TY - JOUR AU - Bedetti, Benedetta AU - Bertolaccini, Luca AU - Rocco, Raffaele AU - Schmidt, Joachim AU - Solli, Piergiorgio AU - Scarci, Marco PY - 2017 TI - Segmentectomy versus lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis JF - Journal of Thoracic Disease; Vol 9, No 6 (June 29, 2017): Journal of Thoracic Disease Y2 - 2017 KW - N2 - Background: In recent years, many factors have revamped the interest in segmentectomies as preferred procedure for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of segmentectomy versus lobectomy regarding overall survival (OS) in the surgical treatment of stage I NSCLC, as stated in the conclusions of the largest studies conducted in this field and reported to date. Methods: The searching strategy was developed in EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL from 1990 until December 2016. The meta-analysis was performed with the combination of the reported survival outcomes of the individual studies using a random effect model. The OS of the lobectomy group was compared with the segmentectomy group alone. The hazard ratio (HR) and standard error were extracted or calculated for each study using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Regarding the results, most of these studies were based on the retrospective data. The size of the cohorts varied from 17 to 11,520, with a total number of 24,542 patients. The pooled HR was 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92–1.18; P=0.50]. Conclusions: The survival in the segmentectomy group was not inferior to patients treated with lobectomy. In conclusion, the current meta-analysis disclosed that segmentectomies produce similar survival compared to lobectomy for patients with stage I NSCLC. To establish the role of segmentectomy in early NSCLC, more evidence is needed, in particular, a large numbered, prospective, randomised trials, which should dissolve the uncertainties and the questions raised by retrospective data. UR - https://jtd.amegroups.org/article/view/13866