ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

 Click here to read this article as a CME activity

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Matthew J. Schuchert
Brian L. Pettiford
Samuel Keeley
Arjun Pennathur
Ricardo Santos
Hiran C. Fernando
James D. Luketich
Rodney J. Landreneau
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schuchert, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Landreneau, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schuchert, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Landreneau, R. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Lung - cancer

Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:926-933
© 2007 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Original Articles: General Thoracic

Anatomic Segmentectomy in the Treatment of Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Matthew J. Schuchert, MDa, Brian L. Pettiford, MDa, Samuel Keeley, MDa, Thomas A. D’Amato, MD, PhDb, Arman Kilic, BSa, John Close, MAc, Arjun Pennathur, MDa, Ricardo Santos, MDa, Hiran C. Fernando, MDd, James R. Landreneaua, James D. Luketich, MDa, Rodney J. Landreneau, MDa,*

a Division of Thoracic and Foregut Surgery, Heart, Lung and Esophageal Surgery Institute, UPMC Health System, Pittsburgh
b Division of Thoracic Surgery, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia
c Department of Dental Public Health and Statistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
d Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

Accepted for publication May 3, 2007.

* Address correspondence to Dr Landreneau, Heart, Lung and Esophageal Surgery Institute, Shadyside Medical Building, Suite 715, 5200 Centre Ave, Pittsburgh PA 15232 (Email: landreneaurj{at}upmc.edu).

Presented at the Forty-third Annual Meeting of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, Jan 29–31, 2007.


General thoracic surgery: The Annals of Thoracic Surgery CME Program is located online at http://cme.ctsnetjournals.org. To take the CME activity related to this article, you must have either an STS member or an individual non-member subscription to the journal.

 

   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Discussion
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Background: Segmentectomy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial and has been previously associated with high local recurrence rates. We compared the outcomes of anatomic segmentectomy with lobectomy for stage I NSCLC and investigated the impact of surgical resection margins on recurrence.

Methods: From 2002 to 2006, 182 anatomic segmentectomies (114 open, 68 video-assisted thoracic surgery [VATS]), were performed for stage 1A (n = 109) or IB (n = 73) NSCLC. These were compared with 246 lobectomies (1A, 114; 1B, 132). Variables analyzed included hospital course, mortality, and patterns of recurrence and survival.

Results: All segmentectomy surgical margins were free of tumor (average margin, 18.2 mm). Operative time (147 versus 216 minutes; p < 0.0001) and estimated blood loss (185 versus 291 mL; p = 0.0003) were significantly reduced after segmentectomy compared with lobectomy. Thirty-day mortality (1.1% versus 3.3%), total complications, disease-free recurrence, and survival were similar between segmentectomy and lobectomy at a mean follow-up of 18.1 and 28.5 months, respectively. There were 32 recurrences after segmentectomy (17.6%) at a mean of 14.3 months (14 locoregional [7.7%], 18 distant [9.9%]), and 89% of recurrences were seen when tumor margins were 2 cm or less. Margin/tumor diameter ratios exceeding 1 were associated with a significant reduction in recurrence rates compared with ratios of less than 1 (25.0% versus 6.2%; p = 0.0014).

Conclusions: Anatomic segmentectomy can be performed safely by an open or VATS approach. Segmentectomy outcomes compare favorably with standard lobectomy for stage I NSCLC. Margin/tumor ratios of less than 1 are associated with a higher rate of recurrence. Lobectomy should be considered as primary therapy when such margins are not obtainable with segmentectomy in the good-risk patient.

Complete surgical resection constitutes the primary therapeutic approach for the treatment of stage I NSCLC and provides patients with the greatest chance of cure. Lobectomy remains the gold standard in patients with acceptable cardiopulmonary function. Sublobar resection as definitive management for early stage lung cancer remains controversial and has been associated with increased local recurrence rates [1, 2]. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in the use of anatomic segmentectomy for treating small lung tumors (<2 cm), especially in patients with limited pulmonary function who might not otherwise tolerate conventional lobectomy [3].

To date, most reports have focused on the use of segmentectomy in the management of small (<2 cm), node-negative tumors (stage 1A) [4–6]. The impact of extended segmentectomy on stage IB tumors has not been well delineated thus far within the literature, presumably because of the limitations of tumor size in the setting of sublobar resection or because of a higher expected recurrence rate [7]. Extended segmentectomy with attention to adequate surgical margins has been postulated to overcome some of the limitations imposed by tumor size [8]. Pathologically negative margins, with a margin distance of 2 cm, have been associated with minimal recurrence rates and identical survival to lobectomy for small tumors (≤2 cm) [9]. Other adjunctive measures, such as the application of intraoperative brachytherapy mesh along the surgical resection staple line, have also been shown to decrease the local recurrence rates associated with limited resections [10–12].

In this article we review our experience with anatomic segmentectomy for the treatment of stage IA and IB NSCLC. Particular attention is paid to the perioperative outcomes, recurrence patterns, and survival after anatomic segmentectomy for stage I NSCLC. These results are compared with a concurrent cohort of patients undergoing lobectomy for stage IA and IB disease. The impact of surgical margin in relation to tumor size on recurrence patterns is highlighted.


   Patients and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
Results
 Comment
 Discussion
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Patients
Approval for this study was provided by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Pittsburgh (IRB 0408107), and patient consent was waived. We performed a retrospective review of 182 consecutive patients undergoing anatomic segmentectomy for stage I NSCLC at the University of Pittsburgh from 2002 to 2006. Comparison was made with 246 lobectomies performed concurrently for stage I NSCLC during the same time period. Patients were identified from the Lung Cancer Registry at the University of Pittsburgh and from the billing records of the Heart, Lung and Esophageal Surgery Institute. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics are detailed in Table 1.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Patient and Tumor Characteristics
 
Preoperative Evaluation
All patients underwent careful preoperative staging with computed tomography (CT) scanning, with and without positron emission tomography, within 6 weeks of the surgical procedure as well as pulmonary function testing. Additional diagnostic testing (brain magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan) was performed at the discretion of the individual surgeon, according to patient symptoms and clinical findings. Mediastinoscopy was not used routinely in the preoperative evaluation of these patients. All patients were staged postsurgically as stage IA (n = 109) or IB (n = 73) according to the tumor-node-metastases (TNM) classification of the American Joint Committee for Cancer Staging and the Revised International System for staging lung cancer [13].

Operative Technique
Thoracotomy was performed in 114 of the patients (63%), and a video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) approach was used in 68 (37%). All of the principal anatomic segments were resected (Table 2). Right middle lobe resection was included as a segmental resection in this study, given its small size and the anatomic and functional similarity to the lingula in relation to the upper lobe (composed of two classical anatomic segments, frequently is associated with an incomplete fissure, has venous drainage typically associated with the superior pulmonary vein, and a discrete arterial branch arising from the main pulmonary artery). All procedures were performed by one of 11 surgeons, although 138 (75.8%) were performed by a single surgeon (RJL). The largest determinants in selecting a patient for segmentectomy were limited functional status, comorbidities, and surgeon judgment regarding resectability using a segmental approach.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Tumor Location
 
Open segmental resection was performed by either a muscle-sparing axillary thoracotomy or posterolateral minithoracotomy. The VATS approach is performed with a 10-mm camera port in the seventh intercostal space in the mid-axillary line. A second posterior 10-mm port is placed along the same interspace in the posterior axillary line, and is used for retraction and stapling. A 4-cm access incision is placed in the anterior axillary line at the level of the inframammary crease overlying the central portion of the hilum. A 5-mm port is placed just inferior to the axillary hairline for additional instrumentation. Rib spreading is avoided. For each segment, selective isolation and division of the targeted bronchovascular pedicle was performed. An extended segmentectomy was then performed with a stapled parenchymal margin. We prefer the stapled, extended approach to segmentectomy, which serves to incorporate the corresponding intersegmental veins (rather than a selective dissection and identification of the intersegmental veins) to minimize the risk of bleeding and prolonged postoperative air leaks.

Care is taken to partially inflate the lung before parenchymal resection to assist in identifying the appropriate boundaries of resection. Particular attention is paid to achieving an adequate surgical margin during the parenchymal division. We routinely sample N1 and N2 lymph nodes intraoperatively to evaluate for the possibility of occult nodal metastases.

Follow-Up
Perioperative data were collected from the hospital chart, anesthesia, and operating room records as well as the electronic medical record for each patient. Major complications were defined to include:

• Cardiac—congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, heart block and cardiac arrest;
• Pulmonary—pneumonia, empyema, bronchopleural fistula, respiratory failure requiring re-intubation and tracheostomy; and
• Other—septicemia, pulmonary embolism, stroke.

All patients were followed up postoperatively at 2 weeks, at intervals of 4 to 6 months for the first 2 years, and then yearly thereafter with CT scans. Mean follow-up was 18.1 months for the segmentectomy group and 28.5 months for the lobectomy group.

Locoregional recurrence was defined as evidence of tumor within the same lobe, the hilum, or the mediastinal lymph nodes. Distant recurrences were defined as evidence of tumor in another lobe, or elsewhere outside the hemithorax.

In addition to the data derived from the University of Pittsburgh Lung Cancer Registry, mortality data were obtained from the Social Security Death Index. The primary end points for this analysis were perioperative outcomes, recurrence rates, and disease-free and overall survival. Perioperative mortality was defined as any patient who died within the first 30 days after surgery.

Statistical Analysis
Comparisons of segmentectomy and lobectomy cohorts were performed from clinical, demographic, and pathologic data. The Student t test and the Wilcoxon test were used to compare the distributions of continuous data (age, tumor size, number of lymph nodes removed, operative time, estimated blood loss), and the {chi}2 test or Fisher exact test was used to compare the frequencies of categoric measures such as sex, histology, and stage. All comparisons were two-tailed.

Disease-free survival was defined as the time from surgery to the first diagnosis of local, regional or distant disease recurrence, or until last-follow-up. Overall survival was defined as the time from surgery to death or last follow-up. Disease-free and overall survival curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Significance was assessed with the log-rank test.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
Comment
 Discussion
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Patient and Tumor Characteristics
Patient and tumor characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Segmentectomies were done in 93 women and 89 men, and their mean age was 70 years (median, 70 years; range, 45 to 100 years). At the time of surgery, 120 (66%) formerly smoked, 51 (28%) were still actively smoking, and 11 (6%) were never smokers.

All patients had stage IA (n = 109) or stage IB (n = 73) NSCLC. Adenocarcinoma constituted the most common pathologic subtype of NSCLC (n = 91, 56.6%), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (n = 53, 29.1%). The average tumor size during segmentectomy was smaller at 2.3 cm (median, 2 cm; range, 0.2 to 7 cm), compared with 3.1 cm in the lobectomy group (range, 0.5 to 11.2 cm; p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in age, sex, histology, or preoperative pulmonary function testing when the segmentectomy and lobectomy cohorts were compared (Table 1). The most common segmental resection was the formal left upper division resection in 45 (24.7%), followed by the posterior segment of the right upper lobe in 25 (13.7%) and the superior segment of the right lower lobe in 19 (10.4%; Table 2).

Perioperative Outcomes
The average operative time of 147 minutes (median, 138 minutes; range, 323 to 367 minutes) and estimated blood loss of 171 mL (median, 125 mL) for segmentectomy were significantly less than that of lobectomy (Table 3). Fewer lymph nodes were harvested on average during segmentectomy compared with lobectomy (8.1. versus 14.8, p < 0.0001). This difference is believed to be principally due to the smaller specimen obtained during segmentectomy, because there was no apparent difference in nodal stations sampled between the segmentectomy and lobectomy groups.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Perioperative Outcomes
 
Two perioperative deaths (1.1%) occurred after segmentectomy. Median hospital stay was 6 days (range, 2 to 35 days). There was no significant difference in median length of stay or mortality rates when segmentectomy and lobectomy were compared (Table 3). Complications occurred in 59 segmentectomy patients (32.4%), and are outlined in Table 4. The most common complication was atrial fibrillation, which occurred in 17 patients (9.2%). Prolonged air leak (>5 days) was encountered in 13 patients (7.1%). There was no significant difference in overall (32.4% versus 33.7%) or major complications (13.2% versus 13.8%) comparing segmentectomy and lobectomy, respectively (Tables 3 and 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Segmentectomy Complications
 
Recurrence Patterns and Survival
There were 32 recurrences (14 locoregional, 18 distant) during the follow-up period (17.6%). Mean time to recurrence was 14.3 months. Overall recurrence rates were similar between segmentectomy (17.6%) and lobectomy (16.7%) groups (Table 5). Most recurrences were seen in stage IB patients, at 27.4% (20/73), compared with 11.0% in stage 1A patients (12/109; p = 0.004). There was no difference in recurrence-free (Fig 1A) or overall survival (Fig 1B) between segmentectomy and lobectomy.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5 Recurrence Patterns
 

Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 1. (A) Disease-free survival of segmentectomy (gray line) and lobectomy (black line) cohorts. (B) Overall survival of segmentectomy (gray line) and lobectomy (black line) cohorts.

 
Impact of Tumor Size and Surgical Margin
The surgical margin data were available in 27 (93.1%) of 29 recurrences; and 24 (89%) of these 27 recurrences were seen when tumor margins were 2 cm or less. The mean margin among patients with recurrence was 12.8 mm versus 18.6 mm in patients without recurrence. Of interest, 23 (85.2%) of 27 patients with recurrence had a margin/tumor size ratio of less than 1 (Fig 2). Recurrence rates in patients with a margin/tumor size ratio of less than 1 were significantly higher than those with a ratio greater than 1 (25.0% versus 6.2%, p = 0.0014).


Figure 2
View larger version (5K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 2. Analysis of recurrences (diamonds) based on tumor size and surgical margin. The diagonal line represents a surgical margin/tumor size ratio of 1 over the range of tumors encountered. Note that the significant majority of recurrences (23/27 = 85%) are seen when the margin/tumor ratio is less than 1.

 

   Comment
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
Discussion
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Jensik and colleagues [14] were among the first to report that an anatomic segmental resection (segmentectomy) might represent an adequate operation for stage 1 NSCLC. The perceived complexity of this operative approach compared with lobectomy and concerns about increased morbidity related to prolonged air leak and local recurrence rates have deterred most surgeons from using this approach for early stage lung cancer [15]. The Lung Cancer Study Group conducted the only randomized study comparing sublobar resection with lobectomy for stage IA NSCLC patients [1]. The principal finding in this study was a threefold increase in local recurrence (17.2% versus 6.4%) in patients who had sublobar resection, with a 2.4-fold increase in those with segmental resection. Two years later, another prospective, multicenter nonrandomized study demonstrated a similar trend for increased local recurrence in patients undergoing sublobar resection [2]. These and other studies have established lobectomy as the surgical approach of choice in patients with early stage lung cancer.

The increased identification of small NSCLC tumors by enhanced CT screening protocols in higher-risk surgical patients [16] has led many surgeons to question the appropriateness of lobectomy for these tumors [17, 18]. Sublobar resections have been demonstrated to achieve lower perioperative morbidity and mortality rates [19, 20], preserve pulmonary function compared with lobectomy [21, 22], and may represent the only feasible surgical option in high-risk patients with compromised cardiopulmonary function.

A substantial body of literature from Japan and elsewhere has emerged over the last decade that has produced a resurgence of interest in the use of anatomic segmentectomy for patients with small peripheral NSCLC who might otherwise not tolerate lobectomy. Okada and colleagues [23] compared the results of extended segmentectomy to lobectomy in patients with T1 N0 tumors. The 5-year survival of 87.1% among the segmentectomy patients compared quite favorably with the 87.7% survival in the lobectomy group [23]. Kondo and associates [24] analyzed the outcomes of 104 patients undergoing resection for peripheral stage 1A adenocarcinomas, with particular attention to 57 patients with lesions less than 1 cm in diameter [24]. Of this group, 23 lobectomies, 13 segmentectomies, and 21 wedge resections were performed. There was no difference in cancer-free survival regardless of the mode of resection, with an overall 5-year survival of 97%. Bando and colleagues [25] similarly reported a series of 74 patients with T1 N0 NSCLC, and noted locoregional recurrence in only 1.9% of the patients with tumors sized 2 cm or less.

Okada and coworkers [26] evaluated the effect of tumor size on prognosis after resection of 1272 patients. There was no statistical difference in 5-year disease-free survival in lobectomy or segmentectomy patients with tumors 2 cm or less in diameter (87.4% versus 84.6% respectively) [26]. In another study by Fernando and colleagues [27], lobar and sublobar resection was compared in patients with T1 tumors. There was no difference in survival in those patients undergoing lobar or sublobar resection for tumors less than 2 cm; however, survival was significantly improved in the lobar group in those patients with tumors of 2 to 3 cm [27]. Other reports examining sublobar resection in the setting of subcentimeter tumors document no difference in local recurrence or survival [28–30]. These data support the evolving concept that anatomic sublobar resection (anatomic segmentectomy) can be performed with similar expected survival in select patients with small peripheral tumors, in particular those smaller than 2 cm.

The perioperative outcomes with anatomic segmentectomy in this series compare quite favorably with lobectomy (Table 3). The early results of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0030 trial provides important information on the modern day mortality and morbidity associated with anatomic lung resection for NSCLC, including anatomic segmentectomy [31]. The rates for mortality (1.1%) and complications (32%) in the current study are comparable with those of Z0030 for segmentectomy (3% and 46%, respectively).

A number of factors may contribute to the reports of increased local recurrence after sublobar resection, including anatomic segmentectomy. There may be a tendency to understage patients if adequate lymph node sampling or dissection is not performed [32]. Another important feature is the adequacy of surgical margins during anatomic segmentectomy. In a study by Goldstein and colleagues [33], T1 N0 peripheral adenocarcinomas were treated by wedge, followed by lobectomy. Residual adenocarcinoma was found in 45% of the completion lobectomy specimens. Of interest was that the mean margin was 0.7 mm in those patients with residual disease, compared with 2.4 mm in those without recurrence [33]. What margin constitutes an adequate margin in the setting of segmentectomy remains unresolved. A negative microscopic margin combined with negative marginal cytology has been suggested to be a reasonable intraoperative approach at margin assessment [34]. Previous recommendations have implied that 1 cm margins might suffice [35]. More recently, Sawabata and colleagues [9] have suggested that margin distance should be greater than the maximum diameter of the tumor. In the current study, a margin/tumor ratio of less than 1 was associated with a significant increase in recurrence rates compared with ratios of 1 or more (25.0% versus 6.2%; p = 0.0014).

Anatomic segmentectomy pays closer attention to a detailed anatomic bronchial and vascular dissection compared with a simple wedge resection. The addition of an extended parenchymal margin ensures the complete removal of the targeted anatomic segment with its vascular and lymphatic distribution. Theoretically, extended anatomic segmentectomy might permit a larger margin of resection compared with conventional wedge resection. For this approach to be successful, the tumor must conform to the resected segment and not be associated with nodal or distant metastases outside of the resected distribution. Segmental resection has been shown to have a decreased risk of local recurrence compared with a simple wedge resection [1] and may more closely approximate the results of lobectomy in terms of recurrence and survival. Okada and coworkers [26] published 5-year survival rates of 96.7 (tumors < 2 cm) and 84.6% (tumors 2 to 3 cm), which were superior to those of wedge resections (85.7% and 39.4%, respectively) [26]. Anatomic segmentectomy may therefore represent the ideal technique to minimize recurrence in situations where parenchyma-sparing techniques may be beneficial. When an adequate surgical margin is not obtainable with segmental resection, lobectomy should be performed.

Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and inherent differences in tumor size and follow-up between the segmentectomy and lobectomy groups. Given the lack of randomization, potential exists for surgeon bias in terms of patient selection for one approach versus another. It should be noted that tumor size was not found to be an independent predictor of tumor recurrence in this study by univariate (p = 0.132) or multivariate (p = 0.504) analysis. Kaplan-Meier estimates account for differences in mean follow-up and fail to demonstrate a difference in overall and recurrence-free survival between the segmentectomy and lobectomy groups in this study. A limitation of the current study is the relatively short period of follow-up (18.1 versus 28.5 months), making accurate determinations of recurrence and survival patterns more difficult to interpret. As determined by the Kaplan-Meier estimates of the currently available data, no significant difference is seen in overall or disease-free survival between anatomic segmentectomy and lobectomy (Fig 1). The maturation of the results of this series will help us better understand the patterns of recurrence and survival utilizing anatomic segmentectomy.

Although lobectomy should continue to be regarded as the procedure of choice for NSCLC, certain subsets of patients with favorable characteristics may be appropriately treated with segmentectomy without adversely affecting oncologic outcome as long as an adequate assessment of intraoperative nodal status and surgical margin is made. The use of anatomic segmentectomy may be particularly useful for small, peripheral tumors less than 2 cm in diameter located within anatomic segmental boundaries, as well as for elderly patients with impaired cardiopulmonary function. Finally, ground-glass opacities and lesions displaying bronchoalveolar histology may also represent ideal target lesions for segmentectomy given their low metastatic potential. Prospective, randomized studies will be necessary to fully delineate the utility of segmentectomy in patients with NSCLC relative to lobectomy.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Discussion
Acknowledgments
 References
 
DR JEMI OLAK (Bakersfield, CA): I just have one question. The margins, were they assessed on fresh specimens or formalin-fixed specimens?

DR SCHUCHERT: Margins were assessed on both fresh and fixed specimens by the pathologist.

DR DAVID R. JONES (Charlottesville, VA): I really enjoyed your talk. Going forward, in a prospective fashion, particularly with the thoracoscopic segmentectomies, are you going to evaluate the tumor diameter ratio? If your margin-to-tumor diameter is less than 1, knowing that you now have a 25% incidence of recurrence, would you then go ahead and complete the lobectomy?

DR SCHUCHERT: That concept is something that we have been paying particular attention to. If we feel that margins are close, we have two options: One is to complete the lobe; the second is to employ an adjunct (e.g. brachytherapy mesh) that might serve to extend the efficacy of resection along the stapled margin. The impact of brachytherapy mesh in this setting is currently being evaluated in the ACOSOG Z0430 study comparing the results of sublobar resection alone with sublobar resection and brachytherapy mesh implantation.

DR DAN BOFFA (Cleveland, OH): I was just wondering if you have ever compared the nodal status between similarly sized lesions in patients who have undergone wedge resection and lobectomy at your institution? Because there is increasing evidence demonstrating the efficacy of adjuvant therapy, which is determined in large part by your nodal status, more than just accurately staging patients, getting the correct nodal status would be a survival advantage to them.

DR SCHUCHERT: Yes, absolutely. We agree that nodal status is very important and that point is highlighted in the segmentectomy literature. Intraoperatively we do a very careful N1 and N2 nodal assessment to best classify which tumors are truly Stage I. All of the patients in this study had a pathologic final stage of Stage I and were node-negative.

DR JOSEPH LOCICERO (Brooklyn, NY): Throughout my career I’ve been very much an advocate of sparing parenchyma as much as possible. However, we’ve heard a lot about old guys today in several talks, and I guess I have to classify myself now as an old guy taught by older guys.

My mentor, Dr Shields, was very careful in teaching true anatomic segmentectomy. Then I moved on to Boston where Dr Overholt literally wrote the book on segmentectomy.

A true anatomic segmentectomy can be proven only by demonstrating the intersegmental vein. So first, I’m going to ask you about your technique. If you’re using a stapler, how do you know pathologically and anatomically that you’ve actually gotten the segment?

Second, if the lesion goes across the segmental plane and you know that the lesion goes across the segmental plane, would you rather perform a generous wedge resection of the second segment by going across the segmental plane and or would you rather remove two segments?

DR SCHUCHERT: With regard to the first question, in terms of the technical approach to ensure an adequate segmentectomy, we take great care in defining the bronchovascular component to each segment. Once those are adequately isolated and divided, we perform a partial lung inflation to assist in identifying the boundary of the targeted segment. Utilizing this technique, an extended segmentectomy is performed where we actually take an additional margin beyond the traditional segmental boundary to ensure an adequate and complete segmental resection. We prefer this stapled approach to minimize the risk of bleeding and prolonged postoperative air leaks.

We do not specifically identify the intersegmental vein intraoperatively utilizing the stapled approach. By performing an extended segmentectomy, this vein is incorporated in the specimen. In situations where the lesion resides at the boundary between two segments and may be amenable to bisegmentectomy, such as an apicoposterior segmentectomy on the right, we will do a combined segmentectomy approach. Otherwise we take an extended wedge of the neighboring segment to gain an adequate margin. If there is concern about the ability to achieve an adequate surgical margin, lobectomy would be advocated.

DR MATTHEW G. BLUM (Chicago, Illinois): Have you looked at the staple-line cytology? Because we have found even when doing either wedges or segmental resections, occasionally we’ll have a histologically negative margin, but our staple-line cytology will be positive.

DR SCHUCHERT: That particular concept is a point of emphasis in the current ACOSOG Z0430 study where marginal cytology is incorporated as part of the study. In conjunction with the ACOSOG study, we are assessing marginal cytology. However, this method has not been employed for the whole series reported here today.

DR FRANK C. DETTERBECK (New Haven, CT): I enjoyed your talk a lot. I know you told us that in general there was no difference between the patients that got lobectomy or segmentectomy in terms of their pulmonary function tests and so forth. But I wonder if this is true for the patients in whom the margin was small. I wonder if these patients had tumors that were larger, that you were cutting some corners, that you were trying to stretch the limits of what you could do with a segmentectomy because they had poor PFTs or because there were other factors. That’s a hard thing to ferret out. When you were reviewing all of this, did you ever get the impression that that was the case, or not?

DR SCHUCHERT: Generally speaking, segmentectomy was performed in patients with impaired pulmonary function or other significant co-morbidities, or where the segmental resection could be accomplished with adequate margins in the judgment of the surgeon. We take great care to ensure a generous margin and would advocate lobectomy if we felt the margin was too close in patients with adequate pulmonary reserve.

DR HIROYUKI ITO (Yokohama, Japan): In Japan usually the segmentectomy, usually, we use for less than 2 cm of the tumor in diameter. But we use it for about 6-cm T2 Stage IB class for segmentectomy. The greater the size tumor is, the more frequently lymph node you can see. But why did you choose these tumors for the segmentectomy?

DR SCHUCHERT: In this series we analyzed both Stage IA and IB tumors, and had a significant series of patients that had larger tumors. We found in the analysis that even in the case of larger tumors, if you can get an adequate margin, a decreased recurrence risk can be achieved.

DR DAVID C. RICE (Houston, TX): This data is very provocative and I applaud your results. I have three quick questions.

First of all, since these patients had similar pulmonary performance data, I’m just wondering exactly what the reason for performing sublobar resection and not the standard lobar resection was?

Secondly, we know that multiple studies have shown that increasing tumor size, there is a progressive worsening in survival, that the tumors in the segmental resection group clearly were smaller than the lobar group. Did you perform a multivariable analysis including tumor size as a factor so that the relative contribution of sublobar versus lobar resection could be truly defined?

And thirdly, I noticed that your number of nodes were fewer in the segmental group. Did you look at nodal station sampled?

DR SCHUCHERT: Though pulmonary function and patient co-morbidities were the greatest determinants in selecting segmental resection versus lobectomy, intraoperative surgical assessment of the lesion and expected surgical margins also played an important role.

We did do a multivariate analysis looking at a number of variables, including tumor size, margin status, et cetera. Interestingly, there were no good predictors of tumor recurrence or patient survival in this series.

We did examine the number of nodal stations sampled and they were similar in each group. So it seems that the differences in number of nodes harvested was likely due, at least in part, to the size of the specimen and the number of N1 lymph nodes harvested.


   Acknowledgments
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Discussion
 Acknowledgments
References
 
We wish to acknowledge the important contribution of Lorraine Ickes of the Thoracic Surgery Tumor Registry for her assistance in database management and analysis. We would also like to thank Kimberly Burke, Lauren Matteo, Patricia Williams, Diane Sabilla, and Maria Haffely for their assistance in organizing and analyzing hospital charts and providing timely updates on patient follow-up.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Discussion
 Acknowledgments
 References
 

  1. Ginsburg RJ, Rubenstein LV. Randomized trial of lobectomy versus limited resection for T1N0 non-small cell lung cancer Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60:615-623.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Landreneau RJ, Sugarbaker DJ, Mack MJ, et al. Wedge resection versus lobectomy for stage 1 (T1N0M0) non-small cell lung cancer J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;113:691-700.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Okada M, Yoshikawa K, Hatta T, Tsubota N. Is segmentectomy with lymph node assessment an alternative to lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer of 2 cm or smaller? Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:956-961.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Tsubota N, Ayabe K, Doi O, et al. Ongoing prospective study of segmentectomy for small lung tumors Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:1787-1790.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Nonaka M, Kadokura M, Yamamato S, et al. Tumor dimension and prognosis in surgically treated lung cancer: For intentional limited resection Am J Clin Oncol 2003;26:499-503.[Medline]
  6. Koike T, Yamato Y, Yoshiya K, Shimoyama T, Suzuki R. Intentional limited pulmonary resection for peripheral T1N0M0 small-sized lung cancer J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:924-928.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Birdas TJ, Koehler PRM, Colonias A, et al. Sublobar resection with brachytherapy versus lobectomy for stage IB non-small cell lung cancer Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:434-439.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Yoshikawa K, Tsubota N, Kodama K, Ayabe H, Taki T, Mori T. Prospective study of extended segmentectomy for small lung tumors: the final report Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:1055-1059.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Sawabata N, Ohta M, Nagakawa K. Optimal distance of malignant negative margin excision of non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter prospective study Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:415-420.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. D’Amato TA, Galloway M, Szydlowski G, Chen A, Landreneau RJ. Intraoperative brachytherapy following thoracoscopic wedge resection of stage I lung cancer Chest 1998;114:1112-1115.[Medline]
  11. Santos R, Colonias A, Parda D, et al. Comparison between sublobar resection and 125iodine brachytherapy after sublobar resection in high-risk patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer Surgery 2003;134:691-697.[Medline]
  12. Lee W, Daly BD, DiPetrillo TA, et al. Limited resection for non-small cell lung cancer: observed local control with implantation of I-125 brachytherapy seeds Ann Thorac Surg 2003;134:691-697.
  13. Mountain CF. Revisions in the international system for staging lung cancer Chest 1997;111:1710-1717.[Medline]
  14. Jensik RJ, Faber LP, Milloy FJ, Monson DO. Segmental resection for lung cancer–a fifteen year experience J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1973;66:563-572.[Medline]
  15. Warren WH, Faber LP. Segmentectomy versus lobectomy in patients with stage I pulmonary carcinomaFive-year survival and patterns of intrathoracic recurrence. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994;107:1087-1093.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Henschke CI, I-ELCAP Investigators CT screening for lung cancer: update Surg Oncol Clin Am 2005;14:761-776.
  17. Lewis RJ. The role of video assisted thoracic surgery for carcinoma of the lung: wedge resection to lobectomy by simultaneous individual stapling Ann Thorac Surg 1993;56:762-768.[Abstract]
  18. Tang AW, Moss HA, Robertson RJ. The solitary pulmonary nodule Eur J Radiol 2003;45:66-77.
  19. Ginsberg RJ, Hill LD, Eagen RT, et al. Modern thirty day operative mortality for surgical resections in lung cancer J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1983;86:654-658.[Abstract]
  20. Wada H, Nakamura T, Nakamoto K, Maeda M, Watanabe Y. Thirty day operative mortality for thoracotomy in lung cancer J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;115:70-73.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Keenan RJ, Landreneau RJ, Maley Jr RH, et al. Segmental resection spares pulmonary function in patients with stage I lung cancer Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78:228-233.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Harada H, Okada M, Sakamoto T, Matsuoka H, Tsubota N. Functional advantage after radical segmentectomy versus lobectomy for lung cancer Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:2041-2045.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Okada M, Sakamoto T, Nishio W, et al. Characteristics and prognosis of patients after resection of non-small cell lung carcinoma measuring 2 cm or less in greatest dimension Cancer 2003;988:535-541.
  24. Kondo D, Yamada K, Kitayama Y, Hoshi S. Peripheral lung adenocarcinomas: 10 mm or less in diameter Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76:350-355.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Bando T, Yamigahara K, Kitayama Y, et al. A new method of segmental resection for primary lung cancer: intermediate results Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002;21:894-899.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Okada M, Nishio M, Sakamoto T, et al. Effect of tumor size on prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: the role of segmentectomy as a type of lesser resection J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129:87-93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Fernando HC, Santos R, Benfield JR, et al. Lobar and sublobar resection with and without brachytherapy for small stage IA non-small cell lung cancer J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129:261-267.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Martin-Ucar AE, Nakas A, Pilling JE, West KJ, Waller DA. A case-matched study of anatomical segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I lung cancer in high-risk patients Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;27:675-679.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Ketchedjian A, Daly B, Landreneau R, Fernando H. Sublobar resection for the subcentimeter pulmonary nodule Sem Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;17:128-133.[Medline]
  30. Okada M, Koike T, Higashiyama M, Yamato Y, Kodama K, Tsubota N. Radical sublobar resection for small-sized non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter study J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;132:769-775.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Allen MS, Darling GE, Pechet TTV, et al. Morbidity and mortality of major pulmonary resections in patients with early-stage lung cancer: initial results of the randomized, prospective ACOSOG Z0030 trial Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:1013-1020.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. El-Sherif A, Gooding WE, Santos R, et al. Outcomes of sublobar resection versus lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a 13-year analysis Ann Thorac Surg 2006;82:408-416.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Goldstein NS, Ferkowicz M, Kestin L, et al. Wedge resection margin distances and residual adenocarcinoma in lobectomy specimens Am J Clin Path 2003;120:720-724.[Medline]
  34. Higashiyama M, Kodama K, Takami K. Intraoperative lavage cytologic analysis of surgical margins in patients undergoing limited surgery for lung cancer J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:101-107.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Allen MS, Pairolero PC. Inadequacy, mortality and thoracoscopy Ann Thorac Surg 1995;59:6.[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 MMCTSHome page
D. Gossot, C. Radu, M. S. Boudaya, and P. Magdeleinat
Totally endoscopic anatomic pulmonary segmentectomies
MMCTS, June 26, 2008; 2008(0626): 3137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Matthew J. Schuchert
Brian L. Pettiford
Samuel Keeley
Arjun Pennathur
Ricardo Santos
Hiran C. Fernando
James D. Luketich
Rodney J. Landreneau
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schuchert, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Landreneau, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schuchert, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Landreneau, R. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Lung - cancer

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS