ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Analysis of clinical and oncological outcomes after simple and intentional lung segmentectomies: the deceptive simplicity of the S6 segment.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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.
- Lymph Node Metastasis and Recurrence Patterns in Clinical Stage IA Lower-Lobe Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Toward an Optimal Surgical Strategy for Superior Segment (S6) Tumors.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, few studies analyze postoperative outcomes for different types of segmental resections. Therefore, our aim was to compare lower lobe apex with other simple and intentional segmentectomies, in terms of clinical and oncological outcomes. Methods: A retrospective and multicenter study was conducted on patients who underwent simple and intentional segmentectomies from 2015 to 2020. Inclusion criteria were stage cT1a/b N0 M0 disease, peripheral localization and predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in one second (ppoFEV1) >60%. Pre, intra and post operative parameters were collected and we performed statistical analysis on overall survival and recurrence. Results: The inclusion criteria were met by 252 patients, with 125 having an anatomical S6 resection ("S6" group) and 127 having another anatomical simple segmentectomy ("others" group). There were no significant differences in baseline data. We noted a worse 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) for the "S6" group (P=0.053). Twenty-eight of 46 patients with relapsed disease had loco-regional recurrence. Of these, 80% belonged to the "S6" group (P<0.001). Conclusions: Oncological outcomes were not the same for all simple and intentional segmentectomies. Particularly, S6 exhibited worse oncological outcomes, mainly in terms of disease-free survival. This disparity could be explained by the unpredictable lymphatic drainage or by the smaller parenchymal volume removed during dissection.
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.