Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28799982›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery2019

A National Analysis of Long-term Survival Following Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lobectomy for Stage I Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang, Arvind Kumar, Jacob A Klapper, Matthew G Hartwig, Betty C Tong, David H Harpole, Mark F Berry, Thomas A D'Amico

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 151 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chi-Fu Jeffrey YangDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Arvind KumarDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Jacob A KlapperDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Matthew G HartwigDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Betty C TongDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
David H HarpoleDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Mark F BerryDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA.
Thomas A D'AmicoDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Duke Medical Center · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the long-term survival of open versus thoracoscopic (VATS) lobectomy for early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

backgroundData from national studies on long-term survival for VATS versus open lobectomy are limited.

methodsOutcomes of patients who underwent open versus VATS lobectomy for clinical T1-2, N0, M0 NSCLC in the National Cancer Data Base were evaluated using propensity score matching.

resultsThe median follow-up of 7114 lobectomies (5566 open and 1548 VATS) was 52.0 months. The VATS approach was associated with a better 5-year survival when compared to the open approach (66.0% vs. 62.5%, P = 0.026). Propensity score matching resulted in 1464 open and 1464 VATS patients who were well matched by 14 common prognostic covariates including tumor size and comorbidities. After propensity score matching, the VATS approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay (5 vs. 6 days, P < 0.001). The VATS approach was not significantly different compared with the open approach with regard to nodal upstaging (11.6% vs 12.3%, P = 0.53), 30-day mortality (1.7% vs 2.3%, P = 0.50) and 5-year survival (66.3% vs 65.8%, P = 0.92).

conclusionsIn this national analysis, VATS lobectomy was used in the minority of patients with stage I NSCLC. VATS lobectomy was associated with shorter length of stay and noninferior long-term survival when compared with open lobectomy. These results support previous findings from smaller single- and multi-institutional studies that suggest that VATS does not compromise oncologic outcomes when used for early-stage lung cancer and suggest the need for broader implementation of VATS techniques.

Indexed as

Neoplasm StagingPropensity ScoreAgedBiopsyCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungDatabases, FactualFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPneumonectomyPostoperative PeriodPuerto RicoRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID28799982
OpenAlexW2744603624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.