Lobectomy versus sublobar resection in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Divisi D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7330740 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer in the right middle lobe has a poorer prognosis than tumors located in other lobes. The optimal surgical procedure for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the right middle lobe has not yet been elucidated. The aim of this study was to compare survival rates after lobectomy and sublobar resection for early-stage right middle lobe NSCLC.MethodsPatients who underwent lobectomy or sublobar resection for stage IA right middle lobe NSCLC tumors ? 2 cm between 2004 and 2014 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database of 18 registries. Cox regression model analysis was used to evaluate the prognostic factors. The lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) and overall survival (OS) rates between the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 861 patients met our criteria, including 662 (76.9%) patients who underwent lobectomy and 199 (23.1%) patients who underwent sublobar resection. No statistical differences in LCSS and OS rates were identified between the groups of patients with stage IA right middle lobe NSCLC ? 1 cm. For tumors > 1-2 cm, lobectomy was associated with more favorable LCSS and OS rates compared to sublobar resection.ConclusionLobectomy and sublobar resection deliver a comparable prognosis for patients with stage IA right middle lobe NSCLC ? 1 cm. For tumors > 1-2 cm, lobectomy showed better survival rates than sublobar resection.
| S-EPMC6068437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe appropriateness of lobectomy for all elderly patients is controversial. Meanwhile, sublobar resection is associated with reduced operative risk, better preservation of pulmonary function, and a better quality of life, constituting a potential alternative to standard lobectomy for elderly patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To date, no randomized trial comparing sublobar resection and lobectomy focusing on elderly patients has been reported. We hypothesized that for patients at least 70 years old with clinical stage T1N0M0 NSCLC, sublobar resection is non-inferior to lobectomy for 3-year disease-free survival (DFS).Methods/designThis is a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter non-inferiority trial with two study arms: sublobar resection and lobectomy groups. Comprehensive geriatric assessments will be acquired for each patient. A total of 339 subjects will be enrolled on the basis of power calculations, and participants followed up every 6 months post-operation for 3 years. In case of relapse, survival follow-up will be continued until 5 years or death. Pulmonary function testing will be performed at 6, 12, and 36 months post-operation. The primary outcome is 3-year DFS; secondary endpoints include peri-operative complications and mortality, hospitalization time, post-operative ventilator time, overall survival, 3-year recurrence rates, post-operative pulmonary function, quality of life, geriatric assessment data, and 4-year mortality index.DiscussionThe present study is the only prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing sublobar resection and lobectomy for elderly patients. The therapeutic outcomes of sublobar resection will be evaluated in comparison with lobectomy for elderly patients (≥70 years) with early-stage NSCLC.Trial registration numberNCT02360761 : 01/24/2015 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
| S-EPMC4823889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The incidence of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) among the elderly is expected to rise dramatically owing to demographic trends and increased computed tomographic screening. However, to our knowledge, no modern trials have compared the most common treatments for NSCLC.To determine clinical characteristics and survival outcomes associated with the 3 most commonly used definitive therapies for early-stage NSCLC in the elderly.The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database linked to Medicare was used to determine the baseline characteristics and outcomes of 9093 patients with early-stage, node-negative NSCLC who underwent definitive treatment consisting of lobectomy, sublobar resection, or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2009.Overall and lung cancer-specific survival were compared using Medicare claims through December 31, 2012. We used proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching to adjust outcomes for key patient, tumor, and practice environment factors.The median age was 75 years, and treatment distribution was 79.3% for lobectomy, 16.5% for sublobar resection, and 4.2% for SABR. Unadjusted 90-day mortality was highest for lobectomy (4.0%) followed by sublobar resection (3.7%; P = .79) and SABR (1.3%; P = .008). At 3 years, unadjusted mortality was lowest for lobectomy (25.0%), followed by sublobar resection (35.3%; P < .001) and SABR (45.1%; P < .001). Proportional hazards regression demonstrated that sublobar resection was associated with worse overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.20-1.44]; P < .001) and lung cancer-specific survival (AHR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.29-1.75]; P < .001) compared with lobectomy. Propensity score-matching analysis reiterated these findings for overall survival (AHR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.17-1.58]; P < .001) and lung cancer-specific survival (AHR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.13-1.90]; P = .004). In proportional hazards regression, SABR was associated with better overall survival than lobectomy in the first 6 months after diagnosis (AHR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.75]; P < .001) but worse survival thereafter (AHR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.39-1.99]; P < .001). Propensity score-matching analysis of well-matched SABR and lobectomy cohorts demonstrated similar overall survival in both groups (AHR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.74-1.38]; P = .94).Lobectomy was associated with better outcomes than sublobar resection in elderly patients with early-stage NSCLC. Propensity score matching suggests that SABR may be a good option among patients with very advanced age and multiple comorbidities.
| S-EPMC4401470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesStereotactic ablative radiation (SABR) is a promising alternative to lobectomy or sublobar resection for early lung cancer, but the value of SABR in comparison to surgical therapy remains debated. We examined the cost-effectiveness of SABR relative to surgery using SEER-Medicare data.Materials and methodsPatients age ≥66 years with localized (<5 cm) non-small cell lung cancers diagnosed from 2003-2009 were selected. Propensity score matching generated cohorts comparing SABR with either sublobar resection or lobectomy. Costs were determined via claims. Median survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were constructed from joint distribution of incremental costs and effects estimated by non-parametric bootstrap.ResultsIn comparing SABR to sublobar resection, 5-year total costs were $55,120 with SABR vs. $77,964 with sublobar resection (P<0.001) and median survival was 3.6 years with SABR vs. 4.1 years with sublobar resection (P=0.95). The ICER for sublobar resection compared to SABR was $45,683/life-year gained, yielding a 46% probability that sublobar resection is cost-effective. In comparing SABR to lobectomy, 5-year total costs were $54,968 with SABR vs. $82,641 with lobectomy (P<0.001) and median survival was 3.8 years with SABR vs. 4.7 years with lobectomy (P=0.81). The ICER for lobectomy compared to SABR was $28,645/life-year gained, yielding a 78% probability that lobectomy is cost-effective.ConclusionSABR is less costly than surgery. While lobectomy may be cost-effective compared to SABR, sublobar resection is less likely to be cost-effective. Assessment of the relative value of SABR versus surgical therapy requires further research.
| S-EPMC4536110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background To investigate postoperative temporary consequences of the enrolled patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Patients and Methods We analyzed the clinical data of patients with lung adenocarcinoma admitted by the same surgical team of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) from July 2019 to December 2019. Statistical methods including propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to analyze the differences among them. Results A total of 108 patients were enrolled, including 50 patients with sublobar resection and 58 patients with lobectomy. Before PSM, there were statistically significant differences in age (p=0.015), hospitalization costs (p=0.042), lymphadenectomy (p=0.000), pathological staging (p=0.000), number of lymph nodes removed (p=0.000), number of positive lymph nodes (p=0.034), chest drainage duration (p=0.000), total chest drainage (p=0.000), length of postoperative hospital stays (p=0.000), postoperative D-dimer level (p=0.030) and perioperative lymphocyte margin (LM) (p=0.003) between sublobar resection and lobectomy. After PSM, there were statistical differences in number of lymph nodes removed (p=0.000), chest drainage duration (p=0.031) and total chest drainage (p=0.002) between sublobar resection and lobectomy. Whether with PSM analysis or not, there were no significant differences in other blood test results, such as inflammation indicators, postoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), albumin level, perioperative activity of daily living (ADL) scale scoring margin, complications, postoperative admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and readmission within 30 days. NLR was associated with total chest drainage (p=0.000), length of postoperative hospital stays (p=0.000), postoperative D-dimer level (p=0.050) and ADL scale scoring margin (p=0.003) between sublobar resection and lobectomy. Conclusion Sublobar resection, including wedge resection and segmentectomy, was as safe and feasible as lobectomy in our study, and they shared similar short-term outcomes. Postoperative NLR could be used to detect the clinical outcomes of patients. Secondary resectability of pulmonary function (SRPF) should be the main purpose of sublobar resection.
| S-EPMC7534848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the prognostic between lobectomy and sublobar resection in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsWe conducted a detailed search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the prognosis of lobectomy and sublobar resection for stage I NSCLC, with the primary outcomes being overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).ResultsA total of 2222 patients were included in the 5 RCTs. The results showed no statistical difference in OS (HR=0.87, p=0.445) and DFS (HR=0.99, p=0.918) between patients who underwent lobectomy and sublobar resection during the total follow-up period. In terms of dichotomous variables, there were no statistical differences in OS (relative ratio [RR]=1.05, p=0.848) and DFS (RR=1.21, p=0.075) between the two groups during the total follow-up period, as well as 5-year OS (RR=0.96, p=0.409) and 5-year DFS (RR=0.95, p=0.270). In addition, subgroup analysis showed a better prognosis for non-adenocarcinoma patients with sublobar resection than lobectomy (HR=0.53, p=0.037), but also an increased cause of cancer death (not limited to lung cancer) (RR=1.56, p=0.004).ConclusionOur results showed that for stage I NSCLC, lobectomy is usually not a justified operation.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023407301, identifier CRD42023407301.
| S-EPMC10582352 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is debate regarding the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) or surgery for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This meta-analysis compared the clinical efficacy of SABR and lobectomy in stage I NSCLC patients.MethodsAn online search identified eight eligible articles (including 2 trials and 7 cohort studies) for inclusion. The odds ratio (OR) was used as a summary statistic. Overall survival (OS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were selected to calculate ORs with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Fixed-effects or random-effects models were conducted according to study heterogeneity.ResultsThere were no significant differences between SABR and lobectomy in terms of one-year OS or CSS. Significant benefits of surgery were observed in three-year OS (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.55-2.86), three-year CSS (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.05-3.57), three-year RFS (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12-2.36), and five-year OS (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.71-3.36). In addition, lobectomy demonstrated a beneficial trend in one-year RFS, five-year RFS, and CSS.ConclusionMeta-analyses of current evidence suggested that lobectomy provides better long-term survival outcomes for stage I NSCLC patients.
| S-EPMC5832478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe increased detection of small-sized peripheral non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has renewed interest in sublobar resection in lieu of lobectomy.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in which patients with NSCLC clinically staged as T1aN0 (tumor size, ≤2 cm) were randomly assigned to undergo sublobar resection or lobar resection after intraoperative confirmation of node-negative disease. The primary end point was disease-free survival, defined as the time between randomization and disease recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary end points were overall survival, locoregional and systemic recurrence, and pulmonary functions.ResultsFrom June 2007 through March 2017, a total of 697 patients were assigned to undergo sublobar resection (340 patients) or lobar resection (357 patients). After a median follow-up of 7 years, sublobar resection was noninferior to lobar resection for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.24). In addition, overall survival after sublobar resection was similar to that after lobar resection (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.26). The 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% (95% CI, 57.9 to 68.8) after sublobar resection and 64.1% (95% CI, 58.5 to 69.0) after lobar resection. The 5-year overall survival was 80.3% (95% CI, 75.5 to 84.3) after sublobar resection and 78.9% (95% CI, 74.1 to 82.9) after lobar resection. No substantial difference was seen between the two groups in the incidence of locoregional or distant recurrence. At 6 months postoperatively, a between-group difference of 2 percentage points was measured in the median percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, favoring the sublobar-resection group.ConclusionsIn patients with peripheral NSCLC with a tumor size of 2 cm or less and pathologically confirmed node-negative disease in the hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes, sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy with respect to disease-free survival. Overall survival was similar with the two procedures. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; CALGB 140503 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00499330.).
| S-EPMC10036605 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLobectomy has been compared with sublobar resection for the treatment of stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Accurate long-term data are lacking on the risk of recurrence in routine clinical practice. This study used a unique and representative dataset to compare recurrence, overall survival (OS), and lymph node staging between lobectomy and sublobar resection.MethodsThe American College of Surgeons performed a Special Study of the National Cancer Data Base, by reabstracting records to augment NSCLC data with enhanced information on preoperative comorbidity and cancer recurrence from 2007 to 2012. For patients treated with lobectomy or sublobar resection (wedge resection or segmentectomy) for clinical stage IA NSCLC, propensity matching and competing risks models compared 5-year OS and risk of cancer recurrence. Secondary measures included lymph nodes collected, pathologic upstaging, and surgical margin status.ResultsA total of 1,687 patients with stage IA NSCLC were identified (1,354 who underwent lobectomy, and 333 who had sublobar resections). Propensity matching yielded 325 pairs. Lobectomy and sublobar resection groups had similar 5-year OS (61.8% vs 55.6%, p = 0.561). The sublobar group had a 39% increased risk of NSCLC recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.87). Median lymph node counts were higher for lobectomy-treated patients (7 [3, 10] vs 1 [0, 4], p < 0.001)].ConclusionsIn an enhanced national dataset representative of outcomes for stage IA NSCLC, sublobar resection was associated with a 39% increased risk of cancer recurrence. The majority of patients treated with sublobar resection had an inadequate lymph node assessment. These real-world results must be considered when existing clinical trial results comparing these treatments are extrapolated for clinical use.
| S-EPMC6375491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent data have suggested possible oncologic equivalence of sublobar resection with lobectomy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our aim was to evaluate and compare short-term and long-term survival for these surgical approaches.This retrospective cohort study utilized the National Cancer Data Base. Patients undergoing lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection for preoperative clinical T1A N0 NSCLC from 2003 to 2011 were identified. Overall survival (OS) and 30-day mortality were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, logistic regression models, and propensity score matching. Further analysis of survival stratified by tumor size, facility type, number of lymph nodes (LNs) examined, and surgical margins was performed.A total of 13,606 patients were identified. After propensity score matching, 987 patients remained in each group. Both segmentectomy and wedge resection were associated with significantly worse OS when compared with lobectomy (hazard ratio: 1.70 and 1.45, respectively, both p < 0.001), with no difference in 30-day mortality. Median OS for lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection were 100, 74, and 68 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Finally, sublobar resection was associated with increased likelihood of positive surgical margins, lower likelihood of having more than three LNs examined, and significantly lower rates of nodal upstaging.In this large national-level, clinically diverse sample of clinical T1A NSCLC patients, wedge and segmental resections were shown to have significantly worse OS compared with lobectomy. Further patients undergoing sublobar resection were more likely to have inadequate lymphadenectomy and positive margins. Ongoing prospective study taking into account LN upstaging and margin status is still needed.
| S-EPMC5798611 | biostudies-literature