ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
The Role of Sublobar Resection in Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Analysis of influencing factors of recurrence after thoracoscopic resection in patients with Stage I a lung adenocarcinoma.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of 30-day unplanned readmission risk in day surgery lung cancer patients after lobectomy or sublobectomy: a real-world study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The results of a prospective, multi-institutional randomized trial developed to assess the equality of sublobar resection versus standard lobectomy were first published in 1995. They concluded that, compared with lobectomy, sublobar resections did not show any significant improvement either in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality nor in terms of late post-resectional cardiorespiratory function. Moreover, due to the higher mortality and local recurrence rate related to sublobar resection, lobectomy had to be judged as the best surgical option for patients diagnosed with peripheral early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Since then, lobectomy has been considered the best surgical option for fit patients suffering from early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. In 2022 and 2023, three non-inferiority randomized trials were published, comparing lobectomy with the sublobar resection in T1a N0 patients whose tumors were up to 2 cm in size. Although presenting some important differences, all three trials met their primary endpoints, disclosing the non-inferiority of sublobar resections in terms of overall and disease-free survival. This narrative review aims to compare the newly published results of these trials as well as to report results from recent non-randomized studies on this topic.
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.