Dataset Information

Comparison of Lobectomy and Sublobar Resection for Stage IA Elderly NSCLC Patients (≥70 Years): A Population-Based Propensity Score Matching's Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To investigate the differences in survival between lobectomy and sub-lobar resection for elderly stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

Method

The data of stage IA elderly NSCLC patients (≥ 70 years) with tumors less than or equal to 3 cm in diameter were extracted. Propensity-matched analysis was used. Lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) was compared among the patients after lobectomy and sub-lobar resection. The proportional hazards model was applied to identify multiple prognostic factors.

Results

A total of 3,504 patients met criteria after propensity score matching (PSM). Although the LCSS was better for lobectomy than for sub-lobar resection in patients with tumors ≤ 3 cm before PSM (p < 0.001), no significant difference in the LCSS was identified between the two treatment groups after PSM (p = 0.191). Multivariate Cox regression showed the elder age, male gender, squamous cell carcinoma (SQC) histology type, poor/undifferentiated grade and a large tumor size were associated with poor LCSS. The subgroup analysis of tumor sizes, histologic types and lymph nodes (LNs) dissection, there were also no significant difference for LCSS between lobectomy and sub-lobar resection. The sub-lobar resection was further divided into segmentectomy or wedge resection, and it demonstrated that no significant differences in LCSS were identified among the treatment subgroups either. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the elder age, poor/undifferentiated grade and a large tumor size were a statistically significant independent factor associated with survival.

Conclusion

In terms of LCSS, lobectomy has no significant advantage over sub-lobar resection in elderly patients with stage IA NSCLC if lymph node assessment is performed adequately. The present data may contribute to develop a more suitable surgical treatment strategy for the stage IA elderly NSCLC patients.

SUBMITTER: Zhang B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8139614 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSpread through air spaces (STAS) is a form of invasion wherein tumor cells extend beyond the tumor edge within the lung parenchyma. In lung adenocarcinoma (ADC), we investigated the (1) association between STAS and procedure-specific outcomes (sublobar resection and lobectomy), (2) effect of surgical margin-to-tumor diameter ratio in STAS-positive patients, and (3) potential utility of frozen sections (FSs) for detecting STAS intraoperatively.MethodsWe investigated 1497 patients who underwent lobectomy (n = 970) or sublobar resection (n = 527) for T1N0M0 lung ADC after propensity score matching. Outcomes were analyzed by using a competing risks approach. The effect of margin-to-tumor ratio on recurrence pattern (locoregional and distant) was investigated in patients who underwent sublobar resection. Five pathologists evaluated the feasibility of intraoperatively identifying STAS by using FSs (sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliability).ResultsOn multivariable analysis after propensity score matching (349 pairs/procedure), sublobar resection was significantly associated with recurrence (subhazard ratio = 2.84 [p < 0.001]) and lung cancer-specific death (subhazard ratio = 2.63 [p = 0.021]) in patients with STAS but not in those without STAS. Patients with STAS who underwent sublobar resection had a higher risk of locoregional recurrence regardless of margin-to-tumor ratio (for a margin-to-tumor ratio of ≥1 versus <1, the 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence rates were 16% and 25%, respectively); among patients without STAS, locoregional recurrences occurred in patients with margin-to-tumor ratio lower than 1 (a 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence rate of 7%). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting STAS by use of FSs were 71% and 92%, with substantial interrater reliability (Gwet's AC1, 0.67).ConclusionsIn patients with T1 lung ADC with STAS, lobectomy was associated with better outcomes than sublobar resection was. Pathologists can recognize STAS on FSs.

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.

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.).

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.