ArticleThoracic cancer2020
Extended resections and other special cases in lung cancer surgery: Real-world population-based outcomes.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer invading outside a lobe centrally or peripherally, or presenting with synchronous or metachronous tumors, requires a special approach. Here, we aimed to evaluate the rate and outcomes of surgery of these patients in a medium-volume practice using real-world, population-based data.
methodsAll patients (n = 269) on whom lung cancer surgery was performed in Central Finland and Ostrobothnia between January 2013 and December 2019 were included. A total of 40 patients with sleeve (n = 18) or other extended resections (n = 9), multifocal diseases (n = 14), and other operated synchronous cancers (n = 3) required an extended or otherwise special surgical approach (extended group). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared to high-risk (n = 72) and normal patient groups (n = 157).
resultsThe rate of extended resection was 14.9%. The rates of PET-CT (95%), invasive staging (35%), and brain imaging (42.5%) were highest in extended group compared to other groups. Extended group had larger and higher rate of stage III tumors than high-risk and normal groups. All extended group patients underwent anatomic lung resection with better lymph node yield than the other two groups, with a neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant treatment rate of 70.0%. Major complications occurred in 7.5% in the extended group, 19.4% in the high-risk group, and 6.4% in the normal group; at one year, alive and living at home rates were 88.2%, 83.3%, and 97.8%, and overall five-year survival rates 75.6%, 62.4%, and 63.9% (P = 0.287), respectively.
conclusionsAfter guideline-based evaluation, a significant rate of these special cases can be resected with a low complication rate and good long-term survival in real-world practice. KEY POINTS: SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: Extended resections for lung cancer include tumors spreading outside the lung The rate of extended resection was 14.9% in a population-based setting Major complications occurred in 7.5% and five-year survival was 75.6% What this study adds Complication rate and long-term outcome were similar compared to normal patients Guideline-based evaluation results with excellent outcome in real-world practice.
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.