Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38071721›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Robotic Versus Thoracoscopic Sub-lobar Resection for Octogenarians with Clinical Stage IA Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Real-World Study.

Hanbo Pan, Ningyuan Zou, Yu Tian, Yaofeng Shen, Hang Chen, Hongda Zhu, Jiaqi Zhang, Weiqiu Jin, Zenan Gu, Junwei Ning and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hanbo Pan *Shanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Ningyuan Zou *Shanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yu Tian *Shanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yaofeng Shen *Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hang ChenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Lihuili Hospital of Ningbo University, Zhejiang, China.
Hongda ZhuShanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jiaqi ZhangShanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Weiqiu JinShanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Zenan GuShanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Junwei NingShanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Long JiangShanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jia HuangShanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. huangjiadragon@126.com.
Qingquan LuoShanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. luoqingquan@hotmail.com.
Shanghai Chest Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNNingbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital · CN

Funding

Development Center for Medical Science & Technology National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China WA2021RW27National Nature Science Foundation 81772482the Joint Clinical Research Centre of the Institute of Medical Robotics@SJTU-Shanghai Chest Hospital IMR-XKH202104the Shanghai Hospital Development Center SHDC12016113
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive sub-lobectomy is sufficient in treating small early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, comparison of the feasibility and oncologic efficacy between robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in performing sub-lobectomy for early-stage NSCLC patients age 80 years or older is scarce.

methodsOctogenarians with clinical stage IA NSCLC (tumor size, ≤ 2 cm) undergoing minimally invasive wedge resection or segmentectomy at Shanghai Chest Hospital from 2011 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Propensity score-matching (PSM) with a RATS versus VATS ratio of 1:4 was performed. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed.

resultsThe study identified 594 patients (48 RATS and 546 VATS patients), and PSM resulted in 45 cases in the RATS group and 180 cases in the VATS group. The RATS patients experienced less intraoperative bleeding (60 mL [interquartile range (IQR), 50-100 mL] vs. 80 mL [IQR, 50-100 mL]; P = 0.027) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (4 days [IQR, 3-5 days] vs. 5 days [IQR, 4-6 days]; P = 0.041) than the VATS patients. The two surgical approaches were comparable concerning other perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications (20.00% vs. 26.11%; P = 0.396). Additionally, during a median follow-up period of 66 months, RATS and VATS achieved comparable 5-year overall survival (90.48% vs. 87.93%; P = 0.891), recurrence-free survival (83.37% vs. 83.18%; P = 0.782), and cumulative incidence of death. Further subgroup comparison also demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes between the two approaches. Finally, multivariate Cox analysis indicated that the surgical approach was not independently correlated with long-term outcomes.

conclusionsThe RATS approach shortened the postoperative hospital stay, reduced intraoperative bleeding by a statistically notable but clinically insignificant amount, and achieved long-term outcomes comparable with VATS in performing sub-lobectomy for octogenarians with early-stage small NSCLC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAged, 80 and overChinaHumansOctogenariansPneumonectomyPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesThoracic Surgery, Video-AssistedLng-term outcomesNon-small cell lung cancerOctogenariansRobotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgerySub-lobar resectionVideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID38071721
PMCPMC10838251
OpenAlexW4389521381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.