• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.50 no.6
• /
• pp.415-423
• /
• 2017

Background: Recently, many surgeons have chosen sublobar resection for the curative treatment of lung tumors with ground-glass opacity, which is a hallmark of lepidic lung cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the oncological results of sublobar resection for non-lepidic lung cancer in comparison with lobectomy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 328 patients with clinical N0 non-small cell lung cancer sized ${\leq}2cm$ who underwent curative surgical resection from January 2009 to December 2014. The patients were classified on the basis of their lesions into non-lepidic and lepidic groups. The survival rates following lobectomy and sublobar resection were compared within each of these 2 groups. Results: The non-lepidic group contained a total of 191 patients. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rate was not significantly different between patients who received sublobar resection or lobectomy in the non-lepidic group (80.1% vs. 79.2%, p=0.822) or in the lepidic group (100% vs. 97.4%, p=0.283). Multivariate analysis indicated that only lymphatic invasion was a significant risk factor for recurrence in the non-lepidic group. Sublobar resection was not a risk factor for recurrence in the non-lepidic group. Conclusion: The oncological outcomes of sublobar resection and lobectomy in small-sized non-small cell lung cancer did not significantly differ according to histological type.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.128-135
• /
• 2024

Background: This retrospective study aimed to determine the treatment patterns and the surgical and oncologic outcomes after completion lobectomy (CL) in patients with locoregionally recurrent stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who previously underwent sublobar resection. Methods: Data from 36 patients who initially underwent sublobar resection for clinical, pathological stage IA NSCLC and experienced locoregional recurrence between 2008 and 2016 were analyzed. Results: Thirty-six (3.6%) of 1,003 patients who underwent sublobar resection for NSCLC experienced locoregional recurrence. The patients' median age was 66.5 (range, 44-77) years at the initial operation, and 28 (77.8%) patients were men. Six (16.7%) patients underwent segmentectomy and 30 (83.3%) underwent wedge resection as the initial operation. The median follow-up from the initial operation was 56 (range, 9-150) months. Ten (27.8%) patients underwent CL, 22 (61.1%) underwent non-surgical treatments (chemotherapy, radiation, concurrent chemoradiation therapy), and 4 (11.1%) did not receive treatment or were lost to follow-up after recurrence. Patients who underwent CL experienced no significant complications or deaths. The median follow-up time after CL was 64.5 (range, 19-93) months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and post-recurrence survival (PRS) were higher in the surgical group than in the non-surgical (p<0.001) and no-treatment groups (p<0.001). Conclusion: CL is a technically demanding but safe procedure for locoregionally recurrent stage I NSCLC after sublobar resection. Patients who underwent CL had better OS and PRS than patients who underwent non-surgical treatments or no treatments; however, a larger cohort study and long-term surveillance are necessary.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.54 no.5
• /
• pp.338-341
• /
• 2021

As diagnoses of small ground glass nodule (GGN)-type lung adenocarcinoma are increasing due to the increasing frequency of computed tomography (CT) screening, surgical treatment for GGN-type lung adenocarcinoma has rapidly become more common. However, the appropriate surgical extent for these lesions remains unclear; therefore, several retrospective studies have been published and prospectively randomized controlled trials are being undertaken. This article takes a closer look at each clinical study. Convincing evidence must be published on 2 issues for sublobar resection to be accepted as a standard surgical option for GGN lung adenocarcinoma. In the absence of such evidence, it is better to perform lobar resection as long as the patient has sufficient lung function. The first issue is the definition of a sufficient resection margin, and the second is whether lymph node metastasis is conclusively ruled out before surgery. An additional issue is the need for an accurate calculation of the total size and solid size on CT. Given the results of clinical studies so far, wedge resection or segmentectomy shows a good prognosis for GGNs with a total size of 2 cm or less. Therefore, sublobar resection will play a key role even in patients who can tolerate lobectomy.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.54 no.5
• /
• pp.342-347
• /
• 2021

Thoracic surgeons need to be aware of several important points regarding intraoperative lymph node dissection during surgery for non-small cell lung cancer with ground-glass opacities. The first point relates to the need for lymph node dissection during sublobar resection. Since even patients undergoing sublobar resection may benefit from lymph node dissection, it should be selectively performed according to adequate indications, which require further study. Second, there seems to be no difference in postoperative morbidity between systematic sampling and systematic dissection, but the survival benefit from systematic dissection remains unclear. The results of randomized controlled trials on this topic are conflicting, and their evidence is jeopardized by a high risk of bias in terms of the study design. Therefore, further randomized controlled trials with a sound design should investigate this issue. Third, more favorable survival outcomes tend to be positively associated with the number of examined lymph nodes. Minimum requirements for the number of examined lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer should be defined in the future. Finally, lobe-specific lymph node dissection does not have a negative prognostic impact. It should not be routinely performed, but it can be recommended in selected patients with smaller, less invasive tumors. Results from an ongoing randomized controlled trial on this topic should be awaited.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.195-204
• /
• 2019

Lobectomy is considered the standard strategy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, sublobar resection for NSCLC has recently received increased attention. The objective of this study was to compare 5-year survival, recurrence-free survival, postoperative mortality, and postoperative morbidities in patients who received segmentectomy versus those who received lobectomy through a meta-analysis. Sixteen studies were included and the combined hazard ratios or odds ratios were calculated. The results revealed that the 5-year survival rate after segmentectomy was comparable to that of lobectomy for stage IA NSCLC. However, segmentectomy for stage I NSCLC had lower rates of postoperative mortality and morbidities than lobectomy.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.51 no.5
• /
• pp.312-321
• /
• 2018

Background: Treatment strategies for octogenarians with lung cancer remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare surgical outcomes and survival between octogenarians and younger patients with stage IA and IB lung cancer. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 34 consecutive octogenarians and 457 younger patients (<70 years) with stage I lung cancer who underwent surgical resection from January 2007 to December 2015. We analyzed the survival and surgical outcomes of the 2 groups according to the lung cancer stage (IA and IB). Results: The only significant differences in the clinicopathological features between the groups were the higher proportion of sublobar resection (56.3% vs. 18.9%) and the smaller number of dissected lymph nodes (LNs) in octogenarians. There was no significant difference in hospital stay (11 days vs. 9 days), pneumonia (5.8% vs 1.9%), or operative mortality (0% vs 0.6%) between the 2 groups. Among patients with stage IA lung cancer, 5-year recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between the octogenarians (n=16) and younger patients (n=318) (86.2% vs. 89.1%, p=0.548). However, 5-year overall survival was significantly lower in octogenarians than in younger patients (79.4% vs. 93.4%, p=0.009). Among patients with stage IB lung cancer, there was no significant difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival (62.1% vs. 73.5%, p=0.55) or overall survival (77.0% vs 85.0%, p=0.75) between octogenarians (n=18) and younger patients (n=139). In multivariable analysis, male sex, the number of dissected LNs, and tumor size were factors related to survival (hazard ratio [HR], 5.795; p=0.017; HR, 0.346, p=0.025; and HR, 1.699; p=0.035, respectively). Conclusion: Surgical outcomes and survival after pulmonary resection for stage I lung cancer were comparable in octogenarians and younger patients. Continued careful selection of octogenarians for pulmonary resection is important to achieve good results.