The Lung Cancer Study Group conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 1995 comparing lobectomy with sublobar resection for clinical stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Their findings indicated that patients who underwent sublobar resection experienced higher rates of recurrence and cancer-related deaths than those who underwent lobectomy. Based on these results, lobectomy became commonly recognized as the standard surgical procedure for patients with stage IA NSCLC.
However, in recent decades,advances in computed tomography (CT) have led to the more frequent detection of smaller lung cancers, including ground glass opacity. Additionally, surgeons can now perform precise pre-operative staging using PET-CT. These advancements necessitate a reevaluation of the risks and benefits associated with sublobar resection for early-stage NSCLC. Today, an increasing number of high-quality reports are comparing lobectomy and sublobar resection. For instance, the Japanese RCT JCOG0802 recently reported results comparing lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy in patients with clinical stage IA NSCLC. Similarly, CALGB 140503 has been published, comparing lobectomy with sublobar resection (both wedge resection and anatomical segmentectomy) for clinical stage IA NSCLC. Both studies suggested that sublobar resection is not inferior to lobectomy in terms of overall survival and relapse-free survival. Nevertheless, variations in eligibility criteria, surgical procedures, and other conditions across trials highlight the need for careful consideration when applying these findings to clinical practice.
With this Research Topic, we aim to propose optimal surgical procedures for patients with peripheral small NSCLC that promote better survival without recurrence. By summarizing recent clinical trial results comparing lobectomy and sublobar resection, we will highlight the risks of recurrence and benefits of survival between the two surgical methods. Furthermore, we seek to identify the ideal candidates for sublobar resection, determine whether wedge resection or anatomical segmentectomy is preferable, and establish the optimal surgical margin for wedge resection in cases of small-size NSCLC.
We welcome submissions of Case Reports, Case Series, Clinical Trials, Mini Reviews, Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Original Research on the sub-themes below:
-Overall survival in patients with peripheral small NSCLC who received sublobar resection versus lobectomy
-Relapse-free survival in patients with peripheral small NSCLC who received sublobar resection versus lobectomy
- Candidate for sublobar resection
- How to choose wedge resection or segmentectomy in case of sublobar resection
- Surgical margin in case of sublobar resection
Keywords:
Lung cancer, sublobar resection, segmentectomy, wedge resection, survival
Important Note:
All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
The Lung Cancer Study Group conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 1995 comparing lobectomy with sublobar resection for clinical stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Their findings indicated that patients who underwent sublobar resection experienced higher rates of recurrence and cancer-related deaths than those who underwent lobectomy. Based on these results, lobectomy became commonly recognized as the standard surgical procedure for patients with stage IA NSCLC.
However, in recent decades,advances in computed tomography (CT) have led to the more frequent detection of smaller lung cancers, including ground glass opacity. Additionally, surgeons can now perform precise pre-operative staging using PET-CT. These advancements necessitate a reevaluation of the risks and benefits associated with sublobar resection for early-stage NSCLC. Today, an increasing number of high-quality reports are comparing lobectomy and sublobar resection. For instance, the Japanese RCT JCOG0802 recently reported results comparing lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy in patients with clinical stage IA NSCLC. Similarly, CALGB 140503 has been published, comparing lobectomy with sublobar resection (both wedge resection and anatomical segmentectomy) for clinical stage IA NSCLC. Both studies suggested that sublobar resection is not inferior to lobectomy in terms of overall survival and relapse-free survival. Nevertheless, variations in eligibility criteria, surgical procedures, and other conditions across trials highlight the need for careful consideration when applying these findings to clinical practice.
With this Research Topic, we aim to propose optimal surgical procedures for patients with peripheral small NSCLC that promote better survival without recurrence. By summarizing recent clinical trial results comparing lobectomy and sublobar resection, we will highlight the risks of recurrence and benefits of survival between the two surgical methods. Furthermore, we seek to identify the ideal candidates for sublobar resection, determine whether wedge resection or anatomical segmentectomy is preferable, and establish the optimal surgical margin for wedge resection in cases of small-size NSCLC.
We welcome submissions of Case Reports, Case Series, Clinical Trials, Mini Reviews, Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Original Research on the sub-themes below:
-Overall survival in patients with peripheral small NSCLC who received sublobar resection versus lobectomy
-Relapse-free survival in patients with peripheral small NSCLC who received sublobar resection versus lobectomy
- Candidate for sublobar resection
- How to choose wedge resection or segmentectomy in case of sublobar resection
- Surgical margin in case of sublobar resection
Keywords:
Lung cancer, sublobar resection, segmentectomy, wedge resection, survival
Important Note:
All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.