Abstract:We thank Cao et al. [1] for their insightful comments on our manuscript recently published in the European Journal of CardioThoracic Surgery [2]. Cao et al. addressed, in their letter to the editor, two important and controversial aspects of segmentectomy comparing with lobectomy for early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which we would like to discuss in detail. The first issue emphasized by Cao et al. was the rationality of using combined overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) outcomes to compare the two different surgical procedures. Our study aimed at assessing the survival difference between segmentectomy and lobectomy. We must admit that combining OS and CSS does have some shortcomings such as it may overestimate the adverse survival outcomes of segmentectomy procedures just as Cao et al. pointed out. However, the data we based our study on were divergent, with few providing CSS, whereas most of the published studies use OS to assess the two procedures. The overestimation exists in each published study which selected the patients with limited cardiopulmonary function as candidates for segmentectomy; it is inevitable for us to avoid such overestimation. Besides, a previously published paper also used combined OS and CSS to assess oncological outcomes [3]. It is insufficient to conduct meta-analysis for the comparison of segmentectomy and lobectomy exclusively based on either OS or CSS data and it would be possible in future to conduct such a meta-analysis with subgroups of OS and CSS as new suitable data are published. The other issue proposed by Cao et al. is to differentiate the intentional segmentectomy from the compromised one; recently, several studies also excluded compromised segmentectomy and aimed to compare intentional segmentectomy with lobectomy [4, 5]. Some studies, such as Tsutani et al. [6], reported the use of propensity score analysis. We agree with Cao et al. that these studies would be the future direction. However, as the data are insufficient, it is still meaningful to estimate the oncological effects of segmentectomy including both compromised and intentional procedures. We are also undertaking a prospective study aimed at selecting the optimal candidates for intentional segmentectomy. The issue that segmentectomy, especially the intentional one, or lobectomy, which is suitable for early stage NSCLC, would be long-existing until the future randomized controlled trials such as CALGB 140503 and JCOG 0802. We are grateful to Cao et al. [1] for their kind and insightful comments, and we thank them for taking the time to remark on our work.

Response To: "sweet Versus Ivor-Lewis: is It Time to Draw a Conclusion?"

The Sweet Approach is Still Worthwhile in Modern Esophagectomy.

Comparison of Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy and Sweet Esophagectomy for the Treatment of Middle-Lower Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Comparison of Ivor-Lewis Vs Sweet Esophagectomy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: a Randomized Clinical Trial.

[Efficacy Comparison of Sweet Versus Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy in the Treatment of Middle-Lower Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma].

[A meta-analysis of esophagectomy: the comparative study of Ivor-Lewis operation and Sweet operation].

Improvement in the Prognosis of Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated by Surgery Alone (the Sweet Approach) in a High Volume Center Between 1970 and 2008 - A Retrospective Analysis of 5349 Cases

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Comparison of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy and Left Transthoracic Esophagectomy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Clinical outcomes of harmonic scalpel in esophageal cancer surgery

Extended Right Thoracic Approach Compared with Limited Left Thoracic Approach for Patients with Middle and Lower Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Three-year Survival of a Prospective, Randomized, Open-label Trial

Surgical Quality Determines the Long-Term Survival Superiority of Right over Left Thoracic Esophagectomy for Localized Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients: a Real-World Multicenter Study.

Ten-year Survivals of Right Thoracic Versus Left Thoracic Approach for Esophageal Cancer

Ten-Year Survivals of Right Thoracic vs Left Thoracic Approach for Esophageal Cancer

Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Safety after Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis Versus McKeown—A Real-World Multicenter Observational Study from China.

Short-term Clinical Efficacies of Esophageal Carcinoma Treated Surgically by Ivor-Lewis Approach

Left Versus Right Approach for Middle and Lower Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

A Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Thoracic Middle/lower Segment Esophageal Cancer

Reply to Cao Et Al.

Association of the Number of Dissected Lymph Node (LN) with the Survivals of Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC) Patients Received Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) Followed by Surgery.

A Retrospective Study of Different Treatments of Limited-Stage Small-Cell Esophageal Carcinoma and Associated Prognostic Factor Analysis

The "Best Operation" For Esophageal Cancer?