Cancers · 2026
Real-World Outcomes After Sublobar Resection for Small Node-Negative Lung Adenocarcinoma: SEER Benchmarking and a Clinicopathological Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jing Yuhao, Zhou Zhenbao, Li Miao, Sun Guangzhi, Wang Xin, Wang Kai, Zhao Yifan, Li Songxiang, Jia Xiaoteng, Zhang Han, Wang Yuhang, Li Xin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials support sublobar resection for selected small peripheral lung cancers, but real-world outcomes may vary by procedure type, nodal assessment, and pathological risk.
METHODS: We performed a two-stage real-world analysis. Stage 1 included 22,864 patients with lung adenocarcinoma ≤3 cm from a node-assessed N0M0 SEER cohort. Stage 2 included 872 patients with node-negative lung adenocarcinoma from a multi-institutional, single-center-dominant clinicopathological cohort. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS).
RESULTS: In SEER, sublobar resection was associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.23-1.38) and lung cancer-specific death (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.27-1.51). Procedure-specific estimates were smaller for segmentectomy than for wedge resection and were attenuated after adjustment for examined lymph-node count. In the clinicopathological cohort, the primary postoperative model showed a higher DFS hazard with sublobar resection (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.83), with a similar estimate after overlap weighting (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.85). However, the association was not statistically clear after propensity-score matching (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76-2.63), 60-month restriction (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.58-2.03), or restriction to a comparable-follow-up cohort (HR 1.57, 95% CI 0.88-2.78). The proportional-hazards assumption for DFS was violated, and late estimates were based on sparse risk sets and were unstable. The recurrence association was predominantly locoregional, and increasing Core-HRPF burden was associated with progressively worse prognosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Real-world sublobar resection is a heterogeneous exposure. Observed outcome associations varied by procedure type, nodal assessment, analytical specification, and follow-up horizon and should not be interpreted as evidence that sublobar resection is intrinsically inferior to lobectomy.
METHODS: We performed a two-stage real-world analysis. Stage 1 included 22,864 patients with lung adenocarcinoma ≤3 cm from a node-assessed N0M0 SEER cohort. Stage 2 included 872 patients with node-negative lung adenocarcinoma from a multi-institutional, single-center-dominant clinicopathological cohort. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS).
RESULTS: In SEER, sublobar resection was associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.23-1.38) and lung cancer-specific death (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.27-1.51). Procedure-specific estimates were smaller for segmentectomy than for wedge resection and were attenuated after adjustment for examined lymph-node count. In the clinicopathological cohort, the primary postoperative model showed a higher DFS hazard with sublobar resection (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.83), with a similar estimate after overlap weighting (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.85). However, the association was not statistically clear after propensity-score matching (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76-2.63), 60-month restriction (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.58-2.03), or restriction to a comparable-follow-up cohort (HR 1.57, 95% CI 0.88-2.78). The proportional-hazards assumption for DFS was violated, and late estimates were based on sparse risk sets and were unstable. The recurrence association was predominantly locoregional, and increasing Core-HRPF burden was associated with progressively worse prognosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Real-world sublobar resection is a heterogeneous exposure. Observed outcome associations varied by procedure type, nodal assessment, analytical specification, and follow-up horizon and should not be interpreted as evidence that sublobar resection is intrinsically inferior to lobectomy.