ArticleJTCVS open2023
Optimal resection strategies for small-size lung cancer: Is a wedge enough? Is lobectomy too much?
Article in JTCVS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical approach and prognosis in patients with ≤2 cm grade 3 lung adenocarcinoma: a multivariable analysis of disease-free and overall survival.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Machine learning models based on tumoral, 4 mm-peritumoral, and combined radiomic features for evaluating the invasiveness of lung adenocarcinoma manifesting as ground-glass nodules.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- 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
- Clinical Importance of Grading Tumor Spread through Air Spaces in Early-Stage Small-Lung Adenocarcinoma.Cancers · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently published large multicenter prospective clinical trials have demonstrated that sublobar resection is noninferior to lobectomy, the traditional treatment of choice, for peripherally located early-stage lung cancer. Most clinical trials and several retrospective studies published to date have used the consolidation-to-tumor ratio to define the indication for sublobar resection, as it is well known that the size of the solid portion seen on high-resolution computed tomography is highly correlated with pathologic invasiveness. However, it is difficult to accurately predict pathologic features that may increase the risk of locoregional recurrence, such as specific adenocarcinoma subtypes or spread through air spaces, based on imaging characteristics alone, and the location of the nodule also should be considered one of the important factors in obtaining an adequate parenchymal resection margin. In this article, we summarize the results of the most recently published clinical trials related to sublobar resection and discuss various factors that should be considered for optimal candidate selection for sublobar 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.