RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment modality for patients with stage IA (T1N0M0) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is still unclear. METHODS: Patients who received surgical resection or chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) between January 2004 and December 2014 were identified from The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Surgical resection included lobectomy, wedge resection, segmentectomy with lymphadenectomy [examined lymph node (ELN) ≥1]. Propensity score match analysis was utilized to balance the baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 686 stage IA SCLC cases were included: 337 patients underwent surgery and 349 patients were treated by CRT alone. Surgery achieved a better outcome than CRT alone, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.495. Patients who underwent lobectomy demonstrated a longer overall survival (OS), compared to those who received sublobectomy (crude cohort, median OS, 69 vs. 38 months; match cohort, median OS, 67 vs. 38 months). Patients with ELN >7 presented with longer OS than those with ELN ≤7 (crude cohort, median OS, 91 vs. 49 months; matched cohort, median OS, 91 vs. 54 months). The additional efficacy of chemotherapy or radiotherapy in patients receiving lobectomy was observed. The best prognosis was achieved in the lobectomy plus CRT cohort, with a 5-year survival rate of 73.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The prolonged survival associated with lobectomy and chemotherapy or radiotherapy presents a viable treatment option in the management of patients with stage IA SCLC.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Lobectomy has long been regarded as the standard treatment for operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Recent studies suggested that segmentectomy could achieve a good prognosis for early-stage NSCLC and might be an alternative to lobectomy in this cohort. Until now, on the issue of comparison between lobectomy and segmentectomy, there remains no published randomized controlled trial (RCT), and all existing evidence is low. Recently, a categorization of lower-level evidence has been proposed, namely, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the oncologic outcome between lobectomy and segmentectomy in NSCLC with the clinical T1N0M0 stage according to the GRADE system. METHODS: PubMed, the PMC database, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were searched prior to May 2019 to identify studies that compared the prognosis between lobectomy and segmentectomy for clinical T1N0M0 NSCLC. The evidence level of the included studies was assessed according to the GRADE system, including level IIA, probably not confounded nonrandomized comparison; level IIB, possibly confounded nonrandomized comparison; and level IIC, probably confounded nonrandomized comparison. The predefined outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Univariable and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twelve nonrandomized studies involving 8,072 participants were included. Of these studies, two were classified as IIA level (16.7%), six as IIB level (50.0%), and four as IIC level (33.3%). When crude HRs were included, compared with lobectomy, segmentectomy was associated with shorter OS but comparable DFS in the entire cohort (OS, pooled HR =1.45, 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.67; DFS, pooled HR =1.03, 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.82) and in patients with nodules ≤2 cm (OS, pooled HR =1.55, 95% CI, 1.33 to 1.80; DFS, pooled HR =0.98, 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.77). When adjusted HRs were included, the impact of segmentectomy on OS and DFS was comparable to that of lobectomy in the entire cohort (OS, pooled HR =1.39, 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.10; DFS, pooled HR =0.83, 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.03) and in patients with nodules ≤2 cm (OS, pooled HR =1.61, 95% CI, 0.87 to 3.00; DFS, pooled HR =0.90, 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.27). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, although shorter OS is observed in patients received segmentectomy, it is necessary to wait for more results from RCT to draw a valid conclusion.
