非小细胞肺癌患者叶状切除与叶下切除术后的长期疗效:系统回顾和个体患者数据元分析

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Panagiotis Tasoudis , Georgios Loufopoulos , Vasiliki Manaki , Mitchell Doerr , Chris B. Agala , Jason M. Long , Benjamin E. Haithcock
{"title":"非小细胞肺癌患者叶状切除与叶下切除术后的长期疗效:系统回顾和个体患者数据元分析","authors":"Panagiotis Tasoudis ,&nbsp;Georgios Loufopoulos ,&nbsp;Vasiliki Manaki ,&nbsp;Mitchell Doerr ,&nbsp;Chris B. Agala ,&nbsp;Jason M. Long ,&nbsp;Benjamin E. Haithcock","doi":"10.1016/j.lungcan.2024.107929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Surgical resection remains the primary treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with lobectomy considered the standard approach. However, recent evidence suggests that sublobar resection may be an alternative option for select patients.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>A systematic review and <em>meta</em>-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) cohort studies comparing lobectomy and sublobar resection in NSCLC patients were included. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes included disease-free survival (DFS), 30-day mortality, and cancer recurrence rates. Individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves, and one-stage and two-stage <em>meta</em>-analyses were performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 18 studies involving 6,075 NSCLC patients (3,119 undergoing lobectomy, 2,956 undergoing sublobar resection) were included. Lobectomy was associated with significantly better OS compared to sublobar resection (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.68–0.89, p &lt; 0.001). However, when sublobar resection was further divided into segmentectomy and wedge resection, no significant difference in OS was observed between lobectomy and segmentectomy (HR:0.92, 95 %CI: 0.75–1.14, p = 0.464) whereas lobar resection was associated with better OS compared to wedge resection (HR:0.52, 95 %CI: 0.41–0.67, p &lt; 0.001). DFS outcomes were similar between lobectomy and sublobar resection (HR:0.98, 95 %CI: 0.84–1.14, p = 0.778).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Lobectomy is associated with better overall survival compared to sublobar resection in NSCLC patients. However, when sublobar resection is subdivided, segmentectomy shows comparable outcomes to lobectomy, while wedge resection is inferior. These findings support the consideration of segmentectomy as the surgical option of choice for Stage IA NSCLC patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":18129,"journal":{"name":"Lung Cancer","volume":"195 ","pages":"Article 107929"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long term outcomes after lobar versus sublobar resection for patients with Non-Small cell lung Cancer: Systematic review and individual patient data Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Panagiotis Tasoudis ,&nbsp;Georgios Loufopoulos ,&nbsp;Vasiliki Manaki ,&nbsp;Mitchell Doerr ,&nbsp;Chris B. Agala ,&nbsp;Jason M. Long ,&nbsp;Benjamin E. Haithcock\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.lungcan.2024.107929\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Surgical resection remains the primary treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with lobectomy considered the standard approach. However, recent evidence suggests that sublobar resection may be an alternative option for select patients.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>A systematic review and <em>meta</em>-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) cohort studies comparing lobectomy and sublobar resection in NSCLC patients were included. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes included disease-free survival (DFS), 30-day mortality, and cancer recurrence rates. Individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves, and one-stage and two-stage <em>meta</em>-analyses were performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 18 studies involving 6,075 NSCLC patients (3,119 undergoing lobectomy, 2,956 undergoing sublobar resection) were included. Lobectomy was associated with significantly better OS compared to sublobar resection (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.68–0.89, p &lt; 0.001). However, when sublobar resection was further divided into segmentectomy and wedge resection, no significant difference in OS was observed between lobectomy and segmentectomy (HR:0.92, 95 %CI: 0.75–1.14, p = 0.464) whereas lobar resection was associated with better OS compared to wedge resection (HR:0.52, 95 %CI: 0.41–0.67, p &lt; 0.001). DFS outcomes were similar between lobectomy and sublobar resection (HR:0.98, 95 %CI: 0.84–1.14, p = 0.778).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Lobectomy is associated with better overall survival compared to sublobar resection in NSCLC patients. However, when sublobar resection is subdivided, segmentectomy shows comparable outcomes to lobectomy, while wedge resection is inferior. These findings support the consideration of segmentectomy as the surgical option of choice for Stage IA NSCLC patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lung Cancer\",\"volume\":\"195 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107929\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lung Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016950022400463X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lung Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016950022400463X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的手术切除仍是早期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的主要治疗方法,肺叶切除术被认为是标准方法。然而,最近的证据表明,肺叶下切除术可能是部分患者的另一种选择。材料与方法按照PRISMA指南进行了系统综述和荟萃分析。研究纳入了比较 NSCLC 患者肺叶切除术和叶下切除术的随机对照试验 (RCT) 和倾向分数匹配 (PSM) 队列研究。主要结果是总生存期(OS),次要结果包括无病生存期(DFS)、30 天死亡率和癌症复发率。根据 Kaplan-Meier 曲线重建了患者个体数据(IPD),并进行了单阶段和双阶段荟萃分析。与球下切除术相比,肺叶切除术的OS明显更好(危险比 [HR]:0.78,95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.68-0.89,p < 0.001)。然而,如果将肺叶下切除术进一步分为分段切除术和楔形切除术,则观察到肺叶切除术和分段切除术的 OS 无显著差异(HR:0.92,95 %CI:0.75-1.14,p = 0.464),而肺叶切除术与楔形切除术相比具有更好的 OS(HR:0.52,95 %CI:0.41-0.67,p <0.001)。肺叶切除术和肺叶下切除术的 DFS 结果相似(HR:0.98,95 %CI:0.84-1.14,p = 0.778)。然而,如果对肺叶下切除术进行细分,分段切除术的疗效与肺叶切除术相当,而楔形切除术则较差。这些研究结果支持将分段切除术作为IA期NSCLC患者的首选手术方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Long term outcomes after lobar versus sublobar resection for patients with Non-Small cell lung Cancer: Systematic review and individual patient data Meta-Analysis

Long term outcomes after lobar versus sublobar resection for patients with Non-Small cell lung Cancer: Systematic review and individual patient data Meta-Analysis

Objectives

Surgical resection remains the primary treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with lobectomy considered the standard approach. However, recent evidence suggests that sublobar resection may be an alternative option for select patients.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) cohort studies comparing lobectomy and sublobar resection in NSCLC patients were included. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes included disease-free survival (DFS), 30-day mortality, and cancer recurrence rates. Individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves, and one-stage and two-stage meta-analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 18 studies involving 6,075 NSCLC patients (3,119 undergoing lobectomy, 2,956 undergoing sublobar resection) were included. Lobectomy was associated with significantly better OS compared to sublobar resection (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.68–0.89, p < 0.001). However, when sublobar resection was further divided into segmentectomy and wedge resection, no significant difference in OS was observed between lobectomy and segmentectomy (HR:0.92, 95 %CI: 0.75–1.14, p = 0.464) whereas lobar resection was associated with better OS compared to wedge resection (HR:0.52, 95 %CI: 0.41–0.67, p < 0.001). DFS outcomes were similar between lobectomy and sublobar resection (HR:0.98, 95 %CI: 0.84–1.14, p = 0.778).

Conclusion

Lobectomy is associated with better overall survival compared to sublobar resection in NSCLC patients. However, when sublobar resection is subdivided, segmentectomy shows comparable outcomes to lobectomy, while wedge resection is inferior. These findings support the consideration of segmentectomy as the surgical option of choice for Stage IA NSCLC patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lung Cancer
Lung Cancer 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
407
审稿时长
25 days
期刊介绍: Lung Cancer is an international publication covering the clinical, translational and basic science of malignancies of the lung and chest region.Original research articles, early reports, review articles, editorials and correspondence covering the prevention, epidemiology and etiology, basic biology, pathology, clinical assessment, surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combined treatment modalities, other treatment modalities and outcomes of lung cancer are welcome.
×
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