Dataset Information

The Survival Advantage of Lobectomy over Wedge Resection Lessens as Health-Related Life Expectancy Decreases.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients with early-stage NSCLC typically must choose between a surgery with superior local control (lobectomy) or one that preserves lung parenchyma (wedge). Recognizing that many patients with cancer have competing mortality risks unrelated to cancer, we investigated whether an established model of predicting life expectancy could be used to identify patients with stage I NSCLC for whom survival after wedge is not different from lobectomy.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare was performed to evaluate survival among treatment-naive patients, diagnosed 2005-2015, who underwent lobectomy or wedge for stage I (≤2 cm tumors) NSCLC. Comorbidity-related life expectancy (CR-LE) was estimated using a standard life-table approach based on comorbid conditions, sex, and age. Cox models and perioperative complications were stratified by 5-year CR-LE.

Results

A total of 4560 patients (median age 74, interquartile range 70-78) were identified. CR-LE was greater than or equal to 5 years for 4016 patients (wedge = 23%). CR-LE was less than 5 years for 544 patients (wedge = 41%). Among patients with CR-LE greater than or equal to 5, wedge resection was associated with higher risk of mortality than lobectomy (hazard ratio: 1.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.52-1.86, p < 0.001). For those with CR-LE less than 5, there was no significant difference in mortality risk between lobectomy and wedge (hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 0.96-1.47; p = 0.11). CR-LE less than five patients who underwent a lobectomy had higher 90-day mortality compared with wedge (9% versus 4%, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

The survival advantage of lobectomy over wedge for stage I NSCLC seems to dissipate among patients with shorter life expectancy owing to age and comorbidities. Wedge resection may be a reasonable option for patients at high risk of dying from non-cancer-related causes.

SUBMITTER: Salazar MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8474228 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: The health status of individuals is determined by multiple factors operating at both micro and macro levels and the interactive effects of them. Measures of health inequalities should reflect such determinants explicitly through sources of levels and combining mean differences at group levels and the variation of individuals, for the benefits of decision making and intervention planning. Measures derived recently from marginal models such as beta-binomial and frailty survival, address this issue to some extent, but are limited in handling data with complex structures. Beta-binomial models were also limited in relation to measuring inequalities of life expectancy (LE) directly. METHODS: We propose a multilevel survival model analysis that estimates life expectancy based on survival time with censored data. The model explicitly disentangles total health inequalities in terms of variance components of life expectancy compared to the source of variation at the level of individuals in households and parishes and so on, and estimates group differences of inequalities at the same time. Adjusted distributions of life expectancy by gender and by household socioeconomic level are calculated. Relative and absolute health inequality indices are derived based on model estimates. The model based analysis is illustrated on a large Swedish cohort of 22,680 men and 26,474 women aged 6569 in 1970 and followed up for 30 years. Model based inequality measures are compared to the conventional calculations. RESULTS: Much variation of life expectancy is observed at individual and household levels. Contextual effects at Parish and Municipality level are negligible. Women have longer life expectancy than men and lower inequality. There is marked inequality by the level of household socioeconomic status measured by the median life expectancy in each socio-economic group and the variation in life expectancy within each group. CONCLUSION: Multilevel survival models are flexible and efficient tools in studying health inequalities of life expectancy or survival time data with a geographic structure of more than 2 levels. They are complementary to conventional methods and override some limitations of marginal models. Future research on determinants of health inequalities in the LE of the specific cohort on the household and individual factors could reveal some important causes over the marked household level inequalities.

Project description:ImportanceAdvances in childhood and adolescent cancer treatment have been associated with increased rates of cure during the past 3 decades; however, improvement in adult life expectancy for these individuals has not yet been reported.ObjectivesTo project long-term survival and assess whether life expectancy will improve among adult survivors of childhood cancer who were treated in more recent decades.Design, setting, and participantsA microsimulation model of competing mortality risks was developed using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study on 5-year survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1970 and 1999. The model included (1) late recurrence, (2) treatment-related late effects (health-related [subsequent cancers, cardiac events, pulmonary conditions, and other] and external causes), and (3) US background mortality rates.ExposuresTreatment subgroups (no treatment or surgery only, chemotherapy alone, radiotherapy alone, and radiotherapy with chemotherapy) and individuals with acute lymphoblastic leukemia during childhood by era (1970-1979, 1980-1989, and 1990-1999).Main outcomes and measuresConditional life expectancy (defined as the number of years a 5-year survivor can expect to live), cumulative cause-specific mortality risk, and 10-year mortality risks conditional on attaining ages of 30, 40, 50, and 60 years.ResultsAmong the hypothetical cohort of 5-year survivors of childhood cancer representative of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study participants (44% female and 56% male; mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 7.3 [5.6] years), conditional life expectancy was 48.5 years (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 47.6-49.6 years) for 5-year survivors diagnosed in 1970-1979, 53.7 years (95% UI, 52.6-54.7 years) for those diagnosed in 1980-1989, and 57.1 years (95% UI, 55.9-58.1 years) for those diagnosed in 1990-1999. Compared with individuals without a history of cancer, these results represented a gap in life expectancy of 25% (95% UI, 24%-27%) (16.5 years [95% UI, 15.5-17.5 years]) for those diagnosed in 1970-1979, 19% (95% UI, 17%-20%) (12.3 years [95% UI, 11.3-13.4 years]) for those diagnosed in 1980-1989, and 14% (95% UI, 13%-16%) (9.2 years [95% UI, 8.3-10.4 years]) for those diagnosed in 1990-1999. During the 3 decades, the proportion of survivors treated with chemotherapy alone increased (from 18% in 1970-1979 to 54% in 1990-1999), and the life expectancy gap in this chemotherapy-alone group decreased from 11.0 years (95% UI, 9.0-13.1 years) to 6.0 years (95% UI, 4.5-7.6 years). In contrast, during the same time frame, only modest improvements in the gap in life expectancy were projected for survivors treated with radiotherapy (21.0 years [95% UI, 18.5-23.2 years] to 17.6 years [95% UI, 14.2-21.2 years]) or with radiotherapy and chemotherapy (17.9 years [95% UI, 16.7-19.2 years] to 14.8 years [95% UI, 13.1-16.7 years]). For the largest group of survivors by diagnosis-those with acute lymphoblastic leukemia-the gap in life expectancy decreased from 14.7 years (95% UI, 12.8-16.5 years) in 1970-1979 to 8.0 years (95% UI, 6.2-9.7 years).Conclusions and relevanceEvolving treatment approaches are projected to be associated with improved life expectancy after treatment for pediatric cancer, in particular among those who received chemotherapy alone for their childhood cancer diagnosis. Despite improvements, survivors remain at risk for shorter lifespans, especially when radiotherapy was included as part of their childhood cancer treatment.