ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2026
Lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection for elderly patients with solid-predominant stage I NSCLC: survival, pulmonary function, and postoperative outcomes.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lobectomy has long been regarded as the standard surgical treatment for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, elderly patients may have limited physiological reserve and may not tolerate the associated loss of pulmonary function. Whether segmentectomy or wedge resection can provide comparable oncologic outcomes and potential functional benefits in elderly patients with solid-predominant stage I NSCLC remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes, postoperative safety, and preservation of pulmonary function among lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection in elderly patients with solid-predominant stage I NSCLC, and to evaluate whether segmentectomy and wedge resection could serve as a feasible alternative to lobectomy in this population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Western China Lung Cancer Database. Patients aged ≥60 years with pathological stage I solid-predominant NSCLC who underwent lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection were included. Propensity score-based weighting was performed to reduce baseline imbalance, including inverse probability of treatment weighting based on the average treatment effect (ATE) estimand and overlap weighting as a sensitivity analysis. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint; disease-free survival (DFS) and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) were secondary endpoints. Postoperative complications and computed tomography (CT)-estimated postoperative pulmonary function were also evaluated. Results: A total of 1,402 patients were included, comprising 1,187 lobectomies, 128 segmentectomies, and 87 wedge resections. After weighting adjustment, segmentectomy showed long-term survival outcomes generally comparable to lobectomy, with no significant differences in OS, DFS, or LCSS. In contrast, wedge resection was associated with the poorest survival outcomes. In the ATE-weighted cohort, wedge resection showed lower 10-year OS than lobectomy and segmentectomy (49.2% Conclusions: In elderly patients with solid-predominant stage I NSCLC, segmentectomy showed long-term survival outcomes generally comparable to lobectomy and may provide a favorable balance between oncologic outcomes and pulmonary function preservation. Wedge resection was associated with inferior survival and did not demonstrate a clear functional lung preservation advantage. These findings require further validation in prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.