Minimally invasive surgery versus thoracotomy for resectable stage II and III non-small-cell lung cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the long-term oncological efficacy and perioperative outcomes of patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancers who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or thoracotomy. METHODS: Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists were searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the studies. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) and perioperative outcomes were synthesized. Random-effects models were used to summarize hazard ratios (HRs), relative risks and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-three retrospective cohort studies were reviewed with a total of 3281 patients, of whom 1376 (41.9%) received MIS and 1905 (58.1%) received thoracotomy. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences in both RFS (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89–1.17; P = 0.78) and OS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80–1.03; P = 0.15) between MIS versus thoracotomy approaches. Similar results were observed in propensity score matched studies (RFS, HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.73–1.20; P = 0.62; OS, HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.72–1.30; P = 0.81). No significant difference was found in lymph node clearance and margin positivity. As for perioperative outcomes, MIS was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative complications (relative risk, 0.83; P = 0.01), intraoperative blood loss (standardized mean difference, -0.68; P = 0.007), chest tube drainage (standardized mean difference, -0.38; P = 0.03) and length of hospital stay (standardized mean difference, -0.79; P = 0.002) when compared with thoracotomy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MIS for resectable stage II and III non-small-cell lung cancers is an eligible alternative to conventional thoracotomy without compromising the long-term survival and short-term outcomes.