Conditional survival analysis of four treatment strategies for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer

Conditional survival analysis of patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer

Background

Conditional survival (CS) analyses provide an estimate of survival accounting for years already survived after treatment. We aim to evaluate the difference between actuarial and conditional survival in patients following lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In addition, CS analyses are used to examine whether prognosticators of survival change over time following surgery.

Methods

Patients who underwent anatomic lung resection at a single institution for pathologic stage I-IIIA NSCLC between 2010 and 2021 were identified; those who underwent wedge resection for node-negative tumors ≤2 cm were also included. CS estimates were calculated as the probability of remaining disease-free after x years of nonrecurrence (CSx). Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Cox proportional hazard methods for examining CS were used for subgroup comparisons and assessing associations with baseline covariates.

Results

Overall, 863 patients met the study inclusion criteria, with a median follow-up of 44.1 months. Conditional overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were greater than actuarial rates at all time points after surgery. At the time of resection, male sex (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.72; P = .032), tumor size >3 cm (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23; P < .001), node positivity (HR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.52-4.33; P < .001), and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (P < .001) were associated with DFS. However, if a patient lived 3 years without recurrence (CS3), these factors were no longer prognostic of DFS.

Conclusions

Conditional survival analyses provide dynamic assessments of OS and DFS after NSCLC resection. After 3 years without recurrence, certain characteristics associated with DFS at the time of surgery no longer prognosticate recurrence.

Segmentectomy versus lobectomy. Which factors are decisive for an optimal oncological outcome?

Low-dose computed tomography is being used for lung cancer screening in high-risk groups. Detecting lung cancer at an early stage improves the chance of optimal treatment and increases overall survival. This article compares segmentectomy vs. lobectomy as surgical options, in the case of stage I non-small cell lung carcinoma, ideally IA. To compare the 2 previously referred strategies, data were collected from articles (40 studies were reviewed), reviews, and systematic analyses in PubMed Central, as well as reviewing recent literature. Segmentectomy could be an equal alternative to lobectomy in early-stage NSCLC (tumour < 2 cm). It could be preferred for patients with a low cardiopulmonary reserve, who struggle to survive a lobectomy. As far as early-stage NSCLC is concerned, anatomic segmentectomy is an acceptable procedure in a selective group of patients. For better tumour and stage classification, a systematic lymph node dissection should be performed.

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.