4.7 Article

Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Resectable Lung Cancer in Older Patients

期刊

CHEST
卷 157, 期 5, 页码 1313-1321

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.09.017

关键词

early stage; minimally invasive; NSCLC; robotic surgery; treatment

资金

  1. Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Young Investigator Award
  2. ISMMS Clinical and Translational Science Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is a novel surgical approach increasingly used for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, data comparing the effectiveness and costs of RAS vs open thoracotomy and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for NSCLC are limited. METHODS: Patients > 65 years old with stage I to IIIA NSCLC treated with RAS, VATS, or open thoracotomy were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and matched according to age, sex, stage, and extent of resection. Propensity score methods were used to compare adjusted rates of postoperative complications, adequate lymph node staging, survival, and treatment-related costs. RESULTS: In this matched study cohort of 2,766 patients with resected NSCLC, RAS was associated with lower complication rates (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79) compared with open thoracotomy, and similar complication rates (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.76-1.37) compared with VATS. Patients undergoing RAS were as likely to have adequate lymph node sampling as those undergoing open thoracotomy (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.74) or VATS (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18). There was no significant difference in overall survival after RAS vs open thoracotomy (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63-1.04) or VATS (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.70-1.18). Costs were similar for RAS ($54,702) vs open thoracotomy ($57,104; P = .08), and higher compared with VATS ($48,729; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: RAS led to improved operative outcomes compared with open thoracotomy but may not offer an advantage over VATS. The comparative effectiveness of RAS should be further evaluated prior to widespread adoption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据