ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Surgical approach and prognosis in patients with ≤2 cm grade 3 lung adenocarcinoma: a multivariable analysis of disease-free and overall survival.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-grade histological patterns are established risk factors for poor prognosis in lung adenocarcinoma. Whether sublobar resection is oncologically equivalent to lobectomy in ≤2 cm grade 3 lesions remains unclear. This study compared the effects of different surgical approaches on perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 239 patients who underwent curative-intent resection for grade 3 invasive lung adenocarcinoma ≤2 cm between January 2014 and December 2023. Patients were stratified into lobectomy (n=121), segmentectomy (n=74), and wedge resection (n=44) groups. Perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared among the three groups. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and weighted Cox models were used to compare survival. Multivariable analysis was performed using Firth's penalized Cox regression. Results: No significant differences were observed in preoperative characteristics among the three groups (P>0.05). Significant differences were observed in operative time among the three groups (P=0.003). The wedge resection group had the shortest operative time and the least blood loss, whereas the lobectomy group had the longest operative time and the greatest blood loss. Postoperative pathological features, including high-grade patterns proportion, spread through air spaces (STAS), perineural invasion (PNI), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, were comparable across groups (P>0.05). However, lobectomy was associated with significantly greater numbers of dissected lymph node stations (P<0.001) and total lymph nodes retrieved (P=0.02). After IPTW adjustment, the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 85.6%, 84.7%, and 58.4%, respectively; the weighted log-rank test showed a significant difference (P=0.03), with wedge resection associated with significantly worse DFS versus lobectomy [weighted hazard ratio (HR) 2.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21-5.28; P=0.01], whereas segmentectomy was comparable (weighted HR 1.05; 95% CI: 0.46-2.41; P=0.90). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 85.7%, 89.3%, and 82.8%, respectively, with no significant intergroup difference (χ Conclusions: In patients with ≤2 cm high-grade lung adenocarcinoma, segmentectomy demonstrated comparable long-term survival to lobectomy. Wedge resection, however, showed an unfavorable trend in 5-year DFS rate and should be cautiously selected.
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.