OBJECTIVE: 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.
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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

UNASSIGNED: Segmentectomy is the current standard treatment for ground glass opacity (GGO)-featured lung cancer patients with a tumor size ≤2 cm and a consolidation tumor ratio (CTR) between 0.25 and 0.5. However, compared with wedge resection, segmentectomy destroys the patient\'s hilar structure and consumes more lung parenchyma. A recent study demonstrated that wedge resection could yield comparable results for this group of patients.
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to confirm the noninferiority of wedge resection over standard surgery in invasive GGO-featured lung cancer patients with a size ≤2 cm and a CTR between 0.25 and 0.5, as measured by 5-year overall survival (OS). The primary endpoint is 5-year OS. The secondary endpoints are 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), the R0 resection rate, pulmonary function, recurrence and metastasis sites, and adverse events after surgery. During the trial period, 286 patients are enrolled from six Chinese institutions.
UNASSIGNED: The primary results of this study will be actively disseminated through manuscript publications and conference presentations. This prospective study will evaluate the surgical efficacy and safety of wedge resection for small (tumor size ≤2 cm with a CTR between 0.25 and 0.5) invasive GGO-featured lung cancer and will support the standardization of this surgical strategy.
UNASSIGNED: This trial has been registered on ClinicalTrial.gov (No. NCT06102161).

暂无摘要。

Currently, there is no consensus regarding the extent of surgery for stage I pulmonary carcinoid (PC) tumors, which encompass typical carcinoid (TC) and atypical carcinoid (AC) tumors. Sublobar resection includes segmental resection and wedge resection; the former is regarded as a type of anatomical resection that is better suited for tumor treatment. Therefore, it needs to be further verified whether differences exist in the effects of the two surgical methods on the survival time of patients. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used. The primary endpoints were cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) time. Survival differences were analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. There was no significant difference in survival between the sublobar resection and lobectomy groups after PSM in either the TC or AC tumor groups (all p > 0.05). A total of 1680 patients underwent pulmonary wedge resection (TC: n = 1547, AC: n = 133), and 398 patients underwent segmental resection (TC: n = 365, AC: n = 33). After PSM, there were no statistically significant differences in survival, regardless of whether OS or CSS was considered the primary endpoint (OS: p = 0.337; CSS: p = 0.470). Furthermore, segmental resection did not prolong patient survival time compared with wedge resection in different subgroup analyses on the basis of histology, age, and tumor size (all p > 0.05). Finally, the same results were obtained via multivariate Cox analysis (OS: p = 0.153; HR = 1.21; CSS: p = 0.351, HR = 1.32). Sublobar resection could be considered for patients with early-stage typical or atypical pulmonary carcinoid, provided that a rigorous lymph node evaluation is conducted. If the tumor is distant from the pulmonary hilum, either segmentectomy or wedge resection may be performed depending on the specific location of the tumor and the clinical condition of the patient.

OBJECTIVE: Subsegmentectomy has been adopted for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for decades. This study aimed to compare the features between subsegmentectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection for NSCLC.
METHODS: NSCLC patients who underwent subsegmentectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively screened. Demographic, radiomic, and perioperative characteristics between patients were compared. Further, log-rank test, univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used for prognostic evaluation.
RESULTS: There were 276, 670, and 494 patients undergoing subsegmentectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection, respectively. Patients with segmentectomy and subsegmentectomy had larger tumor sizes and greater distances to the pleura than those with wedge resection. Subsegmentectomy and segmentectomy were more likely to achieve adequate surgical margins than wedge resection (82.0 % vs. 79.5 % vs. 64.7 %, P < 0.001), which was especially true for nodules away from the pleura (80.2 % vs. 81.4 % vs. 55.8 %, P < 0.001). In addition, anatomic resection allowed for more lymph node dissection and required less preoperative localization than wedge reception. Subsegmentectomy preserved about two subsegments than segmentectomy (P < 0.001). The incidence of prolonged air leakage after subsegmentectomy (3.3 %) and wedge (1.8 %) was similar (P = 0.308). Notably, 66.8 % of patients who underwent segmentectomy or subsegmentectomy were considered unsuitable for wedge. During the follow-up (55.1 months), no tumor recurrence or death occurred in patients undergoing subsegmentectomy. No significant recurrence-free survival (P = 0.140) or overall survival (P = 0.370) difference existed between these groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Subsegmentectomy could achieve more adequate surgical margins than wedge resection and showed superiority for deep nodules. Compared to segmentectomy, subsegmentectomy could preserve more lung parenchyma.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the survival outcomes after thermal ablation versus wedge resection in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ≤ 2 cm.
METHODS: Data from the United States (US) National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with stage I NSCLC and lesions ≤ 2 cm who received thermal ablation or wedge resection were included. Patients who received chemotherapy or radiotherapy were excluded. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to balance the baseline characteristics between patients who underwent the two procedures.
RESULTS: Univariate and Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the associations between study variables, overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). After PSM, 328 patients remained for analysis. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed, compared to wedge resection, thermal ablation was significantly associated with a greater risk of poor OS (adjusted HR [aHR]: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.09-1.63, p = 0.004) but not CSS (aHR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.96-1.71, p = 0.094). In stratified analyses, no significant differences were observed with respect to OS and CSS between the two procedures regardless of histology and grade. In patients with tumor size 1 to 2 cm, compared to wedge resection, thermal ablation was significantly associated with a higher risk of poor OS (aHR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.10-1.66, p = 0.004). In contrast, no significant difference was found on OS and CSS between thermal ablation and wedge resection among those with tumor size < 1 cm.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage I NSCLC and tumor size < 1 cm, thermal ablation has similar OS and CSS with wedge resection.

OBJECTIVE: Sublobar resection is considered a standard surgical procedure for early non-small cell lung cancer, although the survival of patients undergoing sublobar resection for clinical T1cN0M0 non-small cell lung cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to compare survival between segmentectomy and wedge resection for clinical T1cN0M0 non-small cell lung cancer.
METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who had undergone curative surgery for cT1cN0M0 stage IA3 non-small cell lung cancer. The overall and recurrence-free survival rates of 91 patients who underwent segmentectomy or wedge resection were compared.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine (42.9%) and 52 patients (57.1%) were included in the segmentectomy and wedge resection groups, respectively. The median length of follow-up was 6.0 years (95% confidence interval 4.2 - - years) (Kaplan-Meier estimate). The 5 year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the segmentectomy and wedge resection groups (67.7% vs 52.0%, P = 0.132). The 5 year recurrence-free survival rate was worse in the wedge resection group than in the segmentectomy group (66.6% vs 46.9%, P = 0.047). In univariable analysis, spread through air spaces (hazard ratio, 5.889; 95% confidence interval, 2.357-14.715; P < 0.001) was an important prognostic factor for recurrence-free survival in the wedge resection group.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall survival of patients who underwent segmentectomy for clinical T1cN0M0 non-small cell lung cancer was not significantly different from that of patients who underwent wedge resection. However, patients with cT1cN0M0 non-small cell lung cancer who underwent wedge resection tended to have a worse recurrence-free survival prognosis than those who underwent segmentectomy.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: With further understanding and research into non-small cell lung cancer with tumours ≤2 cm in maximum diameter, segmental lung resection is able to achieve the same long-term prognosis as lobectomy. However, there are few studies on the prognostic effect of wedge resection on small volume invasive lung adenocarcinoma with an invasion depth of 0.5 to 1.0 cm. Therefore, this study focuses on the clinical efficacy and prognosis of wedge resection in patients with small-volume invasive lung adenocarcinoma.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the medical records of 208 patients who underwent surgery in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of the Affiliated Provincial Hospital of Anhui Medical University from February 2016 to December 2017 was made, and the postoperative pathological results confirmed small volume invasive lung adenocarcinoma. According to their surgical methods, they were divided into lobectomy group (n=115), segmentectomy group (n=48) and wedge resection group (n=45). Kaplan-Meier survival curve estimation and Cox proportional risk regression model were used to explore the influence of different surgical methods on the prognosis of patients with small volume invasive lung adenocarcinoma.
RESULTS: The wedge resection group had better perioperative outcomes compared with the segmentectomy group and lobectomy group, with statistically significant differences in intraoperative bleeding (P=0.036), postoperative drainage (P<0.001), operative time (P=0.018), postoperative time with tubes (P=0.001), and postoperative complication rate (P=0.006). There were no significant differences when comparing the three groups in terms of survival rate (lobectomy group vs segmentectomy group, P=0.303; lobectomy group vs wedge resection group, P=0.742; and segmentectomy group vs wedge resection group, P=0.278) and recurrence-free survival rate (lobectomy group vs segmentectomy group, P=0.495; lobectomy group vs wedge resection group, P=0.362; segmentectomy group vs wedge resection group, P=0.775). Univariate and multivariate survival analyses showed that consolidation tumor ratio (CTR) was the prognostic factor of overall survival and revurrence-free survival for patients with small-volume invasive lung adenocarcinoma (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Wedge resection in patients with small volume invasive lung adenocarcinoma can achieve long-term outcomes similar to segmentectomy and lobectomy. When the CTR≤0.5, wedge resection is preferred in such patients.
【中文题目：肺楔形切除术治疗小体积浸润性肺腺癌患者临床疗效分析】 【中文摘要：背景与目的 随着对肿瘤最大径≤2 cm的非小细胞肺癌的进一步认识和研究，肺段切除术能够达到与肺叶切除术相同的远期预后。但是，针对肺楔形切除术对浸润深度在0.5-1.0 cm的小体积浸润性肺腺癌的预后影响的相关研究较少。因此，本研究主要探讨小体积浸润性肺腺癌患者行楔形切除术的临床疗效与预后。方法 回顾性分析2016年2月至2017年12月于安徽医科大学附属省立医院胸外科行手术治疗且术后病理结果证实为小体积浸润性肺腺癌的208例患者病历资料。根据手术方式的不同分为肺叶组（n=115）、肺段组（n=48）和楔形组（n=45）三组，采用Kaplan-Meier生存曲线估计法和Cox比例风险回归模型探讨不同手术方式对小体积浸润性肺腺癌术后患者预后的影响。结果 楔形组与肺段组、肺叶组相比具有更好的围手术期疗效，在术中出血量（P=0.036）、术后引流量（P<0.001）、手术时间（P=0.018）、术后带管时间（P=0.001）、术后并发症发生率（P=0.006）方面差异均有统计学意义。三组患者在生存率（肺叶组 vs 肺段组，P=0.303；肺叶组 vs 楔形组，P=0.742；肺段组 vs 楔形组，P=0.278）和无复发生存率（肺叶组 vs 肺段组，P=0.495；肺叶组 vs 楔形组，P=0.362；肺段组 vs 楔形组，P=0.775）方面无明显差异；单因素及多因素生存分析显示：实性成分占比（consolidation tumor ratio, CTR）是小体积浸润性肺腺癌患者的总生存期和无复发生存期的影响因素（P<0.05）。结论 对于小体积浸润性肺腺癌患者行楔形切除术可以取得与肺段切除术和肺叶切除术相似的远期预后。当CTR≤0.5时，此类患者优先行楔形切除术。
】 【中文关键词：肺肿瘤；肺叶切除术；肺段切除术；楔形切除术；疗效；预后】.