Minimally invasive surgery versus thoracotomy for resectable stage II and III non-small-cell lung cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the long-term oncological efficacy and perioperative outcomes of patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancers who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or thoracotomy.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists were searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the studies. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) and perioperative outcomes were synthesized. Random-effects models were used to summarize hazard ratios (HRs), relative risks and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Twenty-three retrospective cohort studies were reviewed with a total of 3281 patients, of whom 1376 (41.9%) received MIS and 1905 (58.1%) received thoracotomy. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences in both RFS (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17; P = 0.78) and OS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.03; P = 0.15) between MIS versus thoracotomy approaches. Similar results were observed in propensity score matched studies (RFS, HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.73-1.20; P = 0.62; OS, HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.72-1.30; P = 0.81). No significant difference was found in lymph node clearance and margin positivity. As for perioperative outcomes, MIS was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative complications (relative risk, 0.83; P = 0.01), intraoperative blood loss (standardized mean difference, -0.68; P = 0.007), chest tube drainage (standardized mean difference, -0.38; P = 0.03) and length of hospital stay (standardized mean difference, -0.79; P = 0.002) when compared with thoracotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of MIS for resectable stage II and III non-small-cell lung cancers is an eligible alternative to conventional thoracotomy without compromising the long-term survival and short-term outcomes.