ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of stage I non-small-cell lung carcinoma is subject to debate. The aim of this study was to compare overall survival and oncologic outcomes of lobar resection (LR), sublobar resection (SR), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncologic outcomes of propensity matched comparative and noncomparative cohort studies was performed. Outcomes of interest were overall survival and disease-free survival. The inverse variance method and the random-effects method for meta-analysis were utilized to assess the pooled estimates. RESULTS: A total of 100 studies with patients treated for clinical stage I non-small-cell lung carcinoma were included. Long-term overall and disease-free survival after LR was superior over SBRT in all comparisons, and for most comparisons, SR was superior to SBRT. Noncomparative studies showed superior long-term overall and disease-free survival for both LR and SR over SBRT. Although the papers were heterogeneous and of low quality, results remained essentially the same throughout a large number of stratifications and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that LR has superior outcomes compared to SBRT for cI non-small-cell lung carcinoma. New trials are underway evaluating long-term results of SBRT in potentially operable patients.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/therapy , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Disease-Free Survival , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Neoplasm Staging , Pneumonectomy/methods , Radiosurgery/legislation & jurisprudence , Survival Rate , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The optimal treatment of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains subject to debate. Lobar resection is considered the standard of care, but sublobar resections are a lung parenchymal-sparing treatment offering promising results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncological outcomes of lobar resections and parenchymal-sparing resections for T1a NSCLC. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge Search, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting oncological outcomes following lobar or parenchymal-sparing resections. Two researchers independently identified studies and extracted data. Oncological outcomes were compared for each surgical modality using the Mantel-Haenszel method, and outcomes were pooled for each modality using the inverse variance method. A total of 11,195 studies were identified and 28 articles were included. For pT1a tumors, there was no difference in 5-year overall survival when lobar resection (nâ¯=â¯15,003) was compared to parenchymal-sparing resection (nâ¯=â¯1224), with a relative risk of 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.01). Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival after segmentectomy yielded equal survival compared to lobar resection in directly comparing studies and point estimates of noncomparative studies. In most comparisons, wedge resection showed comparable results to lobar resections and segmentectomy. Subanalysis of intentional parenchymal-sparing surgery showed favorable results. This study shows that parenchymal-sparing surgery yields equivocal survival compared to lobar surgery for stage T1a NSCLC. However, a drawback in implementing parenchymal-sparing resection for lobectomy-tolerable patients is the risk of nodal upstaging.
