Outcomes: wedge resection versus lobectomy for non–small cell lung cancer at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario 1998–2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sublobar resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial owing to concern about local recurrence and long-term survival outcomes. We sought to determine the efficacy of wedge resection as an oncological procedure. METHODS: We analyzed the outcomes of all patients with NSCLC undergoing surgical resection at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario between 1998 and 2009. The standard of care for patients with adequate cardiopulmonary reserve was lobectomy. Wedge resection was performed for patients with inadequate reserve to tolerate lobectomy. Predictors of recurrence and survival were assessed. Appropriate statistical analyses involved the χ(2) test, an independent samples t test and Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival. Outcomes were stratified for tumour size and American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition TNM stage for non-small cell lung cancer. RESULTS: A total of 423 patients underwent surgical resection during our study period: wedge resection in 71 patients and lobectomy in 352. The mean age of patients was 64 years. Mean follow-up for cancer survivors was 39 months. There was no significant difference between wedge resection and lobectomy for rate of tumour recurrence, mortality or disease-free survival in patients with stage IA tumours less than 2 cm in diameter. CONCLUSION: Wedge resection with lymph node sampling is an adequate oncological procedure for non-small cell lung cancer in properly selected patients, specifically, those with stage IA tumours less than 2 cm in diameter.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".