ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2021
Optimal resection rate for lung cancer in the UK: how high should we go?
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung cancer resection rate and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Finland.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal resection rate for institutions managing early-stage primary lung cancer is not known. Whether the prognosis of patients who do not proceed to operation is determined by their comorbidities for which they were deemed at prohibitively high-operative risk, or disease progression, is uncertain. We investigated the outcomes of patients with early-stage lung cancer who were considered for surgical management.
methodsWe reviewed the outcomes of consecutive patients who were considered for resection of early-stage primary lung cancer at Oxford University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust between 2012 and 2017.
resultsBetween 29 November 2012 and 31 March 2017, 467 consecutive patients underwent resection with curative intent for primary lung cancer (operative group), while 81 patients were deemed resectable but either inoperable or did not wish to proceed to operation (non-operative group). Reason for not proceeding to resection was cardiovascular in 16 patients (19.8%), respiratory in 21 (25.9%), cardiorespiratory in 11 (13.6%), performance status in 8 (9.9%) and patient choice in 25 (30.9%) patients. Sixty-six patients (81.5%) received an alternative radical treatment. Median follow-up was 169 weeks (IQR 119-246 weeks) in the operative group and 118 weeks (IQR 74-167 weeks) in the non-operative group. Median survival of patients with early-stage lung cancer who did not proceed to operation was 2.5 years; median survival of patients undergoing lung cancer resection was undefined (p<0.0001). Lung cancer was documented as directly or indirectly leading to or contributing to death in 40 patients (76.9%). In 11 patients, the cause of death was due to comorbidities (21.2%).
conclusionsPatients turned down for operation in a high-resection rate UK unit have limited survival due to lung cancer progression. We conclude that 'optimal' resection rates may not have been reached in the UK even in high-resection rate centres.
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.