Background: While the thoracotomy approach was considered the gold standard until two decades ago, robotic surgery has increasingly strengthened its role in lung cancer treatment, improving patients’ peri-operative outcomes. In this study, we report our experience in robotic lobectomy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, with particular attention to oncological outcomes and nodal upstaging rate. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent lobectomy and radical lymphadenectomy at our Institute between 2016 and 2020. We selected 299 patients who met the inclusion criteria of the study. We analyzed the demographic features of the groups as well as their nodal upstaging rate after pathological examination. Then, we analyzed disease-free and overall survival of the entire enrolled patient population and we compared the same oncological outcomes in the upstaging and the non-upstaging group. Results: A total of 299 patients who underwent robotic lobectomy were enrolled. After surgery, 55 patients reported nodal hilar or mediastinal upstaging. The 3-year overall survival of the entire population was 82.8%. The upstaging group and the non-upstaging group were homogeneous for age, gender, smoking habits, clinical stage, tumor site, tumor histology. The non-upstaging group had better OS (p = 0.004) and DFS (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Our results show that robotic surgery is a safe and feasible approach for the treatment of early-stage NSCLC, especially for its accuracy in mediastinal lymphadenectomy. The oncological outcomes were encouraging and consistent with previous findings.
Repeat surgical resection (redo) for pulmonary metastases is a questionable, albeit intriguing topic. We performed an extensive review of the literature, to specifically analyze results of redo pulmonary metastasectomies. We reviewed a total of 3,523 papers. Among these, 2,019 were excluded for redundancy and 1,105 because they were not completely retrievable. Out of 399 eligible papers, 183 had missing information or missing abstract, while 96 lacked data on survival. A total of 120 papers dated from 1991 onwards were finally included. Data regarding mortality, major morbidity, prognostic factors and long-term survivals of the first redo pulmonary metastasectomies were retrieved and analyzed. Homogeneity of data was affected by the lack of guidelines for redo pulmonary metastasectomy and the risks of bias when comparing different studies has to be considered. According to the histology sub-types, redo metastasectomies papers were grouped as: colorectal (n=42), sarcomas (n=36), others (n=20) and all histologies (n=22); the total number of patients was 3,015. Data about chemotherapy were reported in half of the papers, whereas targeted or immunotherapy in 9. None of these associated therapies, except chemotherapy in two records, did significantly modify outcomes. Disease-free interval before the redo procedure was the prevailing prognostic factor and nearly all papers showed a significant correlation between patients' comorbidities and prognosis. No perioperative mortality was reported, while perioperative major morbidity was overall quite low. Where available, overall survival after the first redo metastasectomy ranged from 10 to 72 months, with a 5-years survival of approximately 50%. The site of first recurrence after the redo procedure was mainly lung. Despite the data retrievable from literature are heterogeneous and confounding, we can state that redo lung metastasectomy is worthwhile when the lesions are resectable and the perioperative risk is low. At present, there are no "non-surgical" therapeutic options to replace redo pulmonary metastasectomies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.