ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2025
Temporal Trends in the Utilization and Survival Outcomes of Lobar, Segmental, and Wedge Resection for Early-Stage NSCLC, 2004 to 2020.
Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 2025. 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.
- A narrative review of segmentectomy versus lobectomy in elderly patients with early-stage NSCLC: challenging the longstanding standard.Translational cancer research · 2025Review
- Preoperative prediction of pulmonary ground-glass nodule infiltration status by CT-based radiomics combined with neural networks.BMC cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Although lobectomy has long been the standard of surgical treatment for early-stage NSCLC, segmental and wedge resections have become another option often used over the past two decades. Methods: To examine the trends over time in the utilization, quality, and overall survival (OS) differences of lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection, we performed an observational, population-level study of 76,466 patients with T1 or T2 N0M0 NSCLC tumors 2 cm or less in size in the National Cancer Database, from 2004 to 2020. To compare the OS of the three treatments, we used inverse probability of treatment weighting to analyze a subgroup of cases with nodal examination and minimal comorbidity burden. Results: From 2004 to 2020, the use of lobectomy decreased from 75.2% to 67.6% of resections, wedge remained relatively stable (20.5%-22.8%), and segmentectomy increased from 4.3% to 9.7%. The likelihood of nodal assessments and negative margins has increased for all treatments. Younger patients, patients with low comorbidity burden, and patients with smaller tumors have become increasingly likely to receive segmental and wedge resections. Five-year OS of segmentectomy (80.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.1%-83.2%) remained noninferior to lobectomy (83.6%, 95% CI: 83.1%-84.1%]), whereas wedge resection was inferior until 2016 to 2019 (five-y OS = 79.9%, 95% CI: 75.9%-83.8%). Conclusions: Sublobar resections, particularly segmentectomies, have increased in frequency and quality. The growing use of sublobar resections for younger and healthier patients highlights the need for additional clinical evidence demonstrating whether these trends do indeed lead to better outcomes.
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.