ReviewCancers2026
Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Review.
Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of modern minimally invasive approaches on pulmonary resection outcomes: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Article
- Risk factor analysis and prediction of lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis after surgery in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of lung cancers, and surgical resection is the gold-standard treatment for resectable disease. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), which includes video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS), has emerged as an alternative option to thoracotomy, with the aim of minimizing perioperative morbidity without compromising oncological efficacy. This narrative review evaluates long-term oncological outcomes (overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS)) in patients with NSCLC at different stages who underwent MIS. Retrospective and prospective studies, as well as meta-analyses, are included. VATS has shown comparable and, in many cases, superior oncological outcomes compared to open surgery, with more evident benefits in the early stages of the disease. Although mainly in retrospective studies, RATS has demonstrated efficacy in terms of oncological outcomes comparable to open surgery, even in advanced stages or complex resections. With regard to the direct comparison between VATS and RATS, the two MIS techniques have shown similar OS rates, albeit some prospective data and meta-analyses suggest a potential DFS advantage for RATS. MIS is a safe and effective surgical approach in terms of oncological outcomes for resectable NSCLC; nevertheless, it will be necessary to await the results of further randomized studies currently ongoing to better define the long-term benefits of each technique.
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.