Search

Introduction: Clinical staging in lung cancer has implications for treatment planning and prognosis. We sought to determine the rate of inaccurate clinical stage (relative to pathologic), identify risk factors for inaccuracy, and evaluate the association of inaccuracy on survival. We hypothesized that inaccurate staging was associated with poor survival., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients who received surgical resection without neoadjuvant treatment for nonsmall cell lung cancer from 2004 to 2020 in the National Cancer Database were categorized by accuracy of clinical stage (relative to pathologic stage). Multivariate models were used to determine risk factors for inaccuracy. The association between inaccuracy and overall survival was also analyzed., Results: We identified 255,598 patients with lung cancer, including 84,543 patients (33.1%) who were inaccurately staged. Stage inaccuracy was associated with higher tumor, node, metastasis stage (T-category 3: odds ratio [OR] = 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.28; N-category 2: OR = 2.6, 95% CI 2.47-2.79), greater quantity of lymph nodes evaluated, and more extensive resection (extended lobectomy/bilobectomy: OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.20-1.37; pneumonectomy: OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.54-1.74). Patients undergoing robotic surgery were less likely to be inaccurately staged (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.852-0.939). Inaccurate staging was associated with worse overall survival (5-y 67.5% accurate versus 55.4% inaccurate, P < 0.001). Inaccurate staging was also associated with worse survival in a multivariate Cox model (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.3, 95% CI 1.29-1.33). Both "understaging" (path > clinical) and "overstaging" (clinical > path) were associated with inferior survival., Conclusions: Inaccurate clinical stage (relative to pathologic) occurs in one-third of patients receiving surgery for lung cancer. Inaccuracy is associated with poor survival. Quality improvement initiatives should focus on improving clinical staging accuracy., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study compares sublobar resections-wedge resection and segmentectomy-in clinical stage IA lung cancers. It tests the hypothesis that overall survival after wedge resection is similar to segmentectomy., Methods: Adults undergoing wedge resection or segmentectomy for clinical stage IA lung cancer were identified from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database. Eligible patients were linked to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database using a matching algorithm. The primary outcome was long-term overall survival. Propensity scores overlap weighting (PSOW) adjustment of wedge resection using validated covariates was used for group difference mitigation. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models analyzed survival. All-cause first readmission, and morbidity and mortality were examined using PSOW regression models., Results: Of 9756 patients, 6141 met inclusion criteria, comprising 2154 segmentectomies and 3987 wedge resections. PSOW reduced differences between the groups. Unadjusted perioperative mortality was comparable, but wedge resection showed lower major morbidity rates. Weighted regression analysis indicated reduced mortality and major morbidity risks in wedge resection. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no mortality difference between groups, which was confirmed by PSOW Cox regression models. The cumulative risk of readmission was also comparable for both groups, with Cox Fine-Gray models showing no difference in rehospitalization risks., Conclusions: In clinical stage IA lung cancer, relative to segmentectomy, wedge resection has comparable overall survival and lower perioperative morbidity, suggesting it is an equally effective option for the broader population of patients with clinical stage IA lung cancer, not only those at highest risk of complications., (Copyright © 2024 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)