Search

Current guidelines recommend surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The standard treatment for patients with cT1N0 NSCLC has been lobectomy with lymph-node dissection, with sublobar resection used only in patients with inadequate cardio-respiratory reserve, with poor performance status, or who are elderly. In 1995, the Lung Cancer Study Group published the results of a randomized, prospective trial demonstrating the superiority of lobectomy compared with sublobar resection. From then on, wedge resection and segmentectomy were reserved exclusively for patients with poor functional reserve who could not tolerate lobectomy. Therefore, the exact role of segmentectomy has been controversial over the past 20 years. Recently, the randomized controlled trial JCOG0802/WJOG4607L demonstrated that segmentectomy was superior to lobectomy in patients with stage IA NSCLC (<2 cm and CTR < 0.5) in terms of both overall-survival and post-operative lung function. Based on these results, segmentectomy should be considered the standard surgical procedure for this patient group. In 2023, the randomized phase III CALGB 140503 (Alliance) trial demonstrated the efficacy and non-inferiority of sublobar resection, including wedge resection, for clinical stage IA NSCLC with tumor diameter of < 2 cm. This article is a narrative review of the current role of segmentectomy in lung cancer treatment and summarizes the most relevant studies in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Extended thymectomy is the gold standard in the treatment of patients with thymic neoplasm and affected by myasthenia gravis. For a long time, the traditional approach has been sternotomy, though the application of minimally invasive techniques has spread in recent decades. Several authors have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive thymectomy. This multicenter study aims to compare the outcomes of robotic and open thymectomy in myasthenic patients affected by thymic tumors. Short-term and long-term results were presented, showing how the robotic approach can be considered comparable to open surgery in terms of oncological radicality and the improvement of myasthenic symptomatology, with associated faster recovery. Thymectomy is the gold standard in the treatment of thymic neoplasm and plays a key role in the therapeutic path of myasthenia gravis. For years, sternotomy has been the traditional approach for removing anterior mediastinal lesions, although the robotic thymectomy is now widely performed. The literature is still lacking in papers comparing the two approaches and evaluating long-term oncological and neurological outcomes. This study aims to analyze the postoperative results of open and robotic thymectomy for thymic neoplasms in myasthenic patients. Surgical, oncological and neurological data of myasthenic patients affected by thymic neoplasms and surgically treated with extended thymectomy, both with the open and the robotic approach, in six Italian Thoracic Centers between 2011 and 2021 were evaluated. A total of 213 patients were enrolled in the study: 110 (51.6%) were treated with the open approach, and 103 (48.4%) were treated with robotic surgery. The open surgery, compared with the robotic, presented a shorter operating time (p < 0.001), a higher number of postoperative complications (p = 0.038) and longer postoperative hospitalization (p = 0.006). No other differences were observed in terms of surgical, oncological or neurological outcomes. The robotic approach can be considered safe and feasible, comparable to the open technique, in terms of surgical, oncological and neurological outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: For centrally located non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), sleeve lobectomy would be preferable to pneumonectomy (PN). In this context, however, the role of complex sleeve lobectomy (CLS) is still poorly understood. Our study compared CLS with PN using a retrospective analysis. Research shows that CLS has a lower 90-day mortality rate and fewer major complications compared to PN, while oncological outcomes remain comparable. These results support the contention that CLS is a safe and effective procedure for centrally located NSCLC, even after neoadjuvant treatment. Background: Standard sleeve lobectomies are recommended over pneumonectomy (PN), but the efficacy and oncological proficiency of complex sleeve lobectomies (CSLs) have not been completely investigated. The aim of this study was to report our experience in CSL in patients affected by a centrally located non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), comparing all the variables and outcomes with PN. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, we collected the data of patients who underwent PN and CSL for NSCLC, excluding neuroendocrine tumors, salvage surgery or carinal resection. Regression analysis was used to assess the association between procedures and complications; the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate survival and risk factors of reduced survival. Results: We analyzed n = 38 extended sleeve lobectomies and n= 6 double-sleeve lobectomies (CSL group) and n= 60 PNs. We had a trend toward higher postoperative mortality in the PN group (5% vs. 0%, p = 0.13). Major complications and bronchial fistula developed in 21.7% and 6.8% (p = 0.038) and in 6.7% and 4.5% (p = 0.64), respectively. The right side was identified as risk factor for major complications, whereas age > 70 and PN had a trend of association in multivariable analysis. The median OS was similar between the two groups (p = 0.76) and cancer recurrence was the only significant risk factors of reduced OS. Excluding functionally compromised patients, the OS of CSL was better than that of PN (67% vs. 42%, p = 0.25). Conclusions: Considering that major complications are often associated with mortality after surgery for centrally located NSCLC, CSLs could be considered an alternative to PN while also ensuring comparable survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]