Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of segmentectomy vs. lobectomy for stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Whether segmentectomy is appropriate for stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially for stage IA NSCLC with a tumor size of 2-3 cm, remains controversial. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare segmentectomy and lobectomy for stage IA NSCLC with a tumor size of 2-3 cm and IA ≤2 cm NSCLC.

Methods

A systematic screening of online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) was conducted regarding the terms of perioperative outcomes, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and disease-free survival (DFS). The inverse-variance and Mantel-Haenszel approaches were used to pool effect sizes for survival outcomes and perioperative outcomes.

Results

A total of 10 articles were included in the analysis. The perioperative morbidity [risk ratio (RR): 0.90, P=0.10], mortality (RR: 0.94, P=0.84), intraoperative blood loss [mean difference (MD): 3.07, P=0.86] and operative time (MD: 18.99, P=0.13) were comparable between the segmentectomy and lobectomy groups. The number of lymph nodes harvested was statistically less in segmentectomy than in lobectomy (MD: -5.71, P=0.02). In stage IA patients with a tumor size of 2-3 cm, lobectomy showed superior survival outcomes compared to segmentectomy, with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 1.39 (P=0.01) for OS and 1.38 (P=0.06) for RFS or DFS. In stage IA ≤2 cm, lobectomy and segmentectomy had comparable survival outcomes with pooled HRs of 1.18 (P=0.29) for OS and 1.18 (P=0.12) for RFS or DFS.

Conclusions

When a patient is in stage IA and the tumor size is less than 2 cm, segmentectomy should be performed. If the tumor size is between 2 and 3 cm, lobectomy is recommended.

SUBMITTER: Dai Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10482631 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of segmentectomy <i>vs</i>. lobectomy for stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.

Dai Zhangyi Z Hu Jiawen J Shen Cheng C Mi Xingqi X Pu Qiang Q

Journal of thoracic disease 20230724 8

<h4>Background</h4>Whether segmentectomy is appropriate for stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially for stage IA NSCLC with a tumor size of 2-3 cm, remains controversial. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare segmentectomy and lobectomy for stage IA NSCLC with a tumor size of 2-3 cm and IA ≤2 cm NSCLC.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic screening of online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) was conducted regarding the terms of perioperative outco ...[more]

PMID: 37691674

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLobectomy has long been regarded as the standard treatment for operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Recent studies suggested that segmentectomy could achieve a good prognosis for early-stage NSCLC and might be an alternative to lobectomy in this cohort. Until now, on the issue of comparison between lobectomy and segmentectomy, there remains no published randomized controlled trial (RCT), and all existing evidence is low. Recently, a categorization of lower-level evidence has been proposed, namely, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the oncologic outcome between lobectomy and segmentectomy in NSCLC with the clinical T1N0M0 stage according to the GRADE system.MethodsPubMed, the PMC database, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were searched prior to May 2019 to identify studies that compared the prognosis between lobectomy and segmentectomy for clinical T1N0M0 NSCLC. The evidence level of the included studies was assessed according to the GRADE system, including level IIA, probably not confounded nonrandomized comparison; level IIB, possibly confounded nonrandomized comparison; and level IIC, probably confounded nonrandomized comparison. The predefined outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Univariable and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were pooled using a random-effects model.ResultsTwelve nonrandomized studies involving 8,072 participants were included. Of these studies, two were classified as IIA level (16.7%), six as IIB level (50.0%), and four as IIC level (33.3%). When crude HRs were included, compared with lobectomy, segmentectomy was associated with shorter OS but comparable DFS in the entire cohort (OS, pooled HR =1.45, 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.67; DFS, pooled HR =1.03, 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.82) and in patients with nodules ≤2 cm (OS, pooled HR =1.55, 95% CI, 1.33 to 1.80; DFS, pooled HR =0.98, 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.77). When adjusted HRs were included, the impact of segmentectomy on OS and DFS was comparable to that of lobectomy in the entire cohort (OS, pooled HR =1.39, 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.10; DFS, pooled HR =0.83, 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.03) and in patients with nodules ≤2 cm (OS, pooled HR =1.61, 95% CI, 0.87 to 3.00; DFS, pooled HR =0.90, 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.27).ConclusionsBased on our results, although shorter OS is observed in patients received segmentectomy, it is necessary to wait for more results from RCT to draw a valid conclusion.

Project description:BackgroundLong-standing controversy has existed over whether sublobar resection is an adequate oncological procedure for clinical stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ≤2 cm, despite the recent randomized trial reports of Japanese Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 0802 and Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 140503 demonstrating non-inferior outcomes with sublobar resection compared to lobectomy. As practice patterns shift, we sought to compare oncologic outcomes in patients with these early-stage tumors after wedge resection, segmentectomy, or lobectomy in a contemporary, real-world, cohort.MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database from a single institution was conducted from 2011 to 2020 to identify all patients with clinically staged IA1 or IA2 NSCLC (tumors ≤2 cm with no nodal involvement). The primary outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), with secondary outcomes of lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS), recurrence patterns, and perioperative morbidity and mortality.ResultsA total of 480 patients were identified; 93 (19.4%) patients underwent wedge resection, 90 (18.7%) received segmentectomy, and 297 (61.9%) underwent lobectomy. Patients who underwent wedge resection had worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (23.7% ECOG 1 or 2 vs. 5.6% among segmentectomy and 5.4% among lobectomy, P<0.05). Both wedge resection and segmentectomy patients had lower preoperative mean percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (%FEV1) compared to the lobectomy group (81.8% and 82.6% vs. 89.6%, P=0.002), a higher proportion of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD), and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year OS, DFS, or LCSS between groups: 90%, 61%, 78% for wedge resections compared with 85%, 75%, 86% for segmentectomy, and 87%, 77%, 87% for lobectomy, respectively. Recurrence was observed in 17 patients who underwent wedge resection (18.3%, 8 local, 9 distant), 12 patients who received segmentectomy (13.4%, 6 local, 6 distant), and 38 patients who underwent lobectomy (12.8%, 11 local, 27 distant), which was not significantly different (P=0.36).ConclusionsPatients with inferior performance status or lower baseline pulmonary function are more likely to receive wedge resection for clinical stage IA NSCLC ≤2 cm in size. For these small tumors, lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection provide comparable oncologic outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveIn recent years, pulmonary segmentectomy has emerged as an alternative to lobectomy for the treatment of patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Considering the conflicting results reported in the literature, the oncological effectiveness of segmentectomy remains controversial. To provide new insight into oncological results, we reviewed the literature, including recent randomized trials.MethodsWe performed a systematic review for surgical treatment of stage I NSCLC up to 2 cm using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database from 1990 to December 2022. Primary outcomes for pooled analysis were overall and disease-free survival; secondary outcomes were postoperative complications and 30-day mortality.ResultsEleven studies were considered for the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis included 3074 and 2278 patients who received lobectomy and segmentectomy, respectively. The estimated pooled hazard ratio showed a similar hazard for segmentectomy compared to lobectomy in terms of overall and disease-free survival. The restricted mean survival time difference between the two procedures was statistically and clinically not significant for overall and disease-free survival. Nevertheless, the overall survival hazard ratio was time-dependent: segmentectomy was at a disadvantage starting from 40 months after surgery. Six papers reported 30-day mortality: there were no events on 1766 procedures. The overall relative risk showed that the postoperative complication rate was higher in segmentectomy compared to lobectomy, without statistical significance.ConclusionsOur results suggest that segmentectomy might be a useful alternative to lobectomy for stage I NSCLC up to 2 cm. However, this appears to be time-dependent; in fact, the risk ratio for overall mortality becomes unfavorable for segmentectomy starting at 40 months after surgery. This last observation, together with some still undefined questions (solid/non-solid ratio, depth of the lesion, modest functional savings, etc.), leave room for further investigations on the real oncological effectiveness of segmentectomy.