Is wedge a dirty word? Demographic and facility-level variables associated with high-quality wedge resection.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Although sublobar resections have gained traction, wedge resections vary widely in quality. We seek to characterize the demographic and facility-level variables associated with high-quality wedge resections. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried from 2010 to 2018. Patients with T1/T2 N0 M0 non-small cell lung cancer 2 cm or less who underwent wedge resection without neoadjuvant therapy were included. A wedge resection with no nodes sampled or with positive margins was categorized as a low-quality wedge. A wedge resection with 4 or more nodes sampled and negative margins was categorized as a high-quality wedge. Facility-specific variables were investigated via quartile analysis based on the overall volume and proportion of high-quality wedge or low-quality wedge resections performed. Results: A total of 21,742 patients met inclusion criteria, 6390 (29.4%) of whom received a high-quality wedge resection. Factors associated with high-quality wedge resection included treatment at an academic center (3005 [47.0%] vs low-quality wedge 6279 [40.9%]; P < .001). The 30- and 90-day survivals were similar, but patients who received a high-quality wedge resection had improved 5-year survival (4902 [76.7%] vs 10,548 [68.7%]; P < .001). Facilities in the top quartile by volume of high-quality wedge resections performed 69% (4409) of all high-quality wedge resections, and facilities in the top quartile for low-quality wedge resections performed 67.6% (10,378) of all low-quality wedge resections. A total of 113 facilities were in the top quartile by volume for both high-quality wedge and low-quality wedge resections. Conclusions: High-quality wedge resections are associated with improved 5-year survival when compared with low-quality wedge resections. By volume, high-quality wedge and low-quality wedge resections cluster to a minority of facilities, many of which overlap. There is discordance between best practice guidelines and current practice patterns that warrants additional study.