ArticleCancers2026
Real-World Outcomes After Sublobar Resection for Small Node-Negative Lung Adenocarcinoma: SEER Benchmarking and a Clinicopathological Analysis.
Article in Cancers, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized trials support sublobar resection for selected small peripheral lung cancers, but real-world outcomes may vary by procedure type, nodal assessment, and pathological risk.
methodsWe performed a two-stage real-world analysis. Stage 1 included 22,864 patients with lung adenocarcinoma ≤3 cm from a node-assessed N0M0 SEER cohort. Stage 2 included 872 patients with node-negative lung adenocarcinoma from a multi-institutional, single-center-dominant clinicopathological cohort. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS).
resultsIn SEER, sublobar resection was associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.23-1.38) and lung cancer-specific death (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.27-1.51). Procedure-specific estimates were smaller for segmentectomy than for wedge resection and were attenuated after adjustment for examined lymph-node count. In the clinicopathological cohort, the primary postoperative model showed a higher DFS hazard with sublobar resection (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.83), with a similar estimate after overlap weighting (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.85). However, the association was not statistically clear after propensity-score matching (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76-2.63), 60-month restriction (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.58-2.03), or restriction to a comparable-follow-up cohort (HR 1.57, 95% CI 0.88-2.78). The proportional-hazards assumption for DFS was violated, and late estimates were based on sparse risk sets and were unstable. The recurrence association was predominantly locoregional, and increasing Core-HRPF burden was associated with progressively worse prognosis.
conclusionsReal-world sublobar resection is a heterogeneous exposure. Observed outcome associations varied by procedure type, nodal assessment, analytical specification, and follow-up horizon and should not be interpreted as evidence that sublobar resection is intrinsically inferior to lobectomy.
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.