Thoracoscopic segmentectomy with simple routine bronchoscopic inflation for intersegmental plane identification: short and mid-term outcomes compared with lobectomy

Survival outcomes of segmentectomy and lobectomy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The question of whether segmentectomy and lobectomy have similar survival outcomes for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a matter of debate.

METHODS

A cohort study and randomized controlled trial were included, comparing segmentectomy and lobectomy, by utilizing computerized access to the Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases up until July 2022. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the randomized controlled trials, while the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the cohort studies. Sensitivity analyses were also carried out.

RESULTS

The analysis incorporated 17 literature studies, including one randomized controlled trial and 16 cohort studies, and was divided into a segmentectomy group (n = 2081) and a lobectomy group (n = 2395) based on the type of surgery the patient underwent. Each study was followed up from 27 months to 130.8 months after surgery. Over survival (OS): HR = 1.14, 95%CI(0.97,1.32), P = 0.10; disease-free survival (DFS): HR = 1.13, 95%CI(0.91,1.41), P = 0.27; recurrence-free survival (RFS): HR = 0.95, 95%CI(0.81,1.12), P = 0.54.

CONCLUSION

The results of the study suggest that the survival outcomes of the segmentectomy group were not inferior to that of the lobectomy group. Segmentectomy should therefore be considered as a treatment option for early stage NSCLC.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 2: systematic review of evidence regarding resection extent in generally healthy patients

Background

Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making.

Methods

A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in generally healthy patients is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved.

Results

In healthy patients there is no short-term benefit to sublobar resection vs. lobectomy in randomized and non-randomized comparisons. A detriment in long-term outcomes is demonstrated by adjusted non-randomized comparisons, more marked for wedge than segmentectomy. Quality-of-life data is confounded by the use of video-assisted approaches; evidence suggests the approach has more impact than the resection extent. Differences in pulmonary function tests by resection extent are not clinically meaningful in healthy patients, especially for multi-segmentectomy vs. lobectomy. The margin distance is associated with the risk of recurrence.

Conclusions

A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in healthy patients with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation on which to build a framework for individualized clinical decision-making.

The impact of segmentectomy versus lobectomy on pulmonary function in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

Segmentectomy has been reported as an alternative to lobectomy for small-sized NSCLC without detriment to survival. The long-term benefits of segmentectomy over lobectomy on pulmonary function have not been firmly established. This meta-analysis aims to compare postoperative changes in pulmonary function in NSCLC patients undergoing segmentectomy or lobectomy.

Methods

Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched through March 2021. Statistical comparisons were made when appropriate.

Results

Fourteen studies (2412 participants) out of 324 citations were included in this study. All selected studies were high quality, as indicated by the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for assessing the risk of bias. Clinical outcomes were compared between segmentectomy and lobectomy. ΔFEV1 [10 studies, P < 0.01, WMD = 0.40 (0.29, 0.51)], ΔFVC [4 studies, P < 0.01, WMD = 0.16 (0.07, 0.24)], ΔFVC% [4 studies, P < 0.01, WMD = 4.05 (2.32, 5.79)], ΔFEV1/FVC [2 studies, P < 0.01, WMD = 1.99 (0.90, 3.08)], and ΔDLCO [3 studies, P < 0.01, WMD = 1.30 (0.69, 1.90)] were significantly lower in the segmentectomy group than in the lobectomy group. Subgroup analysis showed that in stage IA patients, the ΔFEV1% [3 studies, P < 0.01, WMD = 0.26 (0.07, 0.46)] was significantly lower in the segmentectomy group. The ΔDLCO% and ΔMVV% were incomparable.

Conclusion

Segmentectomy preserves more lung function than lobectomy. There were significantly smaller decreases in FEV1, FVC, FVC%, FEV1/FVC and DLCO in the segmentectomy group than in the lobectomy group.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01853-3.

Pulmonary function after segmentectomy versus lobectomy in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

Segmentectomy is widely performed for early-stage lung cancer. However, the effects of segmentectomy versus lobectomy on pulmonary function remain unclear. We performed a meta-analysis with the aim of comparing segmentectomy and lobectomy in terms of preservation of pulmonary function in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We conducted a literature search of PubMed using the terms ‘pulmonary function’ AND ‘segmentectomy’ AND ‘lobectomy’. The primary outcomes of interest were the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), FEV1 as percent of predicted (%FEV1), change in FEV1 (Δ%FEV1), and the ratio of postoperative to preoperative FEV1.

Results

Thirteen studies comprising 2027 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included for analysis, including 787 patients in the segmentectomy group and 1240 patients in the lobectomy group. Patients in the segmentectomy group showed significantly better preservation of FEV1 and %FEV1 compared with the lobectomy group. The reduction in FEV1 after surgery was significantly less in the segmentectomy group compared with the lobectomy group, and Δ%FEV1 was significantly higher in the segmentectomy group than in the lobectomy group.

Conclusion

Segmentectomy results in better preservation of pulmonary function compared with lobectomy in patients with early-stage NSCLC.

How often segmentectomy is feasible in lung cancer surgery: a population-based evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Despite promising outcomes in lung cancer surgery, segmentectomy has not gained wide acceptance at the population level. Our aim was to evaluate the potential role of segmentectomy in real-world practice.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with lung cancer and operated between January 2013 and December 2019 in Central Finland and Ostrobothnia were included. This intent-to-treat analysis sub-grouped segmentectomy patients by indications: (i) high-risk patients with stage I disease (n = 40), (ii) ≤20 mm ground-glass opacity (n = 12), (iii) carcinoid (n = 12), (iv) special indication (n = 20) including synchronous and metachronous disease, fissure-crossing tumour, and synchronous other solid cancers requiring surgery, (v) solid ≤2 cm tumour (n = 14) in medically fit patient. To evaluate the potential role of segmentectomy, all preoperative CT scans were re-evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 269 patients, in 98 (36.4%) intention of surgery was segmentectomy. Indication was high risk in 40 (14.9%), ground-glass opacity in 12 (4.5%), carcinoid in 12 (4.5%), special indication in 20 (7.4%) and ≤2 cm solid tumour in medically fit patients in 14 (5.2%). The major complication rate was ≤15% in all groups with excellent 3-year recurrence-free survival between 76.5% and 100%. Segmentectomy could have been technically potential in up to 46.8% of patients. This was exactly the rate performed in the last 3-year period of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Performed and potential segmentectomy rates underline the importance of adaptation of this technique with possibility to offer curative surgery to many high risk and special patients with low morbidity and mortality.