The Clinical Outcomes of Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lobectomy for Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Jinlin Cao , Chong Zhang , Xun Zhang , Lunxu Liu , Xiaofei Li , Jianxing He , Lin Xu , Xiangning Fu , Yang Liu , Deruo Liu , Jian Hu , Luming Wang
{"title":"The Clinical Outcomes of Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lobectomy for Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study","authors":"Jinlin Cao ,&nbsp;Chong Zhang ,&nbsp;Xun Zhang ,&nbsp;Lunxu Liu ,&nbsp;Xiaofei Li ,&nbsp;Jianxing He ,&nbsp;Lin Xu ,&nbsp;Xiangning Fu ,&nbsp;Yang Liu ,&nbsp;Deruo Liu ,&nbsp;Jian Hu ,&nbsp;Luming Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.cllc.2023.12.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The safety and efficacy of video-assisted thoracic surgical (VATS) versus open lobectomy for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following neoadjuvant therapy remained controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of VATS with those of open lobectomy for NSCLC after neoadjuvant therapy.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients who had undergone VATS or open lobectomy for NSCLC following neoadjuvant therapy in nine hospitals in China from July 2014 to July 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical characteristics and overall survival (OS) of patients were analyzed using Cox regression models and propensity score matching.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 685 patients, 436 (63.6%) who had undergone VATS lobectomy and 249 (36.4%) who had undergone open lobectomy. Patients who had undergone VATS lobectomy tended to have had fewer nodes removed than those who had undergone open lobectomy. However, compared with open group, the VATS group had a better perioperative outcome, such as smaller blood loss volumes and shorter postoperative stays. The groups had a similar operation durations and postoperative complications, and there was a nonsignificant difference between their 30-day mortality rates. After propensity score matching, there was no significant different between the OS of the groups, and only postoperative adjuvant therapy was associated with worse OS.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This multi-center analysis of patients with NSCLC who had undergone surgery subsequent to neoadjuvant therapy reveals that VATS lobectomy tended to have a better perioperative outcome, and have a similar OS compared to open lobectomy. These findings suggest that VATS lobectomy is appropriate for NSCLC following neoadjuvant therapy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525730423002632","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The safety and efficacy of video-assisted thoracic surgical (VATS) versus open lobectomy for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following neoadjuvant therapy remained controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of VATS with those of open lobectomy for NSCLC after neoadjuvant therapy.

Methods

Patients who had undergone VATS or open lobectomy for NSCLC following neoadjuvant therapy in nine hospitals in China from July 2014 to July 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical characteristics and overall survival (OS) of patients were analyzed using Cox regression models and propensity score matching.

Results

We identified 685 patients, 436 (63.6%) who had undergone VATS lobectomy and 249 (36.4%) who had undergone open lobectomy. Patients who had undergone VATS lobectomy tended to have had fewer nodes removed than those who had undergone open lobectomy. However, compared with open group, the VATS group had a better perioperative outcome, such as smaller blood loss volumes and shorter postoperative stays. The groups had a similar operation durations and postoperative complications, and there was a nonsignificant difference between their 30-day mortality rates. After propensity score matching, there was no significant different between the OS of the groups, and only postoperative adjuvant therapy was associated with worse OS.

Conclusion

This multi-center analysis of patients with NSCLC who had undergone surgery subsequent to neoadjuvant therapy reveals that VATS lobectomy tended to have a better perioperative outcome, and have a similar OS compared to open lobectomy. These findings suggest that VATS lobectomy is appropriate for NSCLC following neoadjuvant therapy.

新辅助治疗后胸腔镜与开胸肺叶切除术治疗非小细胞肺癌的临床效果:多中心回顾性队列研究
背景视频辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)与开腹肺叶切除术治疗新辅助治疗后的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的安全性和有效性仍存在争议。本研究旨在比较新辅助治疗后VATS与开胸肺叶切除术治疗NSCLC的疗效。方法回顾性分析2014年7月至2020年7月在中国9家医院接受新辅助治疗后VATS或开胸肺叶切除术治疗NSCLC的患者。结果 我们共发现了685名患者,其中436人(63.6%)接受了VATS肺叶切除术,249人(36.4%)接受了开放肺叶切除术。与开放式肺叶切除术相比,接受 VATS 肺叶切除术的患者切除的结节往往较少。不过,与开腹组相比,VATS 组的围手术期效果更好,如失血量更少、术后住院时间更短。两组的手术时间和术后并发症相似,30 天死亡率差异不显著。结论这项多中心分析显示,与开放式肺叶切除术相比,VATS肺叶切除术的围手术期疗效更好,而OS则相似。这些研究结果表明,VATS肺叶切除术适用于新辅助治疗后的NSCLC。微摘要视频辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)与开腹肺叶切除术治疗新辅助治疗后的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的安全性和有效性仍存在争议。这项对新辅助治疗后接受手术的NSCLC患者进行的多中心分析表明,VATS肺叶切除术的围手术期疗效更好,总生存期与开胸肺叶切除术相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信