Mediastinal lymph node dissection in segmentectomy for peripheral c-stage IA (≤2 cm) non-small-cell lung cancer

Hiroyuki Adachi,Hiroyuki Ito,Takuya Nagashima,Tetsuya Isaka,Kotaro Murakami,Shunsuke Shigefuku,Noritake Kikunishi,Naoko Shigeta,Yujin Kudo,Yoshihiro Miyata,Morihito Okada,Norihiko Ikeda
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2024.09.003
2024-09-12
Abstract:Objective: Although recent trials on intentional segmentectomy have made mediastinal lymph node dissection (MLND) mandatory, the necessity of MLND in segmentectomy remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the necessity of MLND in segmentectomy for patients with peripheral stage IA (≤2 cm) non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Of the 5222 surgical cases for non-small cell lung cancer from 3 institutions between 2010 and 2021, 1457 patients met the JCOG0802 trial eligibility criteria. Initially, we analyzed 574 patients who underwent lobectomy with MLND to identify preoperative risk factors for cN0-pN2 occurrence (cohort 1). Subsequently, we evaluated the relationship between these factors and the cumulative postoperative recurrence in 390 patients who underwent segmentectomy (cohort 2). Results: In cohort 1, risk factors for cN0-pN2 occurrence were consolidation-to-tumor ratio = 1.0 and maximum standardized uptake value ≥2.0. When classifying patients into 3 groups (group A, without any factors, group B, with either factor, and group C, with both factors), the occurrence of cN0-pN2 was significantly greater in group C than in the other groups (0.9%, 3.4%, and 8.4%, respectively, P = .005). When classifying patients in cohort 2 using the classification identified in cohort 1 (117, 131, and 142 were categorized into group A, group B, and group C, respectively), the 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence rate was significantly greater in group C than in others (2.0%, 2.0%, and 15.9%, respectively, P < .001). Conclusions: MLND is unlikely to be beneficial in intentional segmentectomy for patients with tumors showing consolidation-to-tumor ratio <1.0 and maximum standardized uptake value <2.0.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?