ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
Propensity matching analysis of left upper tri-segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative outcomes of lobectomy and combined segmentectomy in left upper-lobe lung cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe equivalence between left upper lobectomy (LUL) and left upper tri-segmentectomy (LUTS) for stage I left upper non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains unclear. This study compares the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LUL and LUTS in this patient population.
methodsThis study included patients who underwent LUL or LUTS at West China Hospital of Sichuan University and Sichuan ShangJin Hospital between August 2018 and November 2023. Patients with tumors located at least 2 cm from the lingular segment were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) addressed baseline imbalances between groups. Perioperative outcomes, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS), and subgroup analyses were assessed.
resultsA total of 1019 patients were included (LUL: 524; LUTS: 495) with a median follow-up of 4.8 years (IQR: 2.5-8.1). Compared to LUL, LUTS was associated with significantly shorter operative times (103 vs. 120 min, p = 0.001), reduced postoperative drainage volume at 3 days (335 vs. 485 ml, p = 0.001) and total (360 vs. 530 ml, p = 0.001), lower conversion to thoracotomy rates (1.0% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.009), and fewer postoperative complications (9.9% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.016). No significant differences were observed in 5-year OS (86.7% vs. 85.4%, HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.66-1.39; p = 0.821), 5-year RFS (78.4% vs. 75.3%, HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.63-1.13; p = 0.258), or 5-year LCSS (90.2% vs. 91.3%, HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.62-1.57; p = 0.956) between the two groups.
conclusionFor stage I left upper NSCLC, LUTS, while preserving adequate surgical margins, achieves superior perioperative and comparable oncological outcomes to LUL.
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.