ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2021
Outcomes of sublobar resection vs lobectomy for invasive clinical stage T1N0 non-small-cell lung cancer: A propensity-match analysis.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lobectomy offers higher incidence of up-staging in patients with T1a-c non-small cell lung carcinomas: Is completion lobectomy necessary?Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Outcomes of sublobar resection vs lobectomy for invasive clinical stage T1N0 non-small-cell lung cancer: A propensity-match analysis.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of sub lobar resection (SLR; either segmentectomy or wedge resection) vs lobectomy (LBCT) for invasive clinical stage T1N0 non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC) has not been fully established yet.
aimWe aimed to characterize the preoperative parameters leading to selecting SLR and compare the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of these two surgical approaches.
methodsClinical data on 162 patients (LBCT-107; SLR-55) were prospectively entered in our departmental database. Preoperative parameters associated with the performance of SLR were identified using univariate and multivariate cox regression analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compute OS and DFS. Comparison between LBCT and SLR groups and 32 propensity-matched groups was performed using Log-rank test.
resultsMedian follow-up time for the LBCT and SLR groups was 4.76 (Inter-quartile range [IQR] 2.96 to 8.23) and 3.38 (IQR 2.9 to 6.19) years respectively. OS and DFS rates were similar between the two groups in the entire cohort (OS-LBCT vs SLR P = .853, DSF-LBCT vs SLR P = .653) and after propensity matching (OS-LBCT vs SLR P = .563 DSF-LBCT vs SLR P = .632). Specifically, Two- and five-year OS rates for LBCT and SLR were 90.6.% vs 92.7%, 71.8% vs 75.9% respectively. Independent predictors of selecting for SLR included older age (P < .001), reduced FEV1% (P = .026), smaller tumor size (P = .025), smaller invasive component (P = .021) and higher American Society of Anesthesiology scores (P = .014).
conclusionsIn 162 consecutive and 32 matched cases, SLR and lobar resection had similar overall and disease-free survival rates. SLR may be considered as a reasonable oncological procedure in carefully selected T1N0 NSCLC patients that present with multiple comorbidities and relatively small tumors.
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.