Thoracoscopic Wedge Resection Versus Segmentectomy for cT1N0 Lung Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The choice between wedge resection and segmentectomy as a sublobar resection method for patients with cT1N0 lung cancer remains debatable. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes after wedge resection and segmentectomy for patients with cT1N0 lung adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The study enrolled 1002 consecutive patients with cT1N0 lung adenocarcinoma who underwent sublobar resection at the authors' institution between 2011 and 2017. A propensity score-matching analysis was used to compared the clinical outcomes between the wedge resection and segmentectomy groups. RESULTS: Wedge resection was performed for 810 patients (80.8%), and segmentectomy was performed for 192 patients (19.2%). Wedge resection resulted in better perioperative outcomes than segmentectomy. The multivariate analysis showed that the significant risk factors for poor disease-free survival (DFS) were elevated preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels, total tumor diameter greater than 2 cm, and a consolidation-to-tumor (C/T) ratio higher than 50%. After propensity-matching, no differences in overall survival or DFS were noted between the two matched groups. However, subgroup analysis showed that segmentectomy was associated with better DFS than wedge resection (p = 0.039) for the patients with a tumor diameter greater than 2 cm and a C/T ratio higher than 50%. CONCLUSION: Segmentectomy is the appropriate surgical method for sublobar resection in cT1N0 lung adenocarcinoma patients with a tumor diameter greater than 2 cm and a C/T ratio higher than 50%. Wedge resection may be a safe and feasible sublobar resection method for patients with a tumor diameter of 2 cm or smaller or a C/T ratio of 50% or lower.

Nonintubated Versus Intubated Uniportal Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy for Lung Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Although the use of the uniportal thoracoscopic technique has spread exponentially recently, a comparison of nonintubated and intubated uniportal thoracoscopic segmentectomies for lung tumors has not been reported. We aimed to compare the feasibility, safety, and short-term postoperative outcomes between the 2 methods. METHODS: From January 2014 to June 2019 we retrospectively reviewed 185 consecutive patients with lung tumors who underwent uniportal thoracoscopic segmentectomy at our institute. A body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 was considered a contraindication for the nonintubated anesthetic approach. For the remaining cases the anesthetic approach was made at the discretion of each individual anesthesiologist. A propensity-matched analysis incorporating sex and body mass index was used to compare the clinical outcomes of the nonintubated and intubated groups. RESULTS: Fifty patients (27.0%) underwent the procedure with the nonintubated anesthetic approach. The nonintubated group was more likely to be female (P < .001) and with a lower body mass index (P < .001). Other clinical features showed no significant difference. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the type of segmentectomy according to the difficulty classification system. After propensity matching 43 matched patients in each group were included. Anesthetic induction duration (12.0 vs 15.3 minutes, P = .014) was shorter in the nonintubated group. No other significant differences in perioperative, postoperative, and anesthetic results were noted between the 2 matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: The nonintubated anesthetic approach can be a safe and feasible alternative to intubated uniportal thoracoscopic segmentectomy.

Propensity-Matched Analysis Comparing Survival After Sublobar Resection and Lobectomy for cT1N0 Lung Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical method for cT1N0 lung adenocarcinoma remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in clinical outcomes of sublobar resection and lobectomy for cT1N0 lung adenocarcinoma patients. METHODS: We included 1035 consecutive patients with cT1N0 lung adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery at our institute from January 2011 to December 2016. The surgical approach, either sublobar resection or lobectomy, was determined at the discretion of each surgeon. A propensity-matched analysis incorporating total tumor diameter, solid component diameter, consolidation-to-tumor (C/T) ratio, and performance status was used to compare the clinical outcomes of the sublobar resection and lobectomy groups. RESULTS: Sublobar resection and lobectomy were performed for 604 (58.4%; wedge resection/segmentectomy: 470/134) and 431 (41.6%) patients, respectively. Patients in the sublobar resection group had smaller total tumor diameters, smaller solid component diameters, lower C/T ratios, and better performance status. More lymph nodes were dissected in the lobectomy group. Patients in the sublobar resection group had better perioperative outcomes. A multivariable analysis revealed that the solid component diameter and serum carcinoembryonic antigen level are independent risk factors for tumor recurrence. After propensity matching, 284 paired patients in each group were included. No differences in overall survival (OS; p = 0.424) or disease-free survival (DFS; p = 0.296) were noted between the two matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sublobar resection is not inferior to lobectomy regarding both DFS and OS for cT1N0 lung adenocarcinoma patients. Sublobar resection may be a feasible surgical method for cT1N0 lung adenocarcinoma.