Yang Hao-Xian, Woo Kaitlin M, Sima Camelia S, Bains Manjit S, Adusumilli Prasad S, Huang James, Finley David J, Rizk Nabil P, Rusch Valerie W, Jones David R, Park Bernard J
*Thoracic Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY †Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, China ‡Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY §Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.
Ann Surg. 2017 Feb;265(2):431-437. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001708.
To compare the long-term outcomes among robotic, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), and open lobectomy in stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Survival comparisons between robotic, VATS, and open lobectomy in NSCLC have not yet been reported. Some studies have suggested that survival after VATS is superior, for unclear reasons.
Three cohorts (robotic, VATS, and open) of clinical stage I NSCLC patients were matched by propensity score and compared to assess overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the outcomes.
From January 2002 to December 2012, 470 unique patients (172 robotic, 141 VATS, and 157 open) were included in the analysis. The robotic approach harvested a higher number of median stations of lymph nodes (5 for robotic vs 3 for VATS vs 4 for open; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing minimally invasive approaches had shorter median length of hospital stay (4 d for robotic vs 4 d for VATS vs 5 d for open; P < 0.001). The 5-year OS for the robotic, VATS, and open matched groups were 77.6%, 73.5%, and 77.9%, respectively, without a statistically significant difference; corresponding 5-year DFS were 72.7%, 65.5%, and 69.0%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference between the robotic and VATS groups (P = 0.047). However, multivariate analysis found that surgical approach was not independently associated with shorter OS and DFS.
Minimally invasive approaches to lobectomy for clinical stage I NSCLC result in similar long-term survival as thoracotomy. Use of VATS and robotics is associated with shorter length of stay, and the robotic approach resulted in greater lymph node assessment.
比较机器人辅助、电视辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)和开放性肺叶切除术治疗Ⅰ期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的长期疗效。
尚未有关于机器人辅助手术、VATS和开放性肺叶切除术治疗NSCLC后生存率比较的报道。一些研究表明,VATS术后生存率更高,原因不明。
对三组(机器人辅助、VATS和开放性)临床Ⅰ期NSCLC患者进行倾向评分匹配,并比较总生存期(OS)和无病生存期(DFS)。进行单因素和多因素分析以确定与预后相关的因素。
2002年1月至2012年12月,共有470例患者(172例机器人辅助手术、141例VATS手术和157例开放性手术)纳入分析。机器人辅助手术清扫的淋巴结中位数站数更多(机器人辅助手术为5站,VATS手术为3站,开放性手术为4站;P<0.001)。接受微创治疗的患者住院时间中位数更短(机器人辅助手术为4天,VATS手术为4天,开放性手术为5天;P<0.001)。机器人辅助、VATS和开放性手术匹配组的5年总生存率分别为77.6%、73.5%和77.9%,无统计学显著差异;相应的5年无病生存率分别为72.7%、65.5%和69.0%,机器人辅助手术组和VATS手术组之间有统计学显著差异(P=0.047)。然而,多因素分析发现手术方式与较短的总生存期和无病生存期无独立相关性。
临床Ⅰ期NSCLC行肺叶切除术的微创治疗方法与开胸手术的长期生存率相似。使用VATS和机器人辅助手术与住院时间缩短有关,且机器人辅助手术能进行更广泛的淋巴结评估。