model for Postoperative Morbidity and Mortality Risk in Adult Congenital Heart Disease Patients Undergoing Cardiac Reoperation, will explore how advanced risk modeling can better inform surgical decision-making for adults with congenital heart disease (CHD).

Image

Adults with CHD represent a growing and medically complex population. Most were born with structural heart defects and underwent surgery early in life, yet many require additional cardiac operations as adults. Prior surgeries, evolving anatomy, and long-term health challenges make it difficult to accurately estimate operative risk using existing tools designed for the broader adult cardiac surgery population, highlighting the need for a CHD-specific national risk assessment model.

The study analyzed cases from the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database spanning several years, building on prior Mayo Clinic work using machine learning and logistic regression. Seven factors were strongly associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality: sex, age, single-ventricle physiology, surgical urgency, kidney function, ejection fraction, and prior heart operations.  

“This is a work in progress,” says Dr. Griffeth. “We want to have high reliability in the surgeries we are offering, and we are trying to tailor this model with data from past patients. The more informed patients are about their risks for surgery, the better.”
 

New findings slated for presentation at the 2026 Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Annual Meeting suggests that aortic hemiarch reconstruction provides outcomes comparable to more complex extended arch reconstruction in patients over age 65 with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). John Spratt, MD, clinical assistant professor of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery at University of Florida Health, will present Extended Arch Reconstruction for Acute Type A Dissection Does Not Impact Long-Term Survival or Reoperation in Patients Over Age 65: An STS-CMS Longitudinal Analysis during Sunday’s 11:15 a.m. adult cardiac session, “Tips & Tricks to Get Through Any Dissection.”

Image

The study used a risk-adjusted analysis of patients from the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database, which includes millions of adult cardiac surgery records. Patients underwent surgery at U.S. hospitals over several years, with most receiving aortic hemiarch reconstruction and the remainder undergoing extended arch reconstruction. Researchers evaluated postoperative mortality, stroke, and the need for reintervention for aortic disease and found no significant differences in these outcomes among patients ages 65 and older.

Extended arch reconstruction is a more complex operation that includes replacement of the aortic valve and repair of the ascending aorta, aortic arch, and the major arteries branching from the arch. Hemiarch reconstruction, by comparison, involves replacement of the aortic valve and repair of the ascending aorta and the underside of the aortic arch. Because aortic dissections most commonly affect older adults and require emergency surgery, surgeons must weigh the benefits of a more extensive repair against increased operative time, longer heart-lung bypass duration, and greater neurologic risk—factors that older patients often tolerate less well than younger individuals.  

“You have to balance what a patient may need on paper, compared with what their overall risk profile is,” says Dr. Spratt. “The majority of patients age 65 and older will be fine with hemiarch reconstruction and have the same outcomes as they would with a higher-risk procedure.”
 

Lung cancer causes more deaths in the United States each year than breast, colon, and prostate cancers combined. Yet, despite strong evidence showing that annual screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) scans significantly reduces lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals^[1],^[2], fewer than 18.2% of eligible patients currently undergo screening.

Simultaneously published in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, The Journal of the American College of Radiology, and The International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics and jointly issued by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), The American College of Radiology (ACR), and The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), the article examines recurring methodological flaws in the literature that may limit knowledge of, and access to, lung cancer screening (LCS).

The editorial originated from the STS Lung Cancer Screening Task Force and was led by its chair, Elliot Servais, MD, Department of Surgery at Lahey Hospital & Medical Center.

“In this paper, we address these misconceptions head-on with the goal of expanding access to screening and saving more lives from lung cancer,” said Dr. Servais. “Lung cancer screening saves lives. Multiple high-quality studies have clearly demonstrated its benefit. Despite this strong evidence, persistent misinformation about perceived harms continues to limit the uptake of this life-saving test.”

The authors note that methodological shortcomings in published research—including overestimation of downstream complications, misrepresentation of false-positive rates, and flawed analyses of CT-related radiation risk—may deter patients and clinicians from lung cancer screening, highlighting the need for accurate, evidence-based communication of its benefits and risks.

The full joint editorial is now available online:

[1] DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793 
[2] DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873