Is video-assisted lobectomy for non-small-cell lung cancer oncologically equivalent to open lobectomy?†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare overall and disease-free survival after VATS and open lobectomy for clinical Stage I and II non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospective database of all patients undergoing VATS or open lobectomy for clinical Stage I or II NSCLC between 2002 and 2010 was performed. Postoperative outcomes, disease-free survival and overall survival were compared between the two groups after optimum 1:1 propensity matching for age, gender, tumour histology and pathological stage. RESULTS: Over an 8-year period, 608 patients underwent lobectomy for NCSLC by VATS (n = 196, 32%) or open technique (n = 412, 68%). After matching, there were 190 patients in each group. Adenocarcinoma was found in 80% (open: 149, VATS: 152) and 55% of tumours were T1 (open: 108, VATS: 105). Pathological N1 disease was found in 21 and 19 patients in the open and VATS group, respectively. Disease-free 5-year survival was 69.1% for the open group vs 69.7% for VATS (P = 0.94). Cancer-specific 5-year survival was 82.9% for the open group vs 76.7% for VATS (P = 0.170). Five-year overall survival was 73% in the open group vs 64% in the VATS group (P = 0.17). Operative mortality and postoperative complications were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and disease-free survival are not significantly different when compared between VATS lobectomy and open lobectomy. VATS resection appears to provide an adequate oncological operation for patients with operable clinical Stage I and II NSCLC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".