So Now We Know-Reflections on the Extent of Resection for Stage I Lung Cancer
Lobectomy has been the standard treatment for stage I lung cancer in healthy patients, largely based on a randomized trial published in 1995. Nevertheless, research has continued regarding the role of sublobar resection. Three additional randomized trials addressing resection extent in healthy patie...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Clinical lung cancer Vol. 25; no. 3; pp. e113 - e123 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
01-05-2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Lobectomy has been the standard treatment for stage I lung cancer in healthy patients, largely based on a randomized trial published in 1995. Nevertheless, research has continued regarding the role of sublobar resection. Three additional randomized trials addressing resection extent in healthy patients have recently been published. These 4 trials involve differences in design, eligibility, interventions, and intraoperative processes. Patients were ineligible if intraoperative assessment demonstrated stage > IA or inadequate resection margins. All trials consistently show no differences in perioperative morbidity, mortality, and postoperative changes in lung function between sublobar resection and lobectomy-consistent with other nonrandomized evidence. Long-term outcomes are generally encouraging of lesser resection, but some inconsistencies are apparent. The 2 larger recent trials demonstrated no overall survival difference while the others suggested better survival after lobectomy versus sublobar resection. Recurrence-free survival was found to be the same after lobectomy versus sublobar resection in 3 trials, despite higher locoregional recurrences after sublobar resection. The low 5-year recurrence-free survival (64%, regardless of resection extent) in 1 recent trial highlights the need for further optimization. Thus, there is high-level evidence that sublobar resection is a reasonable alternative to lobectomy in healthy patients. However, variability in long-term results suggests that aspects of patients, tumors and interventions need to be better understood. Therefore, we propose to apply sublobar resection cautiously; especially because there are no short-term benefits. Sublobar resection requires careful attention to intraoperative details (nodes, margins), and may be best suited for less aggressive (eg, ground glass, slow growing) tumors. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Review-1 |
| ISSN: | 1525-7304 1938-0690 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.cllc.2023.12.007 |