Sublobar resection for lung cancer

Comparison of early patient-reported outcomes between uniportal thoracoscopic segmentectomy and wedge resection for peripheral small-sized non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offers valuable insights into distinguishing the effects of closely related medical procedures from the patient's perspective. In this study we compared symptom burden in patients undergoing uniportal thoracoscopic segmentectomy and wedge resection for peripheral small-sized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

This study included patients with peripheral NSCLC from an ongoing longitudinal prospective cohort study (CN-PRO-Lung 3) who underwent segmentectomy or wedge resection with tumor diameter ≤ 2 cm and consolidation tumor ratio (CTR) ≤ 0.5. PROs data were collected using the Perioperative Symptom Assessment for Lung Surgery questionnaire pre-operatively, daily post-surgery up to the fourth hospitalization day, and weekly post-discharge up to the fourth week. Propensity score matching and a generalized estimation equation model were employed to compare symptom severity. In addition, short-term clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

In total, data of 286 patients (82.4%) undergoing segmentectomy and 61 patients (17.6%) undergoing wedge resection were extracted from the cohort. No statistically significant differences were found in the proportion of moderate-to-severe symptoms and mean scores for pain, cough, shortness of breath, disturbed sleep, fatigue, drowsiness, and distress during the 4-day postoperative hospitalization or the 4-week post-discharge period before or after matching (all p > 0.05). Compared with segmentectomy, wedge resection showed better short-term clinical outcomes, including shorter operative time (p = 0.001), less intraoperative bleeding (p = 0.046), and lower total hospital costs (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings indicate that uniportal thoracoscopic segmentectomy and wedge resection exert similar early postoperative symptom burden in patients with peripheral NSCLC (tumor diameter ≤ 2 cm and CTR ≤ 0.5).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Subsegmentectomy versus segmentectomy resection for the treatment of operable patients with stage IA non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

Background

There were new points of interest in performing subsegmentectomy and segmentectomy for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, whether patients who underwent subsegmentectomy could obtain satisfactory clinical outcomes remains unclear. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and security of surgical procedures between subsegmentectomy and segmentectomy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed through five online databases to identify the included literatures which presented intact clinical outcome data among different surgical procedures. The included studies were evaluated based on precise and predefined inclusion criteria.

Results

There were 4 published studies identified in this meta-analysis. A total of 325 patients who underwent subsegmentectomy and 904 patients who underwent segmentectomy were involved in this analysis. The duration of drainage [MD -0.19; 95%CI (-0.36, -0.02), p = 0.03] and postoperative hospital stay [MD -0.30; 95%CI (-0.58, -0.02), p = 0.009] of subsegmentectomy were significantly less than that of segmentectomy. There was no statistically significant difference among recurrence rate [OR 0.85; 95%CI (0.21, 3.42), p = 0.82], operation time, blood loss, incidence of complications [OR 0.83; 95%CI (0.58, 1.20), p = 0.33] between subsegmentectomy and segmentectomy in patients with stage IA NSCLC.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis was firstly performed to compare perioperative outcomes among surgical procedures. The perioperative outcomes were comparable between subsegmentectomy and segmentectomy. Subsegmentectomy might be an alternative treatment for the deep tumor with size less than 1.5 cm and mainly composed of Ground Glass Opacity (GGO).

Value of Wedge Resection for Lung Cancer in Poor Cardiopulmonary Status Patients

The strategic management of primary lung cancer in patients with poor cardiopulmonary status is still controversial. The aim of this study was to ascertain the early and late results of wide-margin wedge resection with curative intent in this group of patients. Between January 1995 and January 2002, 24 patients (13 males; mean age, 69.96 years) with baseline poor cardiopulmonary status underwent wide-margin wedge resection of preoperatively diagnosed primary lung cancer. All patients suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 9 (37.5%) also had symptomatic ischemic heart disease. Eight patients were in New York Heart Association class III and 12 were in class IV. There were no post-operative deaths. Complications included chest infection in 3, surgical emphysema with prolonged air leak in 1, and atrial fibrillation in 6. Overall 7-year survival was 23.3%. Three patients with ischemic heart disease suffered late non-cancer-related death due to myocardial infarction at 48, 60, and 60 months postoperatively. Cancer-free 5-year survival was 54.3%, with 7/24 (29%) late recurrences. Our study suggests that wide-margin wedge resection is a valuable surgical option for primary lung cancer in patients with poor cardiopulmonary status.

Primary Treatment Options for High-Risk/Medically Inoperable Early Stage NSCLC Patients

Lung cancer is among the most common cancers worldwide and is the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. For patients with early stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer T1-2, N0) non-small-cell lung cancer, the current standard of care is lobectomy with systematic lymph node evaluation. Unfortunately, patients with lung cancer often have medical comorbities, which may preclude the option of surgical resection. In such cases, a number of minimally invasive to noninvasive treatment options have gained popularity in the treatment of these high-risk patients. These modalities provide significant advantages, including patient convenience, treatment in an outpatient setting, and acceptable toxicities, including reduced impact on lung function and a modest risk of postprocedure chest wall pain. We provide a comprehensive review of the literature, including reported outcomes, complications, and limitations of sublobar resection with or without intraoperative brachytherapy, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, percutaneous cryoablation, photodynamic therapy, and stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Wedge Resection vs Lobectomy

BACKGROUND

The selection of lobectomy or wedge resection in the treatment of patients with stage I primary lung cancer remains controversial. Clinical judgment based on comorbidities remains the main decision factor. We investigated the impact of procedure on long-term survival in a multicenter retrospective analysis.

METHODS

The records of 289 patients who underwent surgical resection of stage I primary lung cancer between 1993 and 1998 at three tertiary medical centers were reviewed for age, sex, type of resection, tumor size, number of lymph nodes dissected, pathology, and recurrence. Long-term survival was obtained through the Federal Social Security Death Index and Cancer Registries. Kaplan-Meier, Wilcox, logistic regression, and power and t test analyses were used to examine survival, predictors of mortality, and correlations.

RESULTS

A total of 215 patients underwent lobectomy, and 74 underwent wedge resection. The groups were similar with respect to age, tumor size, and other comorbidities. Overall, there was a nonsignificant trend toward better survival times in patients after lobectomy vs wedge resection (mean [+/- SD] survival time, 5.8 +/- 0.3 vs 4.1 +/- 0.3 years, respectively; p = 0.112). This trend gained significance in smaller cancers, where patients who underwent lobectomy for tumors < 3 cm in size had better survival times compared to those who underwent wedge resection (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Although the overall difference in survival time between patients undergoing lobectomy and those undergoing wedge resection was not significant, patients with tumors < 3 cm in size had improved survival times after undergoing lobectomy. Thus, tumor size appears to be an important factor to be considered in preoperative planning. Randomized trials are necessary to confirm the superiority of lobectomy over wedge resection for stage IA lung cancers.

Segmental resection spares pulmonary function in patients with stage I lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Segmental resection for stage I non-small cell lung cancer remains controversial. Reports suggest that segmentectomy confers no advantage in preserving lung function and compromises survival. This study was undertaken to assess the validity of those assertions.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing lobectomy (n = 147) or segmentectomy (n = 54) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer between March 1996 and June 2001. All patients were included in the survival analysis. Pulmonary function testing was obtained preoperatively and at 1 year and included forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, maximum voluntary ventilation, diffusing capacity, and stair-stepper exercise. Patients with recurrent disease (lobectomy, n = 32; segmentectomy, n = 10) were excluded in the pulmonary function testing analysis to avoid the confounding variables of tumor or treatments.

RESULTS

Preoperative pulmonary function tests in segmentectomy patients were significantly reduced compared with lobectomy (forced expiratory volume in 1 second, 75.1% versus 55.3%; p < 0.001). At 1 year, lobectomy patients experienced significant declines in forced vital capacity (85.5% to 81.1%), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (75.1% to 66.7%), maximum voluntary ventilation (72.8% to 65.2%), and diffusing capacity (79.3% to 69.6%). In contrast, a decline in diffusing capacity was the only significant change seen after segmental resection. Oxygen saturations at rest and with exercise were maintained in both groups. Actuarial survival in both groups was similar (p = 0.406) with a 1-year survival of 95% for lobectomy and 92% for segmentectomy. Four-year survivals were 67% and 62%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer, segmental resection offers preservation of pulmonary function compared with lobectomy and does not compromise survival. Segmentectomy should be considered whenever permitted by anatomic location.