ArticleThoracic cancer2024
Comparison of survivals between sublobar resection and lobar resection for patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer and interstitial lung disease: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Surgical Management of Lung Cancer in Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with early-stage lung cancer and interstitial lung disease have a poorer prognosis than those without interstitial lung disease. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of lobar and sublobar resections in these patients.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 138 consecutive patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer and interstitial lung disease who underwent surgical treatment at two institutions between January 2010 and December 2020. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for baseline characteristics.
resultsThirty-six patients underwent sublobar resection and 102 underwent lobar resection. The median follow-up was 45.7 months. In all patients, 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.2% and 73.2%, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 24.2% and 60.1% in the sublobar and lobar resection groups, respectively (p < 0.01, <0.01). Death due to lung cancer and locoregional recurrence were significantly more frequent in the sublobar resection group than in the lobar resection group (p = 0.034, <0.01, respectively). On propensity score matching analysis, the 5-year OS rates of the 19 matched pairs were 46.3% and 73.2%, and the RFS rates were 31.6% and 67.6% in the sublobar and lobar resection groups, respectively (p = 0.036, <0.01). The Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated a significant association between lobar resection and improved survival (p = 0.047).
conclusionThe patients in the lobar resection group had better survival rates than those in the sublobar resection group. In terms of long-term prognosis, deliberately limited surgery may not be necessary for patients who tolerate lobectomy.
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.