ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2026
Sublobar Resection With Adequate Margin is Comparable to Lobectomy in Locoregional Recurrence.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2026. 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.
- Predictors of prolonged hospital stay in patients with lung cancer undergoing sublobar resection.Translational lung cancer research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough sublobar resection is a standard treatment for small peripheral non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the optimal margin distance remains under investigation. This study aimed to determine the adequacy of commonly used margin distances by comparing locoregional recurrence (LRR) with lobectomy.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from patients with completely resected ≤3 cm adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or adenosquamous cell carcinoma treated between April 2018 and March 2024. We compared sufficient and insufficient margin sublobar resection and lobectomy in terms of freedom from LRR (FLRR) rate and the cumulative risk of LRR.
resultsOf the 528 included patients, 200 underwent sublobar resection and 328 underwent lobectomy. After excluding 23 patients with pure ground-glass nodules, 505 patients with 19 LRR events were included in the prognostic analysis. In the overall cohort, LRR risk was worse in the insufficient margin group than in the sufficient margin and lobectomy groups, whereas the risk in the sufficient margin group was similar to the lobectomy groups (5-year FLRR: 75.1% vs 95.9% vs 95.8%, respectively). Conversely, in the pure-solid cohort, the risk of LRR was worse in the insufficient margin group and even in the sufficient margin group, compared to the lobectomy group.
conclusionsAmong patients with completely resected ≤3 cm NSCLC, our study indicated that those who underwent sublobar resection with a sufficient margin achieved better local control than those with an insufficient margin, and sublobar resection with a sufficient margin was comparable to lobectomy. However, for pure-solid nodules, conventional margin distance might be insufficient. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry: Registration number: UMIN000058449. https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-bin/ctr/ctr_view_reg.cgi?recptno=R000066821.
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.