Lim Euan, Seif Karim, Goetz Theo, Marsicola Olivia, Law Jacie Jiaqi, De Sousa Paulo, Aw Tuan Chen, Lim Eric
St Paul's School, London, UK.
Latymer Upper School, London, UK.
J Thorac Dis. 2024 Jan 30;16(1):247-252. doi: 10.21037/jtd-23-1390. Epub 2024 Jan 8.
Despite its importance in clinical practice, clinical guideline pathway selection and as an outcome in clinical trials, little work has been undertaken to understand the agreement between expected lung function loss and actual observed values. This is particular pertinent in view of the unexpected findings of JCOG 0802 and CALBG 140503 demonstrating no clinically meaningful difference in lung function loss between the sub-lobar resection and lobectomy arm.
We performed a retrospective analysis on preoperative and postoperative forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DL) collated from 158 patients who underwent anatomical lung resection between January 2013 to July 2023. Patient's true preoperative and postoperative lung function was obtained via formal lung function testing while predicted postoperative lung function was derived using the 20-segment counting method. Longitudinal postoperative lung function analysis demonstrated sufficient stability over time. A formal testing of agreement between predicted and true postoperative lung function was undertaken using the Bland and Altman method and graphically demonstrated using scatter plots. We defined a deviation of more than 5% as a clinically minimally important difference.
Scatter plots for effort-dependent measures suggested the tendency for underprediction (observed values were higher than predicted) for FEV1 and FVC but good agreement for DL. Formal agreement confirmed mean difference for FEV1 was -9.84% [95% confidence interval (CI): -39.33% to 19.65%], FVC -11.39% (95% CI: -50.14% to 27.36%) and DL -4.83% (95% CI: -25.59% to 15.92%).
Our study demonstrated that effort-dependent parameters of lung function including FEV1 and FVC tends to overestimate the amount of lung function loss after anatomic lung resection, clinicians should be cautious in using these measures to determine suitability of surgery based on current established guidelines. However, independent measures such as DL demonstrate good agreement suggesting that predicted lung tissue loss is consistent with a 20-segment lung model.
尽管临床实践指南路径选择在临床试验中很重要,但对于预期肺功能丧失与实际观察值之间的一致性,人们了解甚少。鉴于日本临床肿瘤学会(JCOG)0802和美国癌症和白血病B组(CALBG)140503的意外发现,即肺段切除术和肺叶切除术组在肺功能丧失方面无临床意义上的差异,这一点尤为相关。
我们对2013年1月至2023年7月期间接受解剖性肺切除术的158例患者术前和术后的一秒用力呼气量(FEV1)、用力肺活量(FVC)和一氧化碳弥散量(DL)进行了回顾性分析。患者术前和术后的真实肺功能通过正式的肺功能测试获得,而术后预测肺功能则采用20分段计数法得出。术后肺功能的纵向分析显示,随着时间推移具有足够的稳定性。使用布兰德-奥特曼方法对术后预测肺功能和真实肺功能之间的一致性进行了正式检验,并通过散点图进行了图形展示。我们将超过5%的偏差定义为临床最小重要差异。
用力依赖指标的散点图表明,FEV1和FVC有预测不足的趋势(观察值高于预测值),但DL的一致性良好。正式的一致性检验证实,FEV1的平均差异为-9.84%[95%置信区间(CI):-39.33%至19.65%],FVC为-11.39%(95%CI:-50.14%至27.36%),DL为-4.83%(95%CI:-25.59%至15.92%)。
我们的研究表明,包括FEV1和FVC在内的用力依赖型肺功能参数往往高估了解剖性肺切除术后的肺功能丧失量,临床医生在根据当前既定指南使用这些指标来确定手术适用性时应谨慎。然而,诸如DL等独立指标显示出良好的一致性,表明预测的肺组织丧失与20分段肺模型一致。