RESUMO
Background: Using a previously unreported Peruvian registry of patients treated for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), this study explored whether wedge resection and lobectomy were equivalent regarding survival and impact on radiologic-pathologic variables. Methods: This observational, analytical, longitudinal study used propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis of a single-center retrospective registry of 2,570 patients with pathologic stage I-II NSCLC who were treated with wedge resection (n=1,845) or lobectomy (n=725) during 2000-2020. After PSM, 650 cases were analyzed (resection, n=325; lobectomy, n=325) through preoperative and clinical variables, including patients with ≥1 lymph node removed. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were created for 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional-recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Results: The principal complication was operative pain persisting >7 days for lobectomy versus wedge resection (58% vs. 23%, p=0.034) and shorter hospital stays for resection than for lobectomy (5.3 days vs. 12.8 days, p=0.009). The 5-year OS (84.3% vs. 81.2%, p=0.09) and DFS (79.1% vs. 74.1%, p=0.07) were similar and statistically insignificant between resections and lobectomies, respectively. LRFS was worse overall following wedge resection than lobectomy (79.8% vs. 91.1%, p<0.02). Nevertheless, in the PSM analysis, both groups experienced similar LRFS when the resection margin was >10 mm (90.9% vs. 87.3%, p<0.048) and ≥4 lymph nodes were removed (82.8% vs. 79.1%, p<0.011). Conclusion: Both techniques led to similar OS and DFS at 5 years; however, successful LRFS required a wedge resection with a surgical margin and adequate lymph node removal to obtain outcomes similar to lobectomy.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) has become the standard management of Unruptured Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (UIAAA); however, current evidence is limited and uncertain in our environment compared to Open repair. Our study aimed to determine the survival, short and long-term outcomes of EVAR vs. Open in a Peruvian cohort of UIAAA. METHODS: A single-center observational, analytical, longitudinal study using a retrospective registry of 251 patients treated (EVAR=205 vs Open=46) for UIAAA from 2000 to 2017. Variables considered were baseline, comorbidities, type of treatment, short-term (<30 days) and long-term (<5 years) outcomes, postoperative mortality according to the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Risk Score, survival curves including reoperation-free rate and according to size (<65 mm vs. >65 mm) of long-term UIAAA. All variables were grouped according to the treatment performed (EVAR vs. Open) and we used the descriptive, multivariate, Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival statistical analyses. RESULTS: 251 UIAAA were evaluated and the mean age was 74.5 years [±13.32], smoking, family members with UIAAA, and previous abdominal surgery were the main antecedents. Diabetes mellitus 2 was the main comorbidity; more than 50% of patients with UIAAA had diameters greater than 65 mm (p=0.021). The calculated mortality (VQI) was Open=2.21% vs. EVAR=1.65%. The outcomes in short-term were mortality (Open=2.92% vs. EVAR=0%; p=0.039), blood transfusion >4 Units (Open=72.68% vs. EVAR=17.39%; p=0.021) and overall hospital stay (Open=14 vs. EVAR=5 days; p=0.049. A reduction in mortality (HR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.62-0.96, p=0.045) and readmission for aneurysmal rupture was identified for EVAR (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.79-0.85, p=0.031). In long-term outcomes, mortality (Open=3.41% vs. EVAR=19.56%; p=0.047), aneurysmal rupture (Open=0% vs. EVAR 13.04%; p=0.032) and reinterventions (Open=2.43% vs. EVAR=10.86%; p=0.002). An 86% risk of mortality (HR 1.86, 95% CI, 1.32-2.38, p=0.039) and elevated risk of readmission for aneurysmal rupture was identified for EVAR (HR 2.21, 95% CI, 1.98-2.45, p=0.028). At 5 years, survival for Open=93.67% vs. EVAR=80.44% (p=0.043), reintervention-free survival for Open=89.26% vs. EVAR=47.82% (p=0.021), survival for treated IUAAA <65 mm for Open=95.77% vs. EVAR=63.63% (p=0.019) and >65 mm for Open=92.53% vs. EVAR=85.71% (p=0.059). CONCLUSION: EVAR has shown better short-term benefits and survival than Open management; however, the latter still prevails in the long term in our Peruvian UIAAA cohort. Further follow-up studies are required to demonstrate the long-term benefit of EVAR in our population.