Long-Term Results of Segmentectomy vs. Lobectomy for c-Stage IA Lung Cancer: A Real-Life Study with a Propensity Score Analysis Based on a National Cohort
Rattachement africain : es. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background/Objectives: The objective was to compare the results of segmentectomy and lobectomy in the treatment of c-stage IA lung cancer in terms of tumor recurrence and 5-year survival. Methods: An observational study was performed using 3533 patients included in the registry of the Spanish VATS Group (GEVATS) of the Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery (SECT) between 2016 and 2018. A total of 1004 lobectomies and 83 segmentectomies in c-stage IA were selected. Two comparable groups were selected through 2:1 propensity score matching with patient-, tumor- and surgery-related variables, leaving 166 lobectomies and 83 segmentectomies. Tumor recurrence was analyzed by Fisher’s test and overall, cancer-specific, recurrence-free and disease-free survival by Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank tests. Results: Overall recurrence was 23.7% in both groups, with a predominance of locoregional recurrence in segmentectomy (16.2% vs. 11.2%) and distant recurrence in lobectomy (12.5% vs. 7.5%). There was no difference between the two groups in any of the survival types. Overall survival at 5 years was 73.5% (95% CI: 65.5–82.4%) in the lobectomy group vs. 73.1% (95% CI: 60.1–88.9%) in the segmentectomy group. Conclusions: Anatomic segmentectomy may be a valid option in the treatment of c-stage IA lung cancer since the recurrence and long-term survival outcomes compared to lobectomy are equivalent.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Long-Term Results of Segmentectomy vs. Lobectomy for c-Stage IA Lung Cancer: A Real-Life Study with a Propensity Score Analysis Based on a National Cohort
- Date Crossref
- 26/03/2025
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.