ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Curative-Intention Surgery with Lobe-Specific Versus Systematic Lymph Node Dissection in Clinical Stage IA-IB Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Our Experience and Literature Review.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe benefit of lobe-specific lymph node dissection (LS-LND) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains debated, especially in early-stage disease. Previous reviews often included all stages, leaving a gap in focused evaluations of clinical stage IA-IB NSCLC. This systematic review, supplemented by our institutional experience, aimed to compare overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and postoperative complications between LS-LND and systematic lymph node dissection (S-LND) in clinical stage IA-IB NSCLC.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 24 patients treated at our institution (14 S-LND vs. 10 LS-LND). Data on patient demographics, operative details, OS, RFS, and postoperative complications were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using established methodological tools. A targeted literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to 14 April 2022. Only three articles (total
resultsLS-LND demonstrated comparable or slightly improved 5-year OS (range: 69.7-96.7%) versus S-LND (64.9-92.0%), and similar or slightly higher RFS (66.0-95.6% in LS-LND vs. 60.8-88.8% in S-LND). In our cohort, the 5-year OS was 78.6% in S-LND vs. 80.0% in LS-LND, and the 5-year RFS was 71.4% vs. 70.0%, respectively. Postoperative complications such as arrhythmias were less frequent in LS-LND groups overall. Our data showed a low rate of pneumonia in S-LND compared to LS-LND (7.1% vs. 10.0%); however, arrhythmias accounted for 14.3% in S-LND vs. 10.0% in LS-LND).
conclusionsFor clinical stage IA-IB NSCLC, LS-LND offers oncologic outcomes that are comparable to S-LND, with a potential for reduced postoperative complications. The findings from our institution align with these trends observed in the literature. While these results suggest potential advantages of lobe-specific approaches, definitive conclusions require further validation through larger, prospective randomized studies to confirm the clinical benefits of LS-LND in early-stage NSCLC.
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.