对于病理分期为 IA 期(≤2 厘米)的非小细胞肺癌,楔形切除术是否等同于分段切除术?

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Thoracic Cancer Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1111/1759-7714.15377
Zhirong Zhang, Feng Li, Shuo Chen, Bin Hu
{"title":"对于病理分期为 IA 期(≤2 厘米)的非小细胞肺癌,楔形切除术是否等同于分段切除术?","authors":"Zhirong Zhang, Feng Li, Shuo Chen, Bin Hu","doi":"10.1111/1759-7714.15377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sublobar resection (wedge resection and segmentectomy) has been established as an oncologically equivalent option to lobectomy for early-stage patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ≤ 2 cm. However, the optimal approach of sublobar resection remains subject to debate. In the present study we aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of wedge resection and segmentectomy in these patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified patients with pT1a-bN0M0 NSCLC who underwent wedge resection and segmentectomy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 2010 and 2020. A Cox regression model and propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis were used. Overall survival (OS) and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4190 patients met our selection criteria, including wedge resection in 3137 and segmentectomy in 1053. Patients undergoing wedge resection were less likely to have total lymph nodes resected (4 vs. 7, p < 0.001). Before PSM, patients undergoing segmentectomy had a higher 5-year OS rate (87.75% vs. 82.72%; p = 0.0023), while exhibiting a similar LCSS rate (93.45% vs. 92.73%; p = 0.32). After PSM, segmentectomy consistently demonstrated significantly better OS and there was no statistically significant difference in LCSS. Analysis of causes of death revealed that a higher incidence of deaths related to other causes among patients undergoing wedge resection compared to those undergoing segmentectomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both wedge resection and segmentectomy yield comparable oncological outcomes for patients with NSCLC ≤ 2 cm, although segmentectomy exhibits superior OS due to less death related to other causes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23338,"journal":{"name":"Thoracic Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11246781/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is wedge resection equivalent to segmentectomy in pathological stage IA (≤2 cm) non-small cell lung cancers?\",\"authors\":\"Zhirong Zhang, Feng Li, Shuo Chen, Bin Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1759-7714.15377\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sublobar resection (wedge resection and segmentectomy) has been established as an oncologically equivalent option to lobectomy for early-stage patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ≤ 2 cm. However, the optimal approach of sublobar resection remains subject to debate. In the present study we aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of wedge resection and segmentectomy in these patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified patients with pT1a-bN0M0 NSCLC who underwent wedge resection and segmentectomy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 2010 and 2020. A Cox regression model and propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis were used. Overall survival (OS) and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4190 patients met our selection criteria, including wedge resection in 3137 and segmentectomy in 1053. Patients undergoing wedge resection were less likely to have total lymph nodes resected (4 vs. 7, p < 0.001). Before PSM, patients undergoing segmentectomy had a higher 5-year OS rate (87.75% vs. 82.72%; p = 0.0023), while exhibiting a similar LCSS rate (93.45% vs. 92.73%; p = 0.32). After PSM, segmentectomy consistently demonstrated significantly better OS and there was no statistically significant difference in LCSS. Analysis of causes of death revealed that a higher incidence of deaths related to other causes among patients undergoing wedge resection compared to those undergoing segmentectomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both wedge resection and segmentectomy yield comparable oncological outcomes for patients with NSCLC ≤ 2 cm, although segmentectomy exhibits superior OS due to less death related to other causes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thoracic Cancer\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11246781/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thoracic Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.15377\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thoracic Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.15377","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对于≤2厘米的早期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者,肺叶下切除术(楔形切除术和肺段切除术)在肿瘤学上与肺叶切除术具有同等疗效。然而,叶下切除术的最佳方法仍存在争议。本研究旨在比较楔形切除术和分段切除术对这些患者的肿瘤治疗效果:我们从 "监测、流行病学和最终结果 "数据库中确定了2010年至2020年间接受楔形切除术和分段切除术的pT1a-bN0M0 NSCLC患者。研究采用了 Cox 回归模型和倾向分数匹配 (PSM) 分析。采用卡普兰-梅耶法比较了总生存期(OS)和肺癌特异性生存期(LCSS):共有 4190 例患者符合我们的选择标准,其中楔形切除术 3137 例,肺段切除术 1053 例。接受楔形切除术的患者总淋巴结被切除的几率较低(4 对 7,P 结论:楔形切除术和分段切除术均可使患者的淋巴结被切除:对于≤2厘米的NSCLC患者来说,楔形切除术和分段切除术的肿瘤治疗效果相当,但分段切除术由于与其他原因相关的死亡较少而显示出更优越的OS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Is wedge resection equivalent to segmentectomy in pathological stage IA (≤2 cm) non-small cell lung cancers?

Background: Sublobar resection (wedge resection and segmentectomy) has been established as an oncologically equivalent option to lobectomy for early-stage patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ≤ 2 cm. However, the optimal approach of sublobar resection remains subject to debate. In the present study we aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of wedge resection and segmentectomy in these patients.

Methods: We identified patients with pT1a-bN0M0 NSCLC who underwent wedge resection and segmentectomy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 2010 and 2020. A Cox regression model and propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis were used. Overall survival (OS) and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: A total of 4190 patients met our selection criteria, including wedge resection in 3137 and segmentectomy in 1053. Patients undergoing wedge resection were less likely to have total lymph nodes resected (4 vs. 7, p < 0.001). Before PSM, patients undergoing segmentectomy had a higher 5-year OS rate (87.75% vs. 82.72%; p = 0.0023), while exhibiting a similar LCSS rate (93.45% vs. 92.73%; p = 0.32). After PSM, segmentectomy consistently demonstrated significantly better OS and there was no statistically significant difference in LCSS. Analysis of causes of death revealed that a higher incidence of deaths related to other causes among patients undergoing wedge resection compared to those undergoing segmentectomy.

Conclusions: Both wedge resection and segmentectomy yield comparable oncological outcomes for patients with NSCLC ≤ 2 cm, although segmentectomy exhibits superior OS due to less death related to other causes.

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
Thoracic Cancer
Thoracic Cancer ONCOLOGY-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
439
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Thoracic Cancer aims to facilitate international collaboration and exchange of comprehensive and cutting-edge information on basic, translational, and applied clinical research in lung cancer, esophageal cancer, mediastinal cancer, breast cancer and other thoracic malignancies. Prevention, treatment and research relevant to Asia-Pacific is a focus area, but submissions from all regions are welcomed. The editors encourage contributions relevant to prevention, general thoracic surgery, medical oncology, radiology, radiation medicine, pathology, basic cancer research, as well as epidemiological and translational studies in thoracic cancer. Thoracic Cancer is the official publication of the Chinese Society of Lung Cancer, International Chinese Society of Thoracic Surgery and is endorsed by the Korean Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and the Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society. The Journal publishes a range of article types including: Editorials, Invited Reviews, Mini Reviews, Original Articles, Clinical Guidelines, Technological Notes, Imaging in thoracic cancer, Meeting Reports, Case Reports, Letters to the Editor, Commentaries, and Brief Reports.
期刊最新文献
USP22 promotes gefitinib resistance and inhibits ferroptosis in non-small cell lung cancer by deubiquitination of MDM2. Impact of sarcopenia on the prognosis of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with antiangiogenic therapy: A propensity score matching analysis. Application of machine learning for the differentiation of thymomas and thymic cysts using deep transfer learning: A multi-center comparison of diagnostic performance based on different dimensional models. Clinical factors associated with high PD-L1 expression in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. miR‐30c‐5p inhibits esophageal squamous cell carcinoma progression by repressing the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway
×
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:481959085
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