ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2023
Wedge resection versus lobectomy in T1 lung cancer patients: a propensity matched analysis.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of preoperative anxiety and depression in patients with pulmonary nodules: risk factors and postoperative outcomes.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- Accurate Selection of Sublobar Resection for Small Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Utility of Sublobar Resection for Small-Sized Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Outcomes and Survival for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Following Wedge Resection or Lobectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Using a Novel Peruvian Registry.Journal of chest surgery · 2024Article
- Sublobar Resection of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Wedge Resection vs. Segmentectomy.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPerforming wedge resection rather than lobectomy for primary lung cancer remains controversial. Recent studies demonstrate no survival advantage for non-anatomical resection compared to lobectomy in patients with early-stage lung cancer. The objective of this study was to investigate whether in patients with T1 tumours, non-anatomical wedge resection is associated with equivalent survival to lobectomy.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent lung resection at the Lancashire Cardiac Centre between April 2005 and April 2018. Patients were subjected to multidisciplinary team discussion. The extent of resection was decided by the team based on British Thoracic Society guidelines. The primary outcome was overall survival. Propensity matching of patients with T1 tumours was also performed to determine whether differences in survival rates exist in a subset of these patients with balanced pre-operative characteristics.
resultsThere were 187 patients who underwent non-anatomical wedge resection and 431 patients who underwent lobectomy. Cox modelling demonstrated no survival difference between groups for the first 1.6 years then a risk of death 3-fold higher for wedge resection group after 1.6 years (HR 3.14, CI 1.98-4.79). Propensity matching yielded 152 pairs for which 5-year survival was 66.2% for the lobectomy group and 38.5% for the non-anatomical wedge group (SMD = 0.58, p = 0.003).
conclusionsNon-anatomical wedge resection was associated with significantly reduced 5-year survival compared to lobectomy in matched patients. Lobectomy should remain the standard of care for patients with early-stage lung cancer who are fit enough to undergo surgical resection.
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.