ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2024
Outcomes following minimally invasive approaches
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updated Analysis of the Impact of Pulmonary Function Tests on Complications After Lung Resection.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026Article
- Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Video-Assisted vs. Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery in Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Single-center clinical experience of extended sleeve lobectomy (ESL) versus standard sleeve lobectomy (SL).Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
- Extended lobectomy-how minimally invasive can we go?Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional thoracotomy, an invasive surgical procedure, has been the standard approach for extended lobectomy in treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has gained traction with advancements in surgical techniques. Despite this, the outcomes of extended lobectomy via a minimally invasive approach remain largely uncharted. Using the comprehensive National Cancer Database (NCDB), our research aimed to clarify the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of minimally invasive extended lobectomy in patients diagnosed with NSCLC. Methods: Our study encompassed a selection of patients with NSCLC who underwent extended lobectomy (defined as lobectomy or bilobectomy with chest wall, diaphragm or pericardial resection) between 2010 and 2014. Through propensity score matching (PSM), we ensured a balanced comparison between patients who underwent MIS and those who opted for the traditional open extended lobectomy. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were employed to discern whether the surgical approach had any significant impact on the prognosis of patients undergoing this specific procedure. Results: Before PSM, our dataset included 3,934 patients. After 1:2 PSM, the MIS group included 683 cases, while the open group included 1,317 cases. One notable finding was the reduced average postoperative hospital stay for the MIS group at 7.15 days compared to the open group at 8.40 days (P<0.001). Furthermore, the 5-year survival rate was similar, with the MIS group at 53.1% and the open group at 51.3% (P=0.683). Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that MIS for extended lobectomy not only is safe and feasible but also is oncologically effective. However, it is imperative to note that these encouraging findings necessitate further validation through prospective studies to ascertain the full scope of benefits and potential risks associated with MIS.
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.