Lobectomy plus lobe-specific lymphadenectomy as the minimum standards of curative resection for hypermetabolic clinical stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Translational lung cancer research Pub Date : 2025-01-24 Epub Date: 2025-01-22 DOI:10.21037/tlcr-24-804
Runze Li, Zhifei Li, Peng Li, Jianchuan Chen, Bin Qiu, Fengwei Tan, Qi Xue, Shugeng Gao, Jie He
{"title":"Lobectomy plus lobe-specific lymphadenectomy as the minimum standards of curative resection for hypermetabolic clinical stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.","authors":"Runze Li, Zhifei Li, Peng Li, Jianchuan Chen, Bin Qiu, Fengwei Tan, Qi Xue, Shugeng Gao, Jie He","doi":"10.21037/tlcr-24-804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The results of three modern randomized controlled trials have proved sublobar resection as an effective procedure for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) up to 2 cm. We aimed to examine whether sublobar resection is oncologically feasible and what constitutes adequate lymph node assessment for hypermetabolic clinical stage IA (cIA) NSCLC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective study was conducted in 589 patients who underwent lobectomy (n=526) or sublobar resection (n=63) for hypermetabolic cIA NSCLC [maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) ≥2.6 g/dL]. The primary outcomes (lung cancer-specific death and tumor recurrence) were compared in a competing risks framework for all patients and the propensity score matched pairs. Random forests were used to examine the variable importance for lung cancer-specific survival and tumor recurrence. Factors affecting pathological upstaging and recurrence-free survival were assessed by logistic regression analysis and Cox regression analysis, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sublobar resection had significantly higher lung cancer-specific cumulative incidence of death (LC-CID) and cumulative incidence of recurrence (CIR) than lobectomy after matching (5-year LC-CID, 20.8% <i>vs</i>. 6.5%, P<0.001; 5-year CIR, 37.9% <i>vs</i>. 14.8%, P<0.001). Wedge resection was an independent risk factor for both lung-cancer specific death [hazard ratio (HR) =4.17; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.07-8.36; P<0.001] and recurrence (HR =3.48; 95% CI: 1.91-6.33; P<0.001). Lymphadenectomy that failed to meet the lobe-specific nodal dissection (LSND) criteria correlated with decreased odds of pathological nodal upstaging [odds ratio (OR) =0.55; 95% CI: 0.34-0.87; P=0.01]. While patients with LSND had lower LC-CIR and CIR, there was no additional prognostic benefit of systemic nodal dissection (SND) over LSND.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lobectomy was oncologically superior to sublobar resection as a curative-intent procedure for hypermetabolic cIA NSCLC. Lobectomy plus lobe-specific lymphadenectomy should be considered as the minimum standards of curative resection for hypermetabolic early-stage NSCLC in order to achieve more accurate pathological N staging and better cancer control.</p>","PeriodicalId":23271,"journal":{"name":"Translational lung cancer research","volume":"14 1","pages":"14-26"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11826270/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational lung cancer research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-24-804","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The results of three modern randomized controlled trials have proved sublobar resection as an effective procedure for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) up to 2 cm. We aimed to examine whether sublobar resection is oncologically feasible and what constitutes adequate lymph node assessment for hypermetabolic clinical stage IA (cIA) NSCLC.

Methods: A single-center retrospective study was conducted in 589 patients who underwent lobectomy (n=526) or sublobar resection (n=63) for hypermetabolic cIA NSCLC [maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) ≥2.6 g/dL]. The primary outcomes (lung cancer-specific death and tumor recurrence) were compared in a competing risks framework for all patients and the propensity score matched pairs. Random forests were used to examine the variable importance for lung cancer-specific survival and tumor recurrence. Factors affecting pathological upstaging and recurrence-free survival were assessed by logistic regression analysis and Cox regression analysis, respectively.

Results: Sublobar resection had significantly higher lung cancer-specific cumulative incidence of death (LC-CID) and cumulative incidence of recurrence (CIR) than lobectomy after matching (5-year LC-CID, 20.8% vs. 6.5%, P<0.001; 5-year CIR, 37.9% vs. 14.8%, P<0.001). Wedge resection was an independent risk factor for both lung-cancer specific death [hazard ratio (HR) =4.17; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.07-8.36; P<0.001] and recurrence (HR =3.48; 95% CI: 1.91-6.33; P<0.001). Lymphadenectomy that failed to meet the lobe-specific nodal dissection (LSND) criteria correlated with decreased odds of pathological nodal upstaging [odds ratio (OR) =0.55; 95% CI: 0.34-0.87; P=0.01]. While patients with LSND had lower LC-CIR and CIR, there was no additional prognostic benefit of systemic nodal dissection (SND) over LSND.

Conclusions: Lobectomy was oncologically superior to sublobar resection as a curative-intent procedure for hypermetabolic cIA NSCLC. Lobectomy plus lobe-specific lymphadenectomy should be considered as the minimum standards of curative resection for hypermetabolic early-stage NSCLC in order to achieve more accurate pathological N staging and better cancer control.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肺叶切除术加肺叶特异性淋巴结切除术作为高代谢临床IA期非小细胞肺癌根治性切除的最低标准。
背景:三个现代随机对照试验的结果证明,叶下切除术是治疗2厘米以下早期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的有效方法。我们的目的是研究叶下切除术在肿瘤学上是否可行,以及如何对高代谢临床期IA (cIA) NSCLC进行充分的淋巴结评估。方法:对589例接受高代谢cIA NSCLC(最大标准化摄取值(SUVmax)≥2.6 g/dL)肺叶切除术(n=526)或叶下切除术(n=63)的患者进行单中心回顾性研究。在竞争风险框架中比较所有患者的主要结局(肺癌特异性死亡和肿瘤复发)和倾向评分匹配对。随机森林用于检验肺癌特异性生存和肿瘤复发的可变重要性。分别采用logistic回归分析和Cox回归分析评估影响病理性分期和无复发生存的因素。结果:肺叶下切除术的肺癌特异性累积死亡率(LC-CID)和累积复发率(CIR)明显高于匹配后的肺叶切除术(5年LC-CID, 20.8% vs. 6.5%, Pvs. 14.8%, p)。结论:肺叶切除术在肿瘤学上优于肺叶下切除术,是治疗高代谢cIA非小细胞肺癌的目的手术。为了获得更准确的病理N分期和更好的肿瘤控制,应考虑将肺叶切除术加肺叶特异性淋巴结切除术作为高代谢早期NSCLC根治性切除术的最低标准。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.50%
发文量
137
期刊介绍: Translational Lung Cancer Research(TLCR, Transl Lung Cancer Res, Print ISSN 2218-6751; Online ISSN 2226-4477) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal, which was founded in March 2012. TLCR is indexed by PubMed/PubMed Central and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Databases. It is published quarterly the first year, and published bimonthly since February 2013. It provides practical up-to-date information on prevention, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer. Specific areas of its interest include, but not limited to, multimodality therapy, markers, imaging, tumor biology, pathology, chemoprevention, and technical advances related to lung cancer.
期刊最新文献
A new therapeutic approach to KRAS mutant non-small cell lung cancer: the emerging role of exportin 1 inhibition. Discovery of a novel ITPR2::KRAS fusion in large cell neuroendocrine lung cancer: a case report. Maintenance therapy for metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: efficacy and biomarker analysis of pemetrexed discontinuation. Convex-probe endobronchial ultrasound-guided cryobiopsy for pleural tumors: three case reports. Analysis of clinical and genomic features in a Chinese cohort with NRG1 variations: a retrospective study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1