Lobar versus sublobar resection for atypical lung carcinoid: An analysis from the National Cancer Database

• Published in: Cancer 2023-03, Vol.129 (6), p.860-866
• Main Authors: Ernani, Vinicius, Appiah, Adams Kusi, Rodriguez, Daniel, Kusne, Yael, Beamer, Staci E., Ravanbakhsh, Samine, Jaroszewski, Dawn, Reck dos Santos, Pedro, Sio, Terence T., Yu, Nathan, Yang, Ping, Schild, Steven, D’Cunha, Jonathan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: atypical lung carcinoid; Cancer; Carcinoid Tumor - surgery; Carcinoma, Neuroendocrine; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - pathology; Humans; lobar resection; Lung - pathology; Lung cancer; Lung Neoplasms - pathology; Lungs; Matching; Neoplasm Staging; Oncology; overall survival; Patients; Pneumonectomy - methods; Rank tests; Regression models; Retrospective Studies; Statistical analysis; Subgroups; sublobar resection; Survival; Thoracic surgery
• ISSN: 0008-543X; 1097-0142
• DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34614

Background There is a knowledge gap regarding lobar versus sublobar resection for atypical carcinoid (AC) of the lung. As such, the authors sought to understand and analyze the outcomes of sublobar resection versus lobectomy in this patient population. Methods A retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database was performed to compare overall survival (OS) between patients treated with lobectomy and patients treated with sublobar resection for AC of the lung between the years 2004 and 2016. Patient characteristics were compared with χ2 tests. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate OS distributions, and the log‐rank test was used to compare distributions by treatment strategy. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess associations between the treatment strategy and OS. A propensity score matching method was also implemented to further eliminate treatment selection bias in the study sample. Results The database identified 669 patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 lung ACs that were surgically resected. Unadjusted Kaplan–Meier survival curves did not demonstrate an OS difference between lobectomy and sublobar resection (p = .094). After propensity score matching, curves demonstrated a numerical improvement in OS with lobectomy; however, it was not statistically significant (p = .5). In a subgroup analysis, lobectomy and node‐negative disease were associated with the best OS, whereas sublobar resection and node‐positive disease were associated with the worst OS (p