Robotic-Assisted Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Institutional Experience

Mortality for Robotic- vs Video-Assisted Lobectomy-Treated Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients

Background

To address the US Food and Drug Administration’s recent safety concern on robotic surgery procedures, we compared short- and long-term mortality for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated by robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgical lobectomy (RATS-L) vs video-assisted thoracoscopic surgical lobectomy (VATS-L).

Methods

From the National Cancer Database, we identified 18 908 stage I NSCLC patients who underwent RATS-L or VATS-L as the primary operation from 2010 to 2014. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for short- and long-term mortality using unmatched and propensity score–matched analyses. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

Results

Patients treated by RATS-L had higher 90-day mortality than those with VATS-L (6.6% vs 3.8%, P = .03) if conversion to open thoracotomy occurred. After excluding first-year observation, multiple regression analyses showed RATS-L was associated with increased long-term mortality, compared with VATS-L, in cases with tumor size 20 mm or less: hazard ratio (HR) = 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15 to 1.55), HR = 1.36 (95% CI = 1.17 to 1.58), and HR = 1.33 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.61) for unmatched, N:1 matched, and 1:1 matched analyses, respectively, in the intention-to-treat analysis. Among patients without conversion to an open thoracotomy, the respective hazard ratios were 1.19 (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.29), 1.19 (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.29), and 1.17 (95% CI = 1.06 to 1.29). Similar associations were observed when follow-up time started 18 or 24 months postsurgery. No statistically significant mortality difference was found for patients with tumor size of greater than 20 mm. These associations were not related to case volume of VATS-L or RATS-L performed at treatment institutes.

Conclusions

Patients with small (≤20 mm) stage I NSCLC treated with RATS-L had statistically significantly higher long-term mortality risk than VATS-L after 1 year postsurgery.

Robotic Thoracic Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery for diseases of the chest offsets the morbidity of painful thoracic incisions while allowing for meticulous dissection of major anatomic structures. This benefit translates to improved outcomes and recovery following the surgical management of benign and malignant esophageal pathologic condition, mediastinal tumors, and lung resections. This anatomic region is particularly amenable to a robotic approach given the fixed space and need for complex intracorporeal dissection. As robotic platforms continue to evolve, more complex thoracic surgical interventions will be facilitated, translating to improved outcomes for our patients.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes After Robotic Lobectomy for Early-stage Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer Versus Video-assisted Thoracoscopic and Open Thoracotomy Approach

BACKGROUND

Although robotic-assisted lobectomy has been increasingly used for resection of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the long-term oncologic outcomes compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and the open thoracotomy approach have remained ill-defined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Society of Thoracic Surgeons outcomes data and surveillance records of patients with stage I-IIIa NSCLC who had undergone lobectomy by robotic-assisted, VATS, or the open approach at a single center from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. Propensity score adjustment by inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Recurrence and survival were analyzed and compared by the operative approach.

RESULTS

The inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted cohort included 514 patients with NSCLC who had undergone robotic-assisted (n = 245), VATS (n = 118), and open (n = 151) lobectomy, with similar patient and disease characteristics. The minimally invasive procedures were associated with a shorter median hospital length of stay (robotic, 5.2 days; VATS, 4.9 days; open, 7.3 days; P < .001) and 0-adjusted 30-day mortality rate. With a median follow-up period of 45 months, the incidence for locoregional recurrence (robotic, 7%; VATS, 6%; open, 8%; P = .9) and distant failure (robotic, 14%; VATS, 18%; open, 17%; P = .9) was similar. The 5-year overall survival for robotic-assisted, VATS, and open lobectomy was 63%, 55%, and 65%, respectively (P = .56). No difference was found in stage-specific survival for stage I, II, and IIIa. On multivariate analysis, the robotic approach was associated with no differences in overall survival and recurrence-free survival compared with VATS and open lobectomy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic lobectomy was associated with durable freedom of recurrence and long-term survival equivalent to those achieved with VATS and the traditional open thoracotomy approach.