Lobar versus sublobar resection for atypical lung carcinoid: An analysis from the National Cancer Database. Issue 6 (22nd December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ernani, Vinicius; Appiah, Adams Kusi; Rodriguez, Daniel; Kusne, Yael; Beamer, Staci E.; Ravanbakhsh, Samine; Jaroszewski, Dawn; Reck dos Santos, Pedro; Sio, Terence T.; Yu, Nathan; Yang, Ping; Schild, Steven; D'Cunha, Jonathan
• Is Part Of: Cancer. Volume 129:Issue 6(2023)
• Page Start: 860
• Page End: 866
• Publication Date: 2022-12-22
• Subjects: atypical lung carcinoid -- database -- lobar resection -- overall survival -- sublobar resection; Cancer -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Cytopathology -- Periodicals; 616.99405
• DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34614
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0008-543X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: There is a knowledge gap regarding lobar versus sublobar resection for atypical carcinoid (AC) of the lung. As such, the authors sought to understand and analyze the outcomes of sublobar resection versus lobectomy in this patient population. Methods: A retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database was performed to compare overall survival (OS) between patients treated with lobectomy and patients treated with sublobar resection for AC of the lung between the years 2004 and 2016. Patient characteristics were compared with χ 2 tests. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate OS distributions, and the log‐rank test was used to compare distributions by treatment strategy. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess associations between the treatment strategy and OS. A propensity score matching method was also implemented to further eliminate treatment selection bias in the study sample. Results: The database identified 669 patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 lung ACs that were surgically resected. Unadjusted Kaplan–Meier survival curves did not demonstrate an OS difference between lobectomy and sublobar resection ( p = .094). After propensity score matching, curves demonstrated a numerical improvement in OS with lobectomy; however, it was not statistically significant ( p = .5). In a subgroup analysis, lobectomy and node‐negative disease were associated with the best OS, whereas sublobar resection and node‐positive disease were associated with the worst OS ( p < .0001). Nodal involvement was associated with worse survival, regardless of surgical treatment ( p < .0001). Conclusions: In patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 ACs of the lung, lobectomy was not associated with an improvement in OS in comparison with sublobar resection. Abstract : There is a knowledge gap regarding lobar versus sublobar resection for atypical carcinoid of the lung. The authors performed a retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database and found that lobectomy was not associated with an improvement in overall survival in comparison with sublobar resection.