ArticleCancers2025
Evolving Resection Strategies for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers: Translating Trial Evidence to Real-World Practice.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLobectomy has long been the gold standard for early-stage NSCLC, but recent trials challenge its universality. The Japanese JCOG0802 trial demonstrated superior overall survival with segmentectomy versus lobectomy, whereas the North American CALGB140503 trial showed non-inferiority of sublobar resection, including wedge and segmentectomy, compared with lobectomy.
methodsThis commentary critically evaluates evidence from JCOG0802 and CALGB140503 in the context of wider thoracic surgical practice. We examine trial disparities, the role of real-world data, heterogeneity in surgical approach and lymph node staging, the impact of robotics on segmentectomy adoption, and the application of segmental resection in pulmonary metastasectomy.
resultsThe divergent trial findings reflect differences in populations, nodal staging, and surgical definitions. Worldwide, variability in sublobar practice and inconsistent nodal assessment present challenges to oncological reliability. Robotics has facilitated a rapid increase in anatomical segmentectomy but risks shifting surgical intent from necessity to feasibility. In metastasectomy, segmentectomy may improve local control but remains unproven in randomised studies. Emerging strategies such as IVLP and molecular profiling offer potential to refine patient selection and outcomes.
conclusionSublobar resection represents a paradigm shift in the surgical management of small NSCLC. Ensuring oncological validity in real-world practice requires rigorous nodal staging, equitable access to technology, and prospective evaluation of segmentectomy in both primary and metastatic disease. Future advances will depend on aligning surgical precision with biologically informed patient selection.
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.