Health-Related Quality of Life Following Robotic-Assisted or Video-Assisted Lobectomy in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the RVlob Randomized Clinical Trial

A prospective multi-institutional study to verify the non-inferiority of postoperative pain in robot-assisted thoracic surgery in comparison with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer: The Japanese RATS interest group 01 (J-RATSIG 01)

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the latest data on postoperative pain between robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), and to clarify the relationship between the number or placement of ports and postoperative pain in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent anatomical lung resection by RATS or VATS and whose chest tube was removed within 7 days were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a numeric rating scale (NRS) score ≤ 3 on postoperative day 30 (POD30). The target sample size was 400 patients.

RESULTS

Four hundred five patients (RATS, n = 196; VATS, n = 209) managed at 12 institutions were included. Ninety-nine patients in the VATS group underwent a uniport procedure. Significant differences were observed between the RATS and VATS groups in the mean number of inserted ports (5.0 vs. 2.2), number of injured intercostal sites (2.9 vs. 1.9), largest wound size (3.4 vs. 3.7 cm), operation time (202 vs. 165 min), and use of epidural anesthesia or continuous nerve block (45 vs. 31 %). In the RATS and VATS groups, the rates of NRS≤3 on POD30 were 82.0 % and 94.7 % (95 %CI: -19.0 to -6.6 %), respectively, which could not prove noninferiority. However, in a multivariable analysis, the RATS approach was not proven to be a significant risk factor.

CONCLUSION

In the current status of minimally invasive thoracic surgery in Japan, RATS involves a greater number of ports, longer operation time, and higher frequency of local anesthesia than VATS and may be inferior in terms of postoperative pain.

Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted lobectomy for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: the RVlob randomized controlled trial

Background

The long-term survival and perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted lobectomy (RAL) and video-assisted lobectomy (VAL) in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were found to be comparable in retrospective studies, but they have not been investigated in a randomized trial setting. We conducted the RVlob trial to investigate if RAL was non-inferior to VAL in patients with resectable NSCLC.

Methods

In this single-center, open-label, and parallel-arm randomized controlled trial conducted in Ruijin Hospital (Shanghai, China) between May 2017 and May 2020, we randomly assigned patients with resectable NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either RAL or VAL. One of the primary endpoints was 3-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints included 3-year disease-free survival. The Kaplan-Meier approach was used to calculate overall survival and disease-free survival at 3 years. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03134534.

Findings

A total of 320 patients were randomized to receive RAL (n = 157) or VAL (n = 163). The baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 58.0 months, the 3-year overall survival was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0-98.3) in the RAL group and 91.5% (95% CI, 87.2-96.0) in the VAL group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; P = 0.21); noninferiority of RAL was confirmed according to the predefined margin of -5% (absolute difference, 2.96%; a one-sided 90% CI, -1.39% to ∞; P = 0.0029 for noninferiority). The 3-year disease-free survival was 88.7% (95% CI, 83.6-94.1) in the RAL group and 85.4% (95% CI, 80.0-91.2) in the VAL group (HR for disease recurrence or death, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50-1.52; P = 0.62).

Interpretation

This study is the first randomized trial to show that RAL resulted in non-inferior overall survival compared with VAL in patients with resectable NSCLC. Based on our results, RAL is an equally oncologically effective treatment and can be considered as an alternative to VAL for resectable NSCLC.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (82072557), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC2500900), Shanghai Municipal Education Commission-Gaofeng Clinical Medicine Grant (20172005, the 2nd round of disbursement), program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader from Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (20XD1402300), Novel Interdisciplinary Research Project from Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (2022JC023), and Interdisciplinary Program of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (YG2023ZD04).

Quality of life after robotic versus conventional minimally invasive cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Optimizing postoperative quality of life (QoL) is an essential aspect of surgical oncology. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) decreases surgical morbidity and improves QoL outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare post-operative QoL after oncologic resections using different MIS modalities. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles that compared post-operative QoL in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) or laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus robotic surgery (RS) for malignancy. Quality assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tools. Meta-analysis was performed using an inverse-variance random effects model. 27 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 15 studies had a low risk of bias, while 11 had a moderate risk of bias and 1 had serious risk of bias. 8330 patients (RS: 5090, LS/VATS: 3240) from across 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Global QoL was significantly better after robotic surgery in the pooled analysis overall (SMD: - 0.28 [95% CI: - 0.49, - 0.08]), as well as in the prostatectomy and gastrectomy subgroups. GRADE certainty of evidence was low. Analysis of EPIC-26 subdomains also suggested greater sexual function after robotic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy. Robotic and conventional MIS approaches produce similar postoperative QoL after oncologic surgery for various tumor types, although advantages may emerge in some patient populations. Our results may assist surgeons in counseling patients who are undergoing oncologic surgery.

Lymph node dissection in lung cancer surgery

Lung cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related death, often requires surgical resection for early-stage cases, with recent data supporting less invasive resections for tumors smaller than 2 cm. Central to resection is lymph node assessment, an area of controversy worldwide, compounded by advances in minimally invasive techniques. The review aims to assess current standards for lymph node assessment, recent data from the surgical era, and the immunobiological basis of how lymph node metastases impact patient outcomes. The British Thoracic Society guidelines recommend systematic nodal dissection during lung cancer resection, without specifying node removal or sampling. Historical data on mediastinal lymph node dissection (MLND) survival benefits are inconclusive, although proponents argue for lower recurrence rates. Recent trials such as ACOSOG Z0030 found no survival difference between MLND and nodal sampling, reinforcing the need for robust staging. While lobe-specific dissection strategies have been proposed, they currently lack consensus. JCOG1413 aims to compare the clinical benefits of lobe-specific and systematic dissection. TNM-9 staging revisions emphasize the prognostic significance of single-station N2 involvement. Robotic surgery shows promise, with trials such as RAVAL, which reported comparable outcomes to video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and improved lymph node sampling. Immunobiological insights suggest preserving key immunological sites during lymphadenectomy, especially for patients receiving adjuvant immunotherapy. In conclusion, the standard lymph node resection strategy remains unsettled. The debate between systematic and selective dissection continues, with implications for staging accuracy and patient outcomes. As minimally invasive techniques evolve, robotic surgery emerges as an effective and low-risk approach to delivering optimal lymph node assessment.

Robotic Versus Thoracoscopic Sub-lobar Resection for Octogenarians with Clinical Stage IA Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive sub-lobectomy is sufficient in treating small early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, comparison of the feasibility and oncologic efficacy between robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in performing sub-lobectomy for early-stage NSCLC patients age 80 years or older is scarce.

METHODS

Octogenarians with clinical stage IA NSCLC (tumor size, ≤ 2 cm) undergoing minimally invasive wedge resection or segmentectomy at Shanghai Chest Hospital from 2011 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Propensity score-matching (PSM) with a RATS versus VATS ratio of 1:4 was performed. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The study identified 594 patients (48 RATS and 546 VATS patients), and PSM resulted in 45 cases in the RATS group and 180 cases in the VATS group. The RATS patients experienced less intraoperative bleeding (60 mL [interquartile range (IQR), 50-100 mL] vs. 80 mL [IQR, 50-100 mL]; P = 0.027) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (4 days [IQR, 3-5 days] vs. 5 days [IQR, 4-6 days]; P = 0.041) than the VATS patients. The two surgical approaches were comparable concerning other perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications (20.00% vs. 26.11%; P = 0.396). Additionally, during a median follow-up period of 66 months, RATS and VATS achieved comparable 5-year overall survival (90.48% vs. 87.93%; P = 0.891), recurrence-free survival (83.37% vs. 83.18%; P = 0.782), and cumulative incidence of death. Further subgroup comparison also demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes between the two approaches. Finally, multivariate Cox analysis indicated that the surgical approach was not independently correlated with long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The RATS approach shortened the postoperative hospital stay, reduced intraoperative bleeding by a statistically notable but clinically insignificant amount, and achieved long-term outcomes comparable with VATS in performing sub-lobectomy for octogenarians with early-stage small NSCLC.

Timing of recovery of quality of life after robotic anatomic lung resection

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an underreported aspect of surgical recovery. The purpose of our study was to track PROs after robotic anatomic lung to determine the timing to recovery of baseline patient baseline quality of life. This was a prospective cohort study at an academic medical center (4/2021-12/2022). Patients who underwent robotic anatomic lung resection were asked to complete PROMIS-29 surveys at the preoperative clinic visit, postoperative clinic visit, 30 days and 90 days postoperatively via in-person and email-based electronic surveys. The PROPr score, a summary of health-related quality of life, and mental and physical health z-scores were estimated for each patient using published methods and compared by postoperative timing. 75 patients completed the preoperative survey and at least one postoperative survey; 56 completed postoperative clinic surveys, 54 completed 30-day postoperative surveys, and 40 completed 90-day postoperative surveys. All three PROMIS scores decreased between the preoperative and first postoperative visit (all p < 0.05). PROPr scores increased over time but remained significantly worse than baseline by 90 days (-0.08 difference between 90 days and preoperative, p = 0.02). While PROMIS summary z-scores for physical health remained - 0.29 lower at 90 days postoperatively, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06). Mental health scores returned to baseline by 90 days postoperatively (p = 0.41). While some PROs returned to baseline by 90 days postoperatively, overall quality-of-life scores remained significantly below preoperative baselines. These findings are important to share with patients during the informed consent process to achieve patient centered care more effectively.

Robotic Lobectomy Is Cost-effective and Provides Comparable Health Utility Scores to Video-assisted Lobectomy: Early Results of the RAVAL Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine if robotic-assisted lobectomy (RPL-4) is cost-effective and offers improved patient-reported health utility for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer when compared with video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy (VATS-lobectomy).

BACKGROUND

Barriers against the adoption of RPL-4 in publicly funded health care include the paucity of high-quality prospective trials and the perceived high cost of robotic surgery.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled in a blinded, multicentered, randomized controlled trial in Canada, the United States, and France, and were randomized 1:1 to either RPL-4 or VATS-lobectomy. EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) was administered at baseline and postoperative day 1; weeks 3, 7, 12; and months 6 and 12. Direct and indirect costs were tracked using standard methods. Seemingly Unrelated Regression was applied to estimate the cost effect, adjusting for baseline health utility. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was generated by 10,000 bootstrap samples with multivariate imputation by chained equations.

RESULTS

Of 406 patients screened, 186 were randomized, and 164 analyzed after the final eligibility review (RPL-4: n=81; VATS-lobectomy: n=83). Twelve-month follow-up was completed by 94.51% (155/164) of participants. The median age was 68 (60-74). There were no significant differences in body mass index, comorbidity, pulmonary function, smoking status, baseline health utility, or tumor characteristics between arms. The mean 12-week health utility score was 0.85 (0.10) for RPL-4 and 0.80 (0.19) for VATS-lobectomy ( P =0.02). Significantly more lymph nodes were sampled [10 (8-13) vs 8 (5-10); P =0.003] in the RPL-4 arm. The incremental cost/quality-adjusted life year of RPL-4 was $14,925.62 (95% CI: $6843.69, $23,007.56) at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Early results of the RAVAL trial suggest that RPL-4 is cost-effective and associated with comparable short-term patient-reported health utility scores when compared with VATS-lobectomy.

Comparison of robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery in the treatment of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

Introduction

Previous studies have compared robot-assisted thoracic surgery(RATS) with video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in the treatment of patients with lung cancer, but results were conflicting. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of RATS with VATS in the treatment of patients with lung cancer.

Materials and methods

Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies comparing the clinical outcomes of RATS and VATS from inception to 22 July 2023. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analyses of length of hospital stay, postoperative duration of drainage, postoperative complications, operative time, conversion, estimated blood loss, the number of dissected lymph nodes and stations, 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality were performed.

Results

In total 5 studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 614 patients were included, of which 299 patients were treated by RATS and 315 patients treated by VATS. Blood loss was significantly less in RATS group than that in VATS (MD = -17.14, 95% CI -29.96 ~ -4.33, P = 0.009). More nodes stations were dissected in RATS group compared with VATS group(MD= 1.07, 95% CI 0.79 ~ 1.36, P < 0.001). No significant difference occurred between RATS and VATS in length of hospital stay(MD= -0.19, 95% CI -0.98~0.61), readmission(OR=0.74, 95%CI 0.36~1.51, P=0.41), operative time(MD=11.43 95% CI -8.41~31.26, P=0.26), conversion(OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.29~1.17, P=0.13), number of dissected lymph nodes(MD=0.98, 95% CI -0.02~1.97, P=0.05), upstaging rate(OR =0.67, 95% CI 0.38 ~ 1.18, P =0.16, I2 = 0%), time of chest tube drainage (MD= -0.34, 95%CI -0.84~0.15, P=0.17), post-operative complications(OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.52~ 1.11, P=0.16) and total cost(MD = 3103.48, 95% CI -575.78 ~ 6782.74, P=0.1, I2 = 99%).

Conclusion

RATS is a feasible and safe treatment that can achieve better surgical outcomes compared with VATS in terms of short-term outcomes. Except of higher total cost, RATS has obvious advantage in lymphadenectomy and control of intraoperative bleeding. However, large sample and long follow-up randomized clinical trials comparing RATS with VATS are still necessary to better demonstrate the advantages of RATS for lung cancer.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42023446653.