So Now We Know-Reflections on the Extent of Resection for Stage I Lung Cancer.

Lobectomy has been the standard treatment for stage I lung cancer in healthy patients, largely based on a randomized trial published in 1995. Nevertheless, research has continued regarding the role of sublobar resection. Three additional randomized trials addressing resection extent in healthy patients have recently been published. These 4 trials involve differences in design, eligibility, interventions, and intraoperative processes. Patients were ineligible if intraoperative assessment demonstrated stage > IA or inadequate resection margins. All trials consistently show no differences in perioperative morbidity, mortality, and postoperative changes in lung function between sublobar resection and lobectomy-consistent with other nonrandomized evidence. Long-term outcomes are generally encouraging of lesser resection, but some inconsistencies are apparent. The 2 larger recent trials demonstrated no overall survival difference while the others suggested better survival after lobectomy versus sublobar resection. Recurrence-free survival was found to be the same after lobectomy versus sublobar resection in 3 trials, despite higher locoregional recurrences after sublobar resection. The low 5-year recurrence-free survival (64%, regardless of resection extent) in 1 recent trial highlights the need for further optimization. Thus, there is high-level evidence that sublobar resection is a reasonable alternative to lobectomy in healthy patients. However, variability in long-term results suggests that aspects of patients, tumors and interventions need to be better understood. Therefore, we propose to apply sublobar resection cautiously; especially because there are no short-term benefits. Sublobar resection requires careful attention to intraoperative details (nodes, margins), and may be best suited for less aggressive (eg, ground glass, slow growing) tumors.

Assessment of online information on robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery.

Online health resources are important for patients seeking perioperative information on robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery. The value of the resources depends on their readability, accuracy, content, quality, and suitability for patient use. We systematically assess current online health information on robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery. Systematic online searches were performed to identify websites discussing robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery. For each website, readability was measured by nine standardized tests, and accuracy and content were assessed by an independent panel of two robotic cardiothoracic surgeons. Quality and suitability of websites were evaluated using the DISCERN and Suitability Assessment of Materials tools, respectively. A total of 220 websites (120 cardiac, and 100 thoracic) were evaluated. Both robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery websites were very difficult to read with mean readability scores of 13.8 and 14.0 (p = 0.97), respectively, requiring at least 13 years of education to be comprehended. Both robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery websites had similar accuracy, amount of content, quality, and suitability (p > 0.05). On multivariable regression, academic websites [Exp (B)], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-3.16; P < 0.001), and websites with higher amount of content [Exp (B)],1.73; 95% CI, 1.24-2.41; P < 0.001) were associated with higher accuracy. There was no association between readability of websites and accuracy [Exp (B)], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21; P = 0.57). Online information on robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery websites overestimate patients' understanding and require at least 13 years of education to be comprehended. As website accuracy is not associated with ease of reading, the readability of online resources can be improved without compromising accuracy.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database: 2023 Update on Outcomes and Research.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database (GTSD) continues its trajectory of growth and enhancement, solidifying its stature as a premier global thoracic surgical database. The past year witnessed a notable expansion with the inclusion of 10 additional participating sites, now totaling 287, augmenting the database's repository to more than 800,000 procedures. A significant stride was made in refining the data audit process, thereby elevating the accuracy and completeness metrics, a testament to the relentless pursuit of data integrity. The GTSD further broadened its research apparatus, with 15 scholarly publications, a 50% uptick from the preceding year. These publications underscore the database's instrumental role in advancing thoracic surgical knowledge. In a concerted effort to alleviate data entry exigencies, the GTSD Task Force also instituted streamlined data submission protocols, a move lauded by participant sites. This report delineates the recent advancements, volume trajectories, and outcome metrics and encapsulates the prolific research output emanating from the GTSD, reflecting a year of substantial progress and academic fecundity.

Respect the Middle Lobe: Perioperative Risk of Bilobectomy Compared With Lobectomy and Pneumonectomy.

BACKGROUND: In some cases of right-sided lung cancer, tumor extension, bronchial involvement, or pulmonary artery infiltration may necessitate bilobectomy. Although the middle lobe is believed to represent a fraction of total lung function, the morbidity and mortality associated with bilobectomy is not well described. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database who underwent lobectomy, bilobectomy, or pneumonectomy for lung cancer from 2009 to 2017. The primary outcome was 30-day perioperative mortality. We performed propensity matching by patient demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative variables for each surgical type against bilobectomy and ran Cox proportional hazard models. Secondary outcomes of 30-day morbidity and mortality of upper vs lower bilobectomy were also compared. RESULTS: Within the study period 2911 bilobectomy, 65,506 lobectomy, and 3370 pneumonectomy patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing pneumonectomy and bilobectomy had fewer comorbidities than lobectomy patients. After propensity matching 30-day mortality of bilobectomy was comparable with left pneumonectomy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% CI, 0.95-1.91; P = .09) and significantly worse than left (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.29-0.56; P < .0001) or right (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.59; P < .0001) lobectomy. Bilobectomy was associated with a survival advantage compared with right pneumonectomy (HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.72-3.74; P < .0001). Thirty-day morbidity was higher for bilobectomy compared with lobectomy, and upper bilobectomy had a significant unadjusted 30-day mortality advantage compared with lower bilobectomy (98.3% vs 97%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The morbidity and mortality of bilobectomy is significantly worse than lobectomy and is comparable with left pneumonectomy. The addition of middle lobectomy to a pulmonary resection is not without risk and should be carefully considered during preoperative risk stratification.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Lung Cancer Screening Processes in a Northeast Tertiary Health Care Network.

ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted health care systems, including implementation of lung cancer screening programs. The impact and recovery from this disruption on screening processes is not well appreciated. Herein, the radiology database of a Northeast tertiary health care network was reviewed before and during the pandemic (2013-2022). In the 3 months before the pandemic, an average of 77.3 lung cancer screening with computed tomography scans (LCS-CT) were performed per month. The average dropped to 23.3 between April and June of 2020, whereas COVID-19 hospitalizations peaked at 1604. By July, average hospitalizations dropped to 50, and LCS-CTs rose to >110 per month for the remaining year. LCS-CTs did not decline during COVID-19 surges in December of 2021 and 2022. The LCS-CT performance grew by 4.5% in 2020, 69.6% in 2021, and 27.0% in 2022, exceeding projected growth by 722 examinations. This resiliency indicates a potentially smaller impact of COVID-19 on lung cancer diagnoses than initially feared.

Brief Report: Increasing Prevalence of Ground-Glass Nodules and Semisolid Lung Lesions on Outpatient Chest Computed Tomography Scans.

Introduction: The increased use of cross-sectional imaging frequently identifies a growing number of lung nodules that require follow-up imaging studies and physician consultations. We report here the frequency of finding a ground-glass nodule (GGN) or semisolid lung lesion (SSL) in the past decade within a large academic health system. Methods: A radiology system database review was performed on all outpatient adult chest computed tomography (CT) scans between 2013 and 2022. Radiology reports were searched for the terms "ground-glass nodule," "subsolid," and "semisolid" to identify reports with findings potentially concerning for an adenocarcinoma spectrum lesion. Results: A total of 175,715 chest CT scans were performed between 2013 and 2022, with a steadily increasing number every year from 10,817 in 2013 to 21,916 performed in the year 2022. Identification of GGN or SSL on any outpatient CT increased from 5.9% in 2013 to 9.2% in 2022, representing a total of 2019 GGN or SSL reported on CT scans in 2022. The percentage of CT scans with a GGN or SSL finding increased during the study period in men and women and across all age groups above 50 years old. Conclusions: The total number of CT scans performed and the percentage of chest CT scans with GGN or SSL has more than doubled between 2013 and 2022; currently, 9% of all chest CT scans report a GGN or SSL. Although not all GGN or SSL radiographic findings represent true adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions, they are a growing burden to patients and health systems, and better methods to risk stratify radiographic lesions are needed.

Assessment of a collaborative treatment model for trimodal management of esophageal cancer.

Background: Patients with esophageal cancer often receive care in a collaborative (multi-institutional) treatment model as opposed to a single institutional model. The effect of a collaborative model on the quality of trimodality therapy and survival is unknown. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between 2012-2017. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and surgery at a single institution were compared to those that received collaborative treatment across multiple institutions. Outcomes included adherence to guideline recommended multiagent chemotherapy, receipt of 41.4-50.4 Gy of radiation, R0 resection, pathologic complete response (pCR), and 5-year survival. Sociodemographics, comorbidities, and tumor characteristics were assessed in bivariate and multivariable analysis. Results: Among 8,396 patients identified, 39% received treatment at a single institution, while 61% received collaborative treatment. Median travel distance to the site of esophagectomy was two times greater for patients receiving collaborative treatment (30 vs. 15 miles; P<0.001). Patients in the collaborative cohort were less likely to receive guideline-recommended multiagent chemotherapy (85% vs. 96%; P<0.001) and 41.4-50.4 Gy of radiation (89% vs. 91%; P=0.01). R0 resection rates were similar (94.4% vs. 93.7%; P=0.17). Patients who received collaborative treatment had an increased rate of pCR (24% vs. 22%; P=0.02). Overall, 90-day and 5-year survival were 92.9% and 42.6% respectively and did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions: Collaborative trimodality treatment of esophageal cancer is a common and reasonable practice model, which may alleviate patient travel burden with only a modest impact on the quality of CRT, pCR, 90-day survival, and 5-year survival.

Autologous humanized PDX modeling for immuno-oncology recapitulates features of the human tumor microenvironment.

BACKGROUND: Interactions between immune and tumor cells are critical to determining cancer progression and response. In addition, preclinical prediction of immune-related drug efficacy is limited by interspecies differences between human and mouse, as well as inter-person germline and somatic variation. To address these gaps, we developed an autologous system that models the tumor microenvironment (TME) from individual patients with solid tumors. METHOD: With patient-derived bone marrow hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs), we engrafted a patient's hematopoietic system in MISTRG6 mice, followed by transfer of patient-derived xenograft (PDX) tissue, providing a fully genetically matched model to recapitulate the individual's TME. We used this system to prospectively study tumor-immune interactions in patients with solid tumor. RESULTS: Autologous PDX mice generated innate and adaptive immune populations; these cells populated the TME; and tumors from autologously engrafted mice grew larger than tumors from non-engrafted littermate controls. Single-cell transcriptomics revealed a prominent vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) signature in TME myeloid cells, and inhibition of human VEGF-A abrogated enhanced growth. CONCLUSIONS: Humanization of the interleukin 6 locus in MISTRG6 mice enhances HSPC engraftment, making it feasible to model tumor-immune interactions in an autologous manner from a bedside bone marrow aspirate. The TME from these autologous tumors display hallmarks of the human TME including innate and adaptive immune activation and provide a platform for preclinical drug testing.

Advances in Surgical Techniques for Lung Cancer.

Thoracic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer has evolved tremendously in the past two decades. Improvements have come on multiples fronts and include a transition to minimally invasive techniques, an incorporation of neoadjuvant treatment, and a greater utilization of sublobar resection. These advances have reduced the morbidity of thoracic surgery, while maintaining or improving long-term survival. This review highlights major advances in the surgical techniques of lung cancer and the keys to optimizing outcomes from a surgical perspective.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database: 2022 Update on Outcomes and Research.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database (STS GTSD) remains the largest and most robust thoracic surgical database in the world. Participating sites receive risk-adjusted performance reports for benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. The GTSD also provides several mechanisms for high-quality clinical research using data from 274 participant sites and 781,000 procedures since its inception in 2002. Participant sites are audited at random annually for completeness and accuracy. Over the last year and a half, the GTSD Task Force continued to refine the data collection process, implementing an updated data collection form in July 2021, ensuring high data fidelity while minimizing data entry burden. In addition, the STS Workforce on National Databases has supported a robust GTSD-based research program, which led to eight scholarly publications in 2021. This report provides an update on volume trends, outcomes, and database initiatives as well as a summary of research productivity resulting from the GTSD over the preceding year.

Using the robotic platform in the therapy of multifocal ground glass opacities.

Due to their association with invasive adenocarcinoma, ground glass opacities that reach 3 cm in size, develop a solid component ≥2 mm on mediastinal windows, or exhibit ≥25% annual growth warrant operative resection. Minimally invasive techniques are preferred given that approximately one third of patients will present with multifocal focal disease and may require additional operations. A robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgical approach can be used with percutaneous or bronchoscopic localization techniques and are compatible with developing intraoperative molecular targeting techniques.

Surgical results of the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3 trial: A phase II multicenter single-arm study to investigate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with stages IB-select IIIB resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Multimodality treatment for resectable non-small cell lung cancer has long remained at a therapeutic plateau. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are highly effective in advanced non-small cell lung cancer and promising preoperatively in small clinical trials for resectable non-small cell lung cancer. This large multicenter trial tested the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant atezolizumab and surgery. METHODS: Patients with stage IB to select IIIB resectable non-small cell lung cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were eligible. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 2 cycles or less followed by resection. The primary end point was major pathological response in patients without EGFR/ALK+ alterations. Pre- and post-treatment computed tomography, positron emission tomography, pulmonary function tests, and biospecimens were obtained. Adverse events were recorded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.0. RESULTS: From April 2017 to February 2020, 181 patients were entered in the study. Baseline characteristics were mean age, 65.1 years; female, 93 of 181 (51%); nonsquamous histology, 112 of 181 (62%); and clinical stages IIB to IIIB, 147 of 181 (81%). In patients without EGFR/ALK alterations who underwent surgery, the major pathological response rate was 20% (29/143; 95% confidence interval, 14-28) and the pathological complete response rate was 6% (8/143; 95% confidence interval, 2-11). There were no grade 4/5 treatment-related adverse events preoperatively. Of 159 patients (87.8%) undergoing surgery, 145 (91%) had pathologic complete resection. There were 5 (3%) intraoperative complications, no intraoperative deaths, and 2 postoperative deaths within 90 days, 1 treatment related. Median disease-free and overall survival have not been reached. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in resectable stage IB to IIIB non-small cell lung cancer was well tolerated, yielded a 20% major pathological response rate, and allowed safe, complete surgical resection. These results strongly support the further development of immune checkpoint inhibitors as preoperative therapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Immunotherapy After Chemotherapy and Radiation for Clinical Stage III Lung Cancer.

Importance: The 2017 international PACIFIC trial established a role for immunotherapy after chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in the US, patients with NSCLC commonly differ from clinical trial populations in terms of age, health, access to care, and treatment course, which may all factor into the efficacy of immunotherapy. Objective: To determine the outcomes of immunotherapy use in unresectable stage III NSCLC in the general US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed the National Cancer Database for patients diagnosed with clinical stage III NSCLC between 2015 and 2017 with follow-up through the end of 2018 who were treated with chemotherapy and radiation. Data were analyzed January 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality hazard in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and survival among a propensity-matched sample treated with chemotherapy and radiation, with and without immunotherapy. Results: A total of 23 811 patients with clinical stage III NSCLC with median (IQR) age 66 (59-72) years met inclusion criteria (10 454 [43.9%] women; 564 [2.4%] Asian, 2930 [12.3%] Black, 20 077 [84.3%] White patients), including 209 (16.1%) patients with multiple comorbidities and 1297 (5.4%) immunotherapy recipients. Immunotherapy after chemotherapy and radiation was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.82; P < .001). Among a propensity-matched sample, immunotherapy was associated with superior 3-year survival (52% [1297 patients at 0 months, 56 patients at 36 months] vs 44% [2594 patients at 0 months, 173 patients at 36 months]; P < .001). The treatment of 833 patients who received immunotherapy (64.2%) differed from the PACIFIC trial protocol, including 221 patients (17.0%) who received radiation doses outside of the protocol range and 731 patients (56.4%) who started immunotherapy more than 6 weeks after radiation was completed. The survival advantage of immunotherapy persisted when initiated up to 12 weeks after radiation was completed (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92). Among patients who received radiation outside the PACIFIC protocol range, the survival advantage of immunotherapy was not significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, immunotherapy after chemotherapy and radiation for stage III NSCLC was associated with a survival advantage in the general US population despite two-thirds of patients treated differently than the PACIFIC protocol. The findings suggest there may be flexibility in the timing of immunotherapy initiation after radiation; further study is warranted to clarify the clinical benefits of immunotherapy.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 1: a guide to decision-making.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: Based on a systematic review from 2000-2021, evidence regarding relevant outcomes was assembled, with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers. A framework was developed to present this information a format that enhances decision-making at the point of care for individual patients. Results: While patients often cross over several boundaries, the evidence fits into categories of healthy patients, compromised patients, and favorable tumors. In healthy patients with typical (i.e., solid spiculated) lung cancers, the impact on long-term outcomes is the major driver of treatment selection. This is only slightly ameliorated in older patients. In compromised patients increasing frailty accentuates short-term differences and diminishes long-term differences especially when considering non-surgical vs. surgical approaches; nuances of patient selection (technical treatment feasibility, anticipated risk of acute toxicity, delayed toxicity, and long-term outcomes) as well as patient values are increasingly influential. Favorable (less-aggressive) tumors generally have good long-term outcomes regardless of the treatment approach. Discussion: A framework is provided that organizes the evidence and identifies the major drivers of decision-making for an individual patient. This facilitates blending available evidence and clinical judgment in a flexible, nuanced manner that enhances individualized clinical care.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 2: systematic review of evidence regarding resection extent in generally healthy patients.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in generally healthy patients is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In healthy patients there is no short-term benefit to sublobar resection vs. lobectomy in randomized and non-randomized comparisons. A detriment in long-term outcomes is demonstrated by adjusted non-randomized comparisons, more marked for wedge than segmentectomy. Quality-of-life data is confounded by the use of video-assisted approaches; evidence suggests the approach has more impact than the resection extent. Differences in pulmonary function tests by resection extent are not clinically meaningful in healthy patients, especially for multi-segmentectomy vs. lobectomy. The margin distance is associated with the risk of recurrence. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in healthy patients with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation on which to build a framework for individualized clinical decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 3: systematic review of evidence regarding surgery in compromised patients or specific tumors.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in older patients, patients with limited pulmonary reserve and favorable tumors is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons (NRCs) with adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In older patients, perioperative mortality is minimally altered by resection extent and only slightly affected by increasing age; sublobar resection may slightly decrease morbidity. Long-term outcomes are worse after lesser resection; the difference is slightly attenuated with increasing age. Reported short-term outcomes are quite acceptable in (selected) patients with severely limited pulmonary reserve, not clearly altered by resection extent but substantially improved by a minimally invasive approach. Quality-of-life (QOL) and impact on pulmonary function hasn't been well studied, but there appears to be little difference by resection extent in older or compromised patients. Patient selection is paramount but not well defined. Ground-glass and screen-detected tumors exhibit favorable long-term outcomes regardless of resection extent; however solid tumors <1 cm are not a reliably favorable group. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in compromised patients and favorable tumors with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation.

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after SBRT or thermal ablation vs. resection is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: Short-term outcomes are meaningfully better after SBRT than resection. SBRT doesn't affect quality-of-life (QOL), on average pulmonary function is not altered, but a minority of patients may experience gradual late toxicity. Adjusted non-randomized comparisons demonstrate a clinically relevant detriment in long-term outcomes after SBRT vs. surgery. The short-term benefits of SBRT over surgery are accentuated with increasing age and compromised patients, but the long-term detriment remains. Ablation is associated with a higher rate of complications than SBRT, but there is little intermediate-term impact on quality-of-life or pulmonary function tests. Adjusted comparisons show a meaningful detriment in long-term outcomes after ablation vs. surgery; there is less difference between ablation and SBRT. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or thermal ablation vs. resection with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making.