SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Outcomes of combined lung cancer resection and lung volume reduction surgery in adults with severe emphysema; a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Severe emphysema can preclude potentially curative lung cancer resection. In selected patients, a volume-reduction strategy may allow cancer resection while removing hyperinflated, poorly functioning parenchyma. Methods: We systematically reviewed adults with severe emphysema undergoing lung cancer resection combined with LVRS, LVRS-like resection, or lobar resection producing a volume-reduction effect. PubMed, Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP, and reference lists were searched to 27 May 2026. Primary outcomes were perioperative mortality and major complications. Secondary outcomes included FEV1 change, exercise capacity, dyspnoea, quality of life, survival, and recurrence. Single-arm meta-analyses were performed when at least three comparable studies reported extractable data. Results: Ten unique datasets met the review criteria; seven contributed to at least one quantitative synthesis. Three deaths occurred among 113 participants (crude mortality 2.7%); the sparse-event random-effects logit model estimated 7.3% (95% CI 3.4-15.1). FEV1 improved by a pooled mean of +0.26 L (95% CI + 0.20 to +0.32; four studies, 74 patients). Reported 5-year overall survival ranged from 35% to 68% in the most informative cohorts, but survival and recurrence data were too heterogeneous for definitive oncologic conclusions. Conclusions: In highly selected patients with severe emphysema and resectable lung cancer, combined resection and LVRS appears feasible and may preserve or improve pulmonary function. Only 3/113 perioperative deaths (2.7%) were directly observed; the 7.3% pooled model estimate is not an observed risk and is unstable with only three deaths. The procedure should not be interpreted as low risk: it carries substantial air-leak morbidity, the certainty of evidence is very low. These findings support specialist multidisciplinary consideration, not routine use. Candidate selection should require concordance between curative oncologic resectability and a CT-defined, poorly perfused LVRS target, together with acceptable global reserve after optimisation. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD420261397321.
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.