Comparison of short and long-term results between sleeve resection and pneumonectomy in lung cancer patients over 70 years old: 10 years experience from a single institution in China

6Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term results between sleeve resection (SR) and pneumonectomy (PN) in lung cancer patients over 70 years of age. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 105 lung cancer patients over 70 years of age who had undergone SR or PN at Shanghai Chest Hospital from January 2003 to December 2012. Results: The SR group showed a higher frequency of airway clearance via bronchoscopy (48.6% vs. 25.7%, P = 0.04), longer surgical time (162.7 vs. 140.9 minutes, P = 0.01), and shorter postoperative stay (13.7 vs. 18.1 days, P = 0.02) than the PN group. There was no difference in hospital mortality (P = 1.00) or morbidity (P = 0.40) between the two groups. A logistic regression model showed that preoperative predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second was the only independent risk factor for overall morbidity (P = 0.04). In survival analysis, SR showed better prognosis than PN (median 50.0 vs. 20.0 months, P < 0.01). In subgroup analysis, SR showed better survival in N0 (P = 0.03) and N1 (P < 0.01) cases, but not in N2 cases (P = 0.36). It also showed better survival in stage I + II patients (P = 0.03), but not in stage III patients (P = 0.10). Conclusions: Although PN could be carried out as safely as SR in patients over 70 years of age with a good pulmonary reservoir, SR is still recommended as a less traumatic procedure, sparing lung parenchyma with better long-term results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pan, X., Tantai, J., Lin, L., Cao, K., & Zhao, H. (2014). Comparison of short and long-term results between sleeve resection and pneumonectomy in lung cancer patients over 70 years old: 10 years experience from a single institution in China. Thoracic Cancer, 5(6), 494–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.12116

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free