ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2018
Choice of the surgical approach for patients with stage I lung squamous cell carcinoma ≤3 cm.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells into vascular endothelial cells in 3D culture: a mini review.Molecular biology reports · 2024Review
- Selection of the surgical approach for patients with cStage IA lung squamous cell carcinoma: A population-based propensity score matching analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe tried to explore the surgical procedures for stage I squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with a size of ≤3 cm by using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Furthermore, we investigated the relationships between the chosen surgical option and the size of SCC.
methodsIn total, 1,147 patient data sets were collected from 2010 to 2011 using the SEER database. Afterwards, 849 patients with a pT1-2aN0M0 SCC with a size of ≤3 cm after a lobectomy or sublobectomy procedure were identified. Kaplan-Meier curves were conducted to compare the overall survival (OS) rates and the lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) rates between the two surgical approaches. Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed to discover the independent risk factors for both the OS and LCSS rates. Lastly, subgroup analysis was stratified by the size of the SCC and then classified by the 8
resultsThe sublobectomy procedure did not demonstrate a difference for the OS rate. Additionally, it demonstrated a worse LCSS rate when compared with a lobectomy for stage I SCC. In the subgroup analysis, a lobectomy was shown to have a better survival outcome only when the SCC was >2 and ≤3 cm. Multivariable analysis showed that a size of >2 to ≤3 cm, and an age of >60 were independently associated with poorer OS while the sublobectomy procedure and pleural invasions (PI) were related with a poorer LCSS rate. In the stratification of data for the tumor size, the cox proportional analysis still confirmed the protective effects of the lobectomy in subgroups of SCCs with sizes between >2 to ≤3 cm as well as the T1c category.
conclusionsThe choice of the SCC surgery can be recommended based on the tumor size. A lobectomy procedure demonstrated a better LCSS against the sublobectomy in stage I SCC. SCC with sizes of >2 to ≤3 cm could become a pretty good indicator for lobectomy, while a sublobectomy may be an adequate substitute when the SCC size is ≤2 cm, especially for patients who cannot tolerate a lobectomy. T1c category can also suggest a lobectomy instead of sublobectomy for stage I SCC patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.