Efficacy of Repeated Surgery is Superior to That of Non-Surgery for Recurrent/second Primary Lung Cancer after Initial Operation for Primary Lung Cancer.

Haitao Zhou,Xiaozheng Kang,Liang Dai,Wanpu Yan,Yongbo Yang,Yao Lin,Ke-Neng Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.12790
IF: 3.223
2018-01-01
Thoracic Cancer
Abstract:BACKGROUND:The current study aimed to determine the oncological efficacy and surgical safety of multiple pulmonary resections (MPRs) after prior curative surgery for local regional recurrent or second primary lung cancers.METHODS:All cases of lung cancer included in our prospective database between January 2000 and July 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The oncological efficacy endpoints for synchronous and metachronous MPR were five-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and progression-free survival (PFS) rates after the second surgery. The surgical safety endpoints were postoperative mortality and complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) within 30 days.RESULTS:In total, 67 MPR cases were identified. There were no significant differences in the five-year OS and DFS between the synchronous MPR group (n = 50) and the propensity score-matched solitary major pulmonary resection group (n = 250) (5-year OS 84.5% vs. 69.0%, log rank P = 0.112; DFS 64.4% vs. 58.0%, log rank P = 0.278). The five-year OS and PFS of the metachronous MPR group (n = 17) were significantly better than those in the non-surgical control group (n = 19) (5-year OS 94.1% vs. 50.7%, log rank P = 0.005; 5-year PFS 53.9% vs. 10.5%, log rank P = 0.020). No postoperative mortality or severe complications occurred in the MPR group.CONCLUSION:The oncological efficacy of MPR is superior to the non-surgical approach for the management of local regional recurrent or second primary lung cancer, with comparable postoperative mortality and complications.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?