双侧纵隔淋巴结切除术与I期非小细胞肺癌患者行肺切除术的潜在生存优势相关。

IF 3.2 Q2 ONCOLOGY
JCO Global Oncology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-08 DOI:10.1200/GO.24.00219
Wei-Dong Wang, Gong-Ming Wang, Hong-Xu Sheng, Yu-Tong Hong, Dechang Zhao, Jian Hu, Lan-Jun Zhang
{"title":"双侧纵隔淋巴结切除术与I期非小细胞肺癌患者行肺切除术的潜在生存优势相关。","authors":"Wei-Dong Wang, Gong-Ming Wang, Hong-Xu Sheng, Yu-Tong Hong, Dechang Zhao, Jian Hu, Lan-Jun Zhang","doi":"10.1200/GO.24.00219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The optimal lymphadenectomy approach for solid-dominant stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial. We compared postlobectomy survival outcomes to elucidate.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients diagnosed with solid-dominant stage I NSCLC between 2008 and 2015 were included and grouped according to the mode of lymphadenectomy. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared, and survival analysis was performed among the groups. Cox analysis was used to identify independent prognostic factors. Nomograms for survival prediction on the basis of the lymphadenectomy mode were constructed and internally calibrated. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for potential confounders. Subgroup comparisons between bilateral mediastinal lymphadenectomy (BML), systematic nodal dissection (SND), lobe-specific nodal dissection (L-SND), and selected nodal sampling (SNS) were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 983 patients were included. The 5-year OS rates were 98.2%, 86.9%, 86.4%, and 82.8% (<i>P</i> = .006), and the 5-year DFS rates were 87.1%, 76.4%, 69.5%, and 70.9% (<i>P</i> = .008) in the BML, SND, L-SND, and SNS groups, respectively. Given PSM, patients who underwent BML had longer OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.358 [95% CI, 0.127 to 1.008]; <i>P</i> = .052) and DFS (HR, 0.563 [95% CI, 0.295 to 1.074]; <i>P</i> = .081) than patients who underwent SND with marginal significance. Compared with L-SND and SNS, BML was associated with significantly improved OS (HR, 0.343 [95% CI, 0.123 to 0.958]; <i>P</i> = .041 and HR, 0.250 [95% CI, 0.088 to 0.709]; <i>P</i> = .009, respectively) and DFS (HR, 0.474 [95% CI, 0.258 to 0.868]; <i>P</i> = .016 and HR, 0.467 [95% CI, 0.232 to 0.938]; <i>P</i> = .032, respectively). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that in male patients and those whose tumors were larger or more advanced, BML was associated with significantly better OS and DFS than other types of lymphadenectomies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BML may be associated with improved survival in patients with solid-dominant stage I NSCLC, and BML is recommended for such patients, especially those with large tumors or more advanced disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":14806,"journal":{"name":"JCO Global Oncology","volume":"11 ","pages":"e2400219"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bilateral Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy Is Associated With Potential Survival Advantages in Patients With Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Undergo Lung Resection.\",\"authors\":\"Wei-Dong Wang, Gong-Ming Wang, Hong-Xu Sheng, Yu-Tong Hong, Dechang Zhao, Jian Hu, Lan-Jun Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/GO.24.00219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The optimal lymphadenectomy approach for solid-dominant stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial. We compared postlobectomy survival outcomes to elucidate.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients diagnosed with solid-dominant stage I NSCLC between 2008 and 2015 were included and grouped according to the mode of lymphadenectomy. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared, and survival analysis was performed among the groups. Cox analysis was used to identify independent prognostic factors. Nomograms for survival prediction on the basis of the lymphadenectomy mode were constructed and internally calibrated. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for potential confounders. Subgroup comparisons between bilateral mediastinal lymphadenectomy (BML), systematic nodal dissection (SND), lobe-specific nodal dissection (L-SND), and selected nodal sampling (SNS) were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 983 patients were included. The 5-year OS rates were 98.2%, 86.9%, 86.4%, and 82.8% (<i>P</i> = .006), and the 5-year DFS rates were 87.1%, 76.4%, 69.5%, and 70.9% (<i>P</i> = .008) in the BML, SND, L-SND, and SNS groups, respectively. Given PSM, patients who underwent BML had longer OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.358 [95% CI, 0.127 to 1.008]; <i>P</i> = .052) and DFS (HR, 0.563 [95% CI, 0.295 to 1.074]; <i>P</i> = .081) than patients who underwent SND with marginal significance. Compared with L-SND and SNS, BML was associated with significantly improved OS (HR, 0.343 [95% CI, 0.123 to 0.958]; <i>P</i> = .041 and HR, 0.250 [95% CI, 0.088 to 0.709]; <i>P</i> = .009, respectively) and DFS (HR, 0.474 [95% CI, 0.258 to 0.868]; <i>P</i> = .016 and HR, 0.467 [95% CI, 0.232 to 0.938]; <i>P</i> = .032, respectively). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that in male patients and those whose tumors were larger or more advanced, BML was associated with significantly better OS and DFS than other types of lymphadenectomies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BML may be associated with improved survival in patients with solid-dominant stage I NSCLC, and BML is recommended for such patients, especially those with large tumors or more advanced disease.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO Global Oncology\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"e2400219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO Global Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.24.00219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO Global Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.24.00219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:固体显性I期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的最佳淋巴结切除术方法存在争议。我们比较了肺叶切除术后的生存结果来阐明。材料与方法:纳入2008 - 2015年间确诊为固体显性I期NSCLC患者,根据淋巴结切除术方式进行分组。比较各组无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS),并进行生存分析。采用Cox分析确定独立预后因素。构建基于淋巴结切除模式的生存预测图并进行内部校准。倾向评分匹配(PSM)用于解释潜在的混杂因素。双侧纵隔淋巴结切除术(BML)、系统性淋巴结清扫(SND)、肺叶特异性淋巴结清扫(L-SND)和选择性淋巴结取样(SNS)的亚组比较。结果:共纳入983例患者。BML组、SND组、L-SND组和SNS组5年OS分别为98.2%、86.9%、86.4%和82.8% (P = 0.006), 5年DFS分别为87.1%、76.4%、69.5%和70.9% (P = 0.008)。给予PSM,接受BML的患者有更长的OS(风险比[HR], 0.358 [95% CI, 0.127 ~ 1.008];P = 0.052)和DFS (HR, 0.563 [95% CI, 0.295 ~ 1.074];P = 0.081)与SND患者相比,差异有边际意义。与L-SND和SNS相比,BML与OS显著改善相关(HR, 0.343 [95% CI, 0.123 ~ 0.958];P = 0.041, HR为0.250 [95% CI, 0.088 ~ 0.709];P = 0.009)和DFS (HR, 0.474 [95% CI, 0.258 ~ 0.868];P = 0.016, HR 0.467 [95% CI, 0.232 ~ 0.938];P = 0.032)。亚组分析表明,在男性患者和肿瘤较大或更晚期的患者中,BML与其他类型的淋巴结切除术相比,具有明显更好的OS和DFS。结论:BML可能与固体显性I期非小细胞肺癌患者的生存率提高有关,BML被推荐用于这类患者,特别是那些肿瘤较大或疾病更晚期的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bilateral Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy Is Associated With Potential Survival Advantages in Patients With Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Undergo Lung Resection.

Purpose: The optimal lymphadenectomy approach for solid-dominant stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial. We compared postlobectomy survival outcomes to elucidate.

Materials and methods: Patients diagnosed with solid-dominant stage I NSCLC between 2008 and 2015 were included and grouped according to the mode of lymphadenectomy. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared, and survival analysis was performed among the groups. Cox analysis was used to identify independent prognostic factors. Nomograms for survival prediction on the basis of the lymphadenectomy mode were constructed and internally calibrated. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for potential confounders. Subgroup comparisons between bilateral mediastinal lymphadenectomy (BML), systematic nodal dissection (SND), lobe-specific nodal dissection (L-SND), and selected nodal sampling (SNS) were conducted.

Results: In total, 983 patients were included. The 5-year OS rates were 98.2%, 86.9%, 86.4%, and 82.8% (P = .006), and the 5-year DFS rates were 87.1%, 76.4%, 69.5%, and 70.9% (P = .008) in the BML, SND, L-SND, and SNS groups, respectively. Given PSM, patients who underwent BML had longer OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.358 [95% CI, 0.127 to 1.008]; P = .052) and DFS (HR, 0.563 [95% CI, 0.295 to 1.074]; P = .081) than patients who underwent SND with marginal significance. Compared with L-SND and SNS, BML was associated with significantly improved OS (HR, 0.343 [95% CI, 0.123 to 0.958]; P = .041 and HR, 0.250 [95% CI, 0.088 to 0.709]; P = .009, respectively) and DFS (HR, 0.474 [95% CI, 0.258 to 0.868]; P = .016 and HR, 0.467 [95% CI, 0.232 to 0.938]; P = .032, respectively). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that in male patients and those whose tumors were larger or more advanced, BML was associated with significantly better OS and DFS than other types of lymphadenectomies.

Conclusion: BML may be associated with improved survival in patients with solid-dominant stage I NSCLC, and BML is recommended for such patients, especially those with large tumors or more advanced disease.

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
JCO Global Oncology
JCO Global Oncology Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
310
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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