Does sleeve lobectomy concomitant with or without pulmonary artery reconstruction (double sleeve) have favorable results for non-small cell lung cancer compared with pneumonectomy? A meta-analysis

• Published in: European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery Vol. 32; no. 1; pp. 20 - 28
• Main Authors: Ma, Zhiyuan, Dong, Aiqiang, Fan, Junqiang, Cheng, Haifeng
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier Science B.V 01.07.2007; Elsevier Science
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - surgery; Humans; Lung Neoplasms - surgery; Medical sciences; Meta-analysis; Morbidity and mortality; Non-small cell lung cancer; Pneumology; Pneumonectomy; Pneumonectomy - methods; Pneumonectomy - mortality; Postoperative Complications; Pulmonary Artery - surgery; Recurrence; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sleeve lobectomy; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Surgery of the heart; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum; Survival analysis; Sleeve lobectomy; Pneumonectomy; Morbidity and mortality; Non-small cell lung cancer; Meta-analysis; Prognosis; Cardiovascular disease; Anatomical reconstruction; Sleeve; non-small cell lung carcinoma; Epidemiology; Evidence-based medicine; Metaanalysis; Result; Heart disease; Surgery; Bronchus disease; Pneumectomy; Non small cell carcinoma; Lung disease; Respiratory disease; Mortality; Malignant tumor; Double; Survival; Pulmonary artery; Morbidity; Treatment; Analysis; Lobectomy; Comparative study
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.03.018
• ISSN: 1010-7940

It has been reported that sleeve lobectomy (SL) concomitant with or without pulmonary artery reconstruction (PAR) might be an alternative procedure for pneumonectomy (PN) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to assess whether SL or PN offers a low morbidity and mortality and better long-term survival. We performed a meta-analysis of studies published in English between 1996 and 2006 to comprehensively compare the postoperative mortality, morbidity, locoregional recurrences, and time-to-event outcomes of SL and PN in NSCLC, and reviewed the recent literatures on PAR in the corresponding period as well. Twelve studies met the defined criteria including a total of 2984 subjects, and five studies for PAR. The odds ratio for postoperative mortality (SL vs PN) was 0.65 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42–1.01), 1.01 (95% CI: 0.70–1.44) for postoperative complications, and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.45–1.82) for locoregional recurrences. The weighted mean operative mortality for PAR was 3.3%, and 32.4% for complications. The estimated combined hazard ratio for overall survival in 10 studies was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62–0.79) in favor of SL group. The median overall survival was 60 months for the SL group, 26 months for the PN group, and 30 months for PAR group. Survival difference in patients with pN0 or pN1 at 1 year demonstrated a pooled risk difference (SL vs PN) of 0.03 (95% CI: −0.08–0.13), 0.13 (95% CI: 0.00–0.25) in patients with pN2 at 1 year, 0.21 (95% CI: 0.07–0.36) in patients with pN0 or pN1 at 5 years, and 0.06 (95% CI: −0.10–0.21) in patients with pN2 at 5 years. Our results suggests that SL with or without PAR can be accomplished safely in selected patients without increasing the morbidity and mortality as compared to PN, that SL even with PAR offers better long-term survival than does PN, and that a more radical operation such as PN is not a more appropriate procedure, even in higher stage tumors.