Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:
To assess the effects of video‐assisted thorascopic lobectomy versus open thoracotomy for people with surgically‐viable stage I non‐small cell lung cancer.
Background
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide (Ferlay 2010; Hashim 2016; Marshall 2016; Torre 2016). The latest USA Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data estimates that more than 220,000 new cases were diagnosed in 2016 which represents at least 13% of all new cases of cancers (National Cancer Institute 2016). In 2016, 158,080 deaths were attributed to lung cancer, representing 26.5% of all cancer deaths. Overall, SEER five‐year survival for bronchogenic carcinoma is estimated at 17.7% (National Cancer Institute 2016). In France and Australia, lung cancer incidence data follow the same trend with five‐year survival ranging from 14% to 15% (Cancer Australia 2016; French National Cancer Institute). However, when diagnosed at an early stage, five‐year survival may increase to 55.2% (National Cancer Institute 2016). The national UK lung cancer audit estimated that 20% to 25% of people with lung cancer are diagnosed at an early stage (I or II) (Royal College of Physicians 2015). Anatomical surgical resection (usually lobectomy) is considered to be the treatment of choice for people with stage I non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (Carr 2012; Padilla 2002; Pearson 1994; Varlotto 2011). The evidence increasingly supports the beneficial effects of thoracoscopic lobectomy compared to lobectomy performed via open thoracotomy. However, ongoing debate about the relative superiority of the techniques continues (Beckers 2016; Migliore 2000; Park 2011; Sandri 2015; Yan 2014).
Description of the condition
In observational studies of patients with NSCLC who are fit for surgery, it has been suggested that lobectomy may provide a five‐year survival rate of up to 90% in people with stage IA NSCLC and up to 80% survival for people with stage IB NSCLC (Carr 2012).
Manser 2005 reported that the evidence surrounding whether surgery was the best treatment for people with early stage lung cancer was inconclusive. In a systematic literature review, Manser 2005 found no studies that compared surgery to no intervention, and inconclusive results when compared to radiotherapy. However, it is ethically unacceptable to propose a study based on surgery compared to no treatment for people with lung cancer. According to more recent studies, lobectomy provides better overall survival and recurrence‐free survival compared with limited resection (Whitson 2011). Moreover, studies have not reported evidence of any survival differences between surgery and radiotherapy for people with early stage lung cancer (Aragón 2015; Cao 2015; Meyers 2015; Nieder 2015).
Evidence has been reported to support lobectomy as the option of choice for people with early stage lung cancer (Carr 2012; Padilla 2002; Pearson 1994; Varlotto 2011).
Description of the intervention
Open thoracotomy has been the historical surgical approach for performing lobectomy. Studies establishing lobectomy as the treatment of choice for people with early‐stage lung cancer have been conducted by studying lobectomies performed via open thoracotomy (Padilla 2002; Pearson 1994). The posterolateral thoracotomy was the first described technique; it required the latissimus dorsi muscle to be dissected and separated to enable access to the rib cage before opening the intercostal space. To enlarge the opening to view the pleural space, a rib had to be cut to enable a wide dissection; the posterior aspect of the intercostal space is naturally narrower. A later development was lateral muscle‐sparing thoracotomy which did not require dissection of the latissimus dorsi; instead, a split was made in the anterior serratus muscle. Over time, rib sections were abandoned. Studies comparing both techniques report equal effectiveness in providing visualisation of the thoracic space, but muscle‐sparing thoracotomy requires less narcotic or analgesia consumption, and offers the advantage of resecting muscles that could be needed to create a muscle flap. Both techniques are widely used for lobectomy (Akçali 2003; Athanassiadi 2007; Hazelrigg 1991; Nosotti 2010).
However, evolving technologies, miniaturisation of surgical tools and development of imaging and video technologies have led to introduction of video‐assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). VATS has the theoretical advantage of a restricted surgical approach using three or four port access, and a limited mini thoracotomy or both (Giudicelli 1994; McKenna 1994). When the technique was first developed studies reported various techniques, all of which were called 'video surgery'. Some studies classified lobectomy performed through a limited incision without dissection, but with stapling and incising the hilum of a lobe ‘en‐bloc’, as video surgery (Lewis 1995). Rocco 2008 highlighted the need for a comprehensive overview of different techniques described in the literature and proposed a universal definition (Migliore 2000). VATS has since been defined according to the following criteria:
use of dedicated minimal thoracic incisions with no intercostal distraction;
visualising the pleural space via indirect monitor imaging;
structures of the hilum are dissected individually (as opposed to en‐bloc stapling of a lobe or lung pedicle); and
use of specialised, dedicated instruments that differ from those used for open thoracotomy (Rocco 2008).
How the intervention might work
VATS has been reported to be a safe and effective technique for anatomical lung resections such as lobectomies and segmentectomies (McKenna 1994; Thomas 2002; Yamamoto 2010). VATS has the theoretical advantage of being a minimally invasive surgical approach with no intercostal distraction (Rocco 2008). VATS has been associated with limited postoperative intercostal pain and rapid recovery of respiratory mechanics. People who undergo VATS procedures recover faster than those who undergo open surgeries, leading to faster commencement of post‐surgical adjuvant therapies if required. Lobectomies have been safely and effectively performed using VATS for people with early stage lung cancer. Lymph node dissection may be conducted as an extended surgical procedure as for open thoracotomy (Kamiyoshihara 2013; Lee 2016).
In comparison to open thoracotomy, VATS may prove as effective with faster recovery and less postoperative pain. Consequently, as more patients may benefit from adjuvant therapies, survival may be at least equivalent or better following VATS procedures, with fewer adverse events related to the surgical procedure. On the other hand, VATS lobectomy may encounter obstacles such as dense pleural adhesions or bleeding from vascular injury, resulting in the need for conversion to open thoracotomy (Hanna 2013; Sandri 2015; Smith 2015). It remains difficult to determine whether these elements are sporadic events or if they impair overall survival of people undergoing the procedure.
Faster recovery following VATS may also lead to shorter stays in hospital and earlier return to active life. VATS could be cost‐effective, although with increased training and technical requirements (DeCamp 1995; Divisi 2016; Fang 2014; Kuritzky 2015; Spartalis 2015).
Why it is important to do this review
Lobectomy via open thoracotomy remains a gold standard procedure for people with early stage lung cancer, but VATS may offer survival advantages, albeit with a longer and more intensive learning curve for thoracic surgical teams (Cao 2014; Okyere 2015; Petersen 2010; Petersen 2012).
The review will aim to assess the evidence to inform thoracic surgeons' choices and patients' survival advantages associated with the use of VATS lobectomy as a standard surgical procedure for people with stage I resectable NSCLC.
Objectives
To assess the effects of video‐assisted thorascopic lobectomy versus open thoracotomy for people with surgically‐viable stage I non‐small cell lung cancer.
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
Randomised controlled studies (RCTs) comparing video‐assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy surgery to open thoracotomy lobectomy in people with confirmed, surgically‐amenable stage I non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Types of participants
People of any age or gender who were fit for surgery (i.e. anatomical lung resection lobectomy and lymph node dissection) presenting with histologically‐ or cytologically‐confirmed stage I NSCLC at the time of trial entry.
Types of interventions
We will include studies of video‐assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy surgery as defined by Rocco 2008 compared with open thoracotomy lobectomy surgery.
Only lobectomies will be included, sub lobar resections will not be considered. Complete lymph node dissection should be associated with lobectomy to perform adequate carcinogenic resection.
Types of outcome measures
Primary outcomes
‐Overall survival (all‐cause death will be included and measured from the date of participant randomisation to the date of death or study end date if the participant was alive).
30 day mortality (all‐cause death).
Secondary outcomes
Disease‐free survival (to be assessed from the date of participant randomisation to the date of pathologically‐confirmed disease recurrence or the study end date if the participant had no confirmed recurrence at that time point).
Lung cancer‐specific survival (assessed from the date of participant randomisation to the date of NSCLC‐related death or other cause of death; participants who died of other causes will be censored; the end of study considered for patients still alive) at two, three, four or five years.
Treatment (surgery)‐related deaths (death while anaesthetised, death related to an immediate complication during surgery, death related to specific postoperative complications).
Locoregional recurrence (confirmed recurrence of initial NSCLC at the site of the pulmonary resection and lymph node dissection) rates at two, three, four or five years.
Respiratory function, including forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), forced vital capacity (FVC), and maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) at one and two years, and at any other time points described in the primary studies beyond three or six months. Measures will be performed during plethysmography.
Quality of life and performance status will be measured based on validated assessment tools.
Acute and chronic pain (i.e. post‐thoracotomy neuralgia) based on validated pain scales or questionnaires.
Adverse events such as switch from video‐assisted to open thoracotomy, massive bleeding from surgical complications and transfusion needs, re‐operation rate, prolonged air leak (> 7 days) following surgery, atelectasis, empyema, lung infections following surgery (pneumonia), bronchopleural fistula, postoperative acute respiratory failure, bronchopleural fistula, cardiac arrhythmia, and pulmonary thromboembolism.
Length of hospital stay.
Time to administration to adjuvant therapy.
Search methods for identification of studies
Electronic searches
We will search the following databases:
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, to the latest issue) (Appendix 1);
MEDLINE accessed via PubMed (from 1946 to present) (Appendix 2); and
Embase (from 1980 to present) (Appendix 3).
We will perform the MEDLINE search using the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy, sensitivity and precision‐maximising version (2008 version) as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Chapter 6.4.11.1 and detailed in box 6.4.b) (Higgins 2011).
We will also search:
Clinical trials registry platform (www.clinicaltrials.gov); and
the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp).
There will be no limitation on publication language. We will conduct both MEDLINE and Embase searches on the same day to ensure chronological adequacy between the search results.
Searching other resources
We will also search for lung cancer and video‐assisted surgery reports from proceedings of the:
European Society for Thoracic Surgery (ESTS) from 2013 to present;
European Respiratory Society (ERS) from 2013 to present;
European Association for Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) from 2013 to present;
Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) from 2013 to present;
American Association of Thoracic Surgery (AATS) from 2013 to present;
American Thoracic Society (ATS) from 2013 to present;
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) from 1990 to present; and
International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) from 2013 to present.
We will also contact authors identified in the search for further published or unpublished data.
We will search the reference lists of included studies for references that may have been missed from electronic and handsearching other resources.
We also plan to contact representatives of imaging and surgical companies that produce VATS instruments and technologies for information about any ongoing trials.
We will look for reviews submitted to the Federal Drug Adminitration (USA) on surgical devices.
From these resources, we will gather any information about RCTs published as abstracts. We plan to contact authors of RCTs published only as abstracts for further information or to clarify reported data.
Data collection and analysis
We will summarise data using standard Cochrane methods as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).
Selection of studies
Two review authors (AO, JR) will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion of all the potential studies we identify as a result of the search.
We will retrieve the full‐text study reports and two review authors (AO, JR) will independently screen the full‐text and identify studies for inclusion, and identify and record reasons for exclusion of the ineligible studies. We will resolve any disagreement through discussion or, if required, we will consult a third review author (PE or GM). We will identify and exclude duplicates and collate multiple reports of the same study so that each study rather than each report is the unit of interest in the review. We will record the selection process in sufficient detail to complete a PRISMA flow diagram (Moher 2009), and 'Characteristics of excluded studies' table. We will not impose any language restrictions.
The study selection process will be performed using Covidence systematic review software (Covidence 2017; Higgins 2011).
Data extraction and management
We will use a data collection form for study characteristics and outcome data which has been piloted on at least one study in the review. Three review authors (AO, PEF, JR) will extract study characteristics from included studies. We will extract the following study characteristics.
Methods: study design, total duration of study, details of any run in period, number of study centres and locations, study setting, withdrawals, date of study and dates of first and last included participants.
Participants: N, mean age, age range, gender, diagnostic criteria, baseline lung function, smoking history, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria. Medical history prior to diagnosis of NSCLC, pathological confirmation of NSCLC, staging of the tumour according to the IASLC TNM classification for lung cancer.
Interventions: intervention, comparison, duration, same or different surgeons, bleeding, transfusion, need for thoracotomy conversion.
Outcomes: primary and secondary outcomes specified and collected, and time points reported.
Results: number of inclusions in each arm, flow chart, sample size, intention to treat and missing participants, summary data for each group, estimates of effect with confidence interval and P value and subgroup analysis.
Notes: funding for trial, and notable conflicts of interest of trial authors.
Three review authors (AO, PEF, JR) will independently extract outcome data from included studies. We will note in the 'Characteristics of included studies' table if outcome data are not reported in a usable way. We will resolve disagreements by consensus or by involving a fourth review author (CF or GM). One review author (AO) will transfer data into the Review Manager file (RevMan 2014). We will double‐check that data are entered correctly by comparing the data presented in the systematic review with the study reports. A second review author (PEF or JR) will spot‐check study characteristics for accuracy against the trial report.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Three review authors (AO, JR, PEF) will independently assess risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). We will resolve any disagreements by discussion or by involving another review author (CF or GM). We will assess the risk of bias according to the following domains.
Random sequence generation.
Allocation concealment.
Blinding of participants and personnel.
Blinding of outcome assessment.
Incomplete outcome data.
Selective outcome reporting.
Other bias.
We will grade each potential source of bias as high, low or unclear and provide a quote from the study report together with a justification for our judgement in the 'Risk of bias' table. We will summarise the risk of bias judgements across different studies for each of the domains listed. We will consider blinding separately for different key outcomes, where necessary. Where information on risk of bias relates to unpublished data or correspondence with a trialist, we will note this in the 'Risk of bias' table.
When considering treatment effects, we will take into account the risk of bias for the studies that contribute to that outcome.
We will search for potential threats to internal validity of the studies such as the training and experience of the surgeons, the surgical volume in each centre, and baseline imbalances between the intervention and control groups. We will assess whether the recommendations of Farrokhyar 2010 have been applied in surgical randomised studies.
Assessment of bias in conducting the systematic review
We will conduct the review according to this published protocol and report any deviations from it in the 'Differences between protocol and review' section of the systematic review.
Measures of treatment effect
We will calculate summary estimates of treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each comparison and outcome. For time‐to‐event endpoints (overall survival, disease‐free survival, lung cancer‐specific survival) we will report hazard ratios (HRs). If trial reports do not provide adequate data to inform calculations, we will extract data according to methods proposed by Guyot 2012, Parmar 1998 and Tierney 2007.
For dichotomous variables (overall survival at 2, 3 and 5 years, treatment‐related deaths, adverse events from surgery, recurrence rates, 30 day mortality), results will be presented as odds ratios (ORs). For continuous outcomes (plethysmography results, quality of life and performance status) results will be reported as mean differences (MDs) for measures using the same scale, and standardised mean differences (SMDs) for measures that used different scales.
Unit of analysis issues
The participants will be the primary unit of analysis. In comparisons of different surgical techniques, neither cross‐over studies nor studies with multiple intervention groups are expected. Nevertheless, in the case of multiple intervention studies, we will perform pair‐wise comparisons (A versus control, B versus control, A versus B) and each compatison will be meta‐analysed. The same group will not be included twice in the same meta‐analysis.
Dealing with missing data
We will contact investigators or study sponsors to verify key study characteristics and obtain missing numerical outcome data where possible (e.g. when a study is identified as an abstract only). Where this is not possible, and the missing data are thought to introduce serious bias, we will explore the impact of including such studies in the overall assessment of results by a sensitivity analysis.
If numerical outcome data are missing, such as standard deviations or correlation coefficients and they cannot be obtained from the authors, we will calculate them from other available statistics such as P values according to the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).
Assessment of heterogeneity
To determine what part of variability in the effect estimates is due to heterogeneity rather to sampling error, we will use the I² statistic (Higgins 2002). The I² value will give the heterogeneity assessment: 0% to 25% heterogeneity might not be important, 26% to 50% moderate heterogeneity; 51% to 75% substantial heterogeneity; 76% to 100% considerable heterogeneity. To pool trials we will first assess heterogeneity on one side, and clinical and methodological diversity on the other side. If sufficient trials are identified following this method, we will assess heterogeneity in subgroup analysis.
Assessment of reporting biases
If we are able to pool more than 10 trials (with no significant heterogeneity, and ratio of maximal to minimal variance effects across studies > 4), we will use asymmetry tests (Ioannidis 2007; Rücker 2008). . If evidence of small study effect is observed, we will perform sensitivity analyses according to regression‐based adjustment methods.
Data synthesis
We will pool data from studies we judge to be clinically homogeneous using Review Manager 5 software (RevMan 2014). If more than one study provides usable data in any single comparison, we will perform a meta‐analysis. We will combine treatment effect estimates of individual trials using fixed‐effect and random‐effect models. Choice to use of the random‐effects model will be made according to the clinical and methodological diversity across trials as well as their distribution and effect sizes. Differences in median survival will be given using the HR with 95% CI. If data from one study cannot be integrated, results will be presented narratively and tabulated.
Odds ratio will be re‐expressed as risk factors with the derivation of number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).
GRADE and 'Summary of findings' table
We will create a 'Summary of findings' table using the following outcomes: overall survival, 30 day mortality, disease‐free survival, switch from video‐assisted to open thoracotomy, major bleeding from surgical complications and transfusion needs, re‐operation rate, surgery‐related deaths in a summary of findings table. We will use the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias) to assess the quality of a body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta‐analyses for the prespecified outcomes (Atkins 2004). We will use methods and recommendations described in Section 8.5 and Chapter 12 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) using GRADEproGDT software (GRADEpro GDT 2015). We will justify all decisions to down‐ or up‐grade the quality of studies using footnotes, and we will make comments to aid the reader's understanding of the review where necessary.
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
Although no subgroup analyses are planned, these will be conducted If sufficient trials are identified following testing for heterogeneity to identify sources of heterogeneity.
Sensitivity analysis
To test whether decisions made during the review process are robust, we will perform a sensitivity analysis. If possible we will restrict analysis to trials assessed at low risk of bias.
Acknowledgements
We especially thank Dr Ramon Rami Porta, Dr Fergus Macbeth, Dr Renee Manser, Dr Ruoyu Zhang, Dr Mia Schmidt‐Hansen for working on this protocol, Professor Virginie Westeel as sign off editor, and François Calais and Giorgio Agazzi for designing the search strategies.
Appendices
Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy
| #1lung cancer* |
| #2non‐small cell* |
| #3non small cell* |
| #4nonsmall cell* |
| #5MeSH descriptor: [Lung Neoplasms] explode all trees |
| #6MeSH descriptor: [Carcinoma, Non‐Small‐Cell Lung] explode all trees |
| #7nsclc |
| #8#1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 |
| #9MeSH descriptor: [Thoracic Surgery, Video‐Assisted] explode all trees |
| #10VATS |
| #11Video assist* |
| #12MeSH descriptor: [Pneumonectomy] explode all trees |
| #13Pneumonectom* |
| #14Lobectom* |
| #15Segmentectom* |
| #16Resect* |
| #17MeSH descriptor: [Thoracotomy] explode all trees |
| #18Thoracotom* |
| #19Thoracoscop* |
| #20MeSH descriptor: [Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures] explode all trees |
| #21minimally invasive |
| #22#9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 |
| #23#8 and #22 Publication Year from 1995 to 2016, in Trials |
Appendix 2. MEDLINE search strategy
| #1,"Search Carcinoma, Non‐Small‐Cell Lung[MeSH Terms]", |
| #2,"Search nsclc[Title/Abstract]", |
| #3,"Search lung cancer*[Title/Abstract]", |
| #4,"Search lung carcinoma[Title/Abstract]" |
| #5,"Search lung neoplasm*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #6,"Search lung tumor*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #7,"Search lung tumour*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #8,"Search non small cell*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #9,"Search nonsmall cell*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #10,"Search (#3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7) AND (#8 OR #9)" |
| #11,"Search #1 OR #2 OR #10" |
| #12,"Search radiosurgery[MeSH Terms]" |
| #13,"Search Stereota*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #14,"Search SBRT[Title/Abstract]" |
| #15,"Search SABR[Title/Abstract]" |
| #16,"Search SBRT/SABR[Title/Abstract]" |
| #17,"Search pneumonectomy[MeSH Terms]" |
| #18,"Search Pneumonectom*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #19,"Search Lobectom*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #20,"Search Sublobectom*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #21,"Search wedge[Title/Abstract]" |
| #22,"Search Segmentectom*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #23,"Search Resect*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #24,"Search Thoracotomy[MeSH Terms]" |
| #25,"Search Thoracotom*[Title/Abstract]" |
| #26,"Search lobectomy[Other Term]" |
| #27,"Search Lung resection[Other Term]" |
| #28,"Search #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27" |
| #29,"Search #11 AND #28" |
| #30,"Search randomized controlled trial[Publication Type]" |
| #31,"Search controlled clinical trial[Publication Type]" |
| #32,"Search randomized[Title/Abstract]" |
| #33,"Search placebo[Title/Abstract]" |
| #34,"Search drug therapy[MeSH Subheading]" |
| #35,"Search randomly[Title/Abstract]" |
| #36,"Search trial[Title/Abstract]" |
| #37,"Search groups[Title/Abstract]" |
| #38,"Search #30 OR #31 OR #32 OR #33 OR #34 OR #35 OR #36 OR #37" |
| #39,"Search animals[MeSH Terms]" |
| #40,"Search humans[MeSH Terms]" |
| #41,"Search #39 NOT #40" |
| #42,"Search #38 NOT #41" |
| #43,"Search #29 AND #42" |
Appendix 3. Embase search strategy
| #1 'non small cell lung cancer'/exp |
| #2 'nsclc':ab,ti |
| #3 'lung cancer*':ab,ti |
| #4 'lung carcinoma*':ab,ti |
| #5 'lung neoplasm*':ab,ti |
| #6 'lung tumor*':ab,ti |
| #7 'lung tumour*':ab,ti |
| #8 'non small cell*':ab,ti |
| #9 'nonsmall cell*':ab,ti |
| #10 #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 |
| #11 'video assisted thoracic surgery'/exp |
| #12 'vats':ab,ti |
| #13 'video assist*':ab,ti |
| #14 'lung resection'/exp |
| #15 'pneumonectom*':ab,ti |
| #16 'lobectom*':ab,ti |
| #17 'segmentectom*':ab,ti |
| #18 'resect*':ab,ti |
| #19 'thoracotomy'/exp |
| #20 'thoracotom*':ab,ti |
| #21 'thoracoscop*':ab,ti |
| #22 'minimally invasive surgery'/exp |
| #23 'minimally invasive':ab,ti |
| #24 #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 |
| #25 'crossover procedure'/exp OR 'double‐blind procedure'/exp OR 'randomized controlled trial'/exp OR 'single‐blind procedure'/exp OR random* OR factorial* OR crossover* OR cross NEXT/1 over* OR placebo* OR doubl* NEAR/1 blind* OR singl* NEAR/1 blind* OR assign* OR allocat* OR volunteer* |
| #26 #10 AND #24 AND #25 |
| #27 #10 AND #24 AND #25 AND [1‐1‐1995]/sd |
Contributions of authors
Writing the protocol: AO, MBS and ES
Declarations of interest
Anne Olland: None known. Jeremie Reeb: None known. Erik Sauleau: None known. Nicolas Meyer: None known. Marion Bernard‐Schweitzer: None known. Celine Falcoz: None known. Pierre Emmanuel Falcoz: None known. Gilbert Massard: None known.
New
References
Additional references
- Akçali Y, Demir H, Tezcan B. The effect of standard posterolateral versus muscle‐sparing thoracotomy on multiple parameters. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2003;76(4):1050‐4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Aragón J, Perez I, Gonzalez‐Rivas D. Video‐assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus stereotactic radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic Disease 2015;7(7):1074‐5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Athanassiadi K, Kakaris S, Theakos N, Skottis I. Muscle‐sparing versus posterolateral thoracotomy: a prospective study. European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2007;31(3):496‐9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Beckers F, Lange N, Koryllos A, Picchioni F, Windisch W, Stoelben E. Unilateral lobe resection by video‐assisted thoracoscopy leads to most optimal functional improvement in severe emphysema. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2016;64(4):336‐42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cancer Australia. Lung cancer statistics Australia. lung‐cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics (accessed 29 December 2016).
- Cao C, Petersen RH, Yan TD. Learning curve for video‐assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2014;147(5):1727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cao C, D'Amico T, Demmy T, Dunning J, Gossot D, Hansen H, et al. International VATS Interest Group. Surgery versus SABR for resectable non small‐cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncolology 2015;16(8):e370‐1. [DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00036-4] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carr SR, Schuchert MJ, Pennathur A, Wilson DO, Siegfried JM, Luketich JD, et al. Impact of tumor size on outcomes after anatomic lung resection for stage 1A non‐small cell lung cancer based on the current staging system. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2012;143(2):390‐7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation, (accessed 24 January 2017).
- DeCamp MM Jr, Jaklitsch MT, Mentzer SJ, Harpole DH Jr, Sugarbaker DJ. The safety and versatility of video‐thoracoscopy: a prospective analysis of 895 consecutive cases. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 1995;181(2):113‐20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Divisi D, Leonardo G, Crisci R. Vats versus axillary mini‐thoracotomy in the management of the second episode of spontaneous pneumothorax: cost‐benefit analysis. World Journal of Surgery 2016;40(9):2171‐7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fang HY, Hsiao FY, Huang HC, Lin YS, Chen CY, Shieh SH, et al. Cost and effectiveness of video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery for clinical stage I non‐small cell lung cancer: a population based analysis. Journal of Thoracic Disease 2014;6(12):1690‐6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, et al. Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Annals of Surgery 2010;251(3):409‐16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. International Journal of Cancer 2010;127(12):2893‐917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Institut National du Cancer [French National Cancer Institute]. Lung cancer [Cancer du poumon]. e‐cancer.fr (accessed 29 December 2016).
- Giudicelli R, Thomas P, Lonjon T, Ragni J, Bulgare JC, Ottomani R, et al. Major pulmonary resection by video assisted mini thoracotomy. Initial experience in 35 patients. European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 1994;8(5):254‐8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- GRADE Working Group, McMaster University. GRADEpro GDT. Hamilton, ON: GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2015.
- Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan‐Meier survival curves. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2012;12:9. [DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-9] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hanna JM, Berry MF, D'Amico TA. Contraindications of video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgical lobectomy and determinants of conversion to open. Journal of Thorasic Disease 2013;5(Suppl 3):S182‐9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hashim D, Boffetta P, Vecchia C, Rota M, Bertuccio P, Malvezzi M, et al. The global decrease in cancer mortality: trends and disparities. Annals of Oncology 2016;27(5):926‐33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hazelrigg SR, Landreneau RJ, Boley TM, Priesmeyer M, Schmaltz RA, Nawarawong W, et al. The effect of muscle‐sparing versus standard posterolateral thoracotomy on pulmonary function, muscle strength, and postoperative pain. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 1991;101(3):394‐400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539‐58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
- Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta‐analysis: a large survey. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2007;176(8):1091‐6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kamiyoshihara M, Igai H, Ibe T, Kawatani N, Ohtaki Y, Shimizu K, et al. Right superior mediastinal lymph node dissection in thoracoscopic surgery using a bipolar sealing device. Innovations 2013;8(4):258‐63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kuritzky AM, Aswad BI, Jones RN, Ng T. Lobectomy by video‐assisted thoracic surgery vs muscle‐sparing thoracotomy for stage I lung cancer: a critical evaluation of short‐ and long‐term outcomes. Journal of American College of Surgeons 2015;220(6):1044‐53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee PC, Kamel M, Nasar A, Ghaly G, Port JL, Paul S, et al. Lobectomy for non‐small cell lung cancer by video‐assisted thoracic surgery: effects of cumulative institutional experience on adequacy of lymphadenectomy. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2016;101(3):1116‐22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lewis RJ. Simultaneously stapled lobectomy: a safe technique for video‐assisted thoracic surgery. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 1995;109(4):619‐25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Manser RL, Wright G, Hart D, Byrnes G, Campbell DA, Wainer Z, et al. Surgery for local and locally advanced non‐small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004699.pub2] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marshall DC, Webb TE, Hall RA, Salciccioli JD, Ali R, Maruthappu M. Trends in UK regional cancer mortality 1991‐2007. British Journal of Cancer 2016;114(3):340‐7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McKenna RJ Jr. Lobectomy by video‐assisted thoracic surgery with mediastinal node sampling for lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 1994;107(3):879‐81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meyers BF, Puri V, Broderick SR, Samson P, Keogan K, Crabtree TD. Lobectomy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage I non small cell lung cancer: Post‐hoc analysis dressed up as level‐1 evidence?. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2015;150(3):468‐71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Migliore M, Deodato G. Thoracoscopic surgery, video‐thoracoscopic surgery, or VATS: a confusion in definition. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2000;69(6):1990‐1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ 2009;339:2535. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National Cancer Institute. Stat facts: Lung and bronchus cancer. seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html (accessed 23 December 2016).
- Nieder C, Andratschke NH, Guckenberger M. A pooled analysis of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non‐small cell lung cancer: is failure to recruit patients into randomized trials also an answer to the research question?. Annals of Translational Medicine 2015;3(11):148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nosotti M, Baisi A, Mendogni P, Palleschi A, Tosi D, Rosso L. Muscle sparing versus posterolateral thoracotomy for pulmonary lobectomy: randomised controlled trial. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 2010;11(4):415‐9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Okyere S, Attia R, Toufektzian L, Routledge T. Is the learning curve for video‐assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy affected by prior experience in open lobectomy?. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 2015;21(1):108‐12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Padilla J, Calvo V, Penalver JC, Zarza AG, Pastor J, Blasco E, et al. Survival and risk model for stage IB non small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2002;36(1):43‐8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Park JS, Kim HK, Choi YS, Kim J, Shim YM, Kim K. Unplanned conversion to thoracotomy during video‐assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy does not compromise the surgical outcome. World Journal of Surgery 2011;35(3):590‐5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815‐34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pearson FG. Current status of surgical resection for lung cancer. Chest 1994;106(6 Suppl):S337‐9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Petersen RH, Hansen HJ. Learning thoracoscopic lobectomy. European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2010;37(3):516‐20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Petersen RH, Hansen HJ. Learning curve associated with VATS lobectomy. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2012;1(1):47‐50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
- Rocco G, Internullo E, Cassivi SD, Raemdonck D, Ferguson MK. The variability of practice in minimally invasive thoracic surgery for pulmonary resections. Thoracic Surgery Clinics 2008;18(3):235‐47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Royal College of Physicians. National lung cancer audit annual report 2015. www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/national‐lung‐cancer‐audit (accessed 29 December 2016).
- Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter J. Arcsine test for publication bias in meta‐analysis with binary outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2008;27(5):746‐63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sandri A, Papagiannopoulos K, Milton R, Kefaloyannis E, Chaudhuri N, Poyser E, et al. Major morbidity after video‐assisted thoracic surgery lung resections: a comparison between the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons definition and the Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality system. Journal of Thoracic Disease 2015;7(7):1174‐80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smith DE, Dietrich A, Nicolas M, Lozzo A, Beveraggi E. Conversion during thoracoscopic lobectomy: related factors and learning curve impact. Updates in Surgery 2015;67(4):427‐32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spartalis E, Mantonakis E, Athanasiou A, Moris D. Lobectomy by video‐assisted thoracic surgery or muscle sparing thoracotomy for stage 1 lung cancer: could cost‐effectiveness give the answer?. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2015;221(4):890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thomas P, Doddoli C, Yena S, Thirion X, Sebag F, Fuentes P, et al. VATS is an adequate oncological operation for stage I non small cell lung cancer. European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2002;21(6):1094‐9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time‐to‐event data into a meta‐analysis. Trials 2007;8:16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Torre LA, Sauer AM, Chen MS Jr, Kagawa‐Singer M, Jemal A, Siegel RL. Cancer statistics for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, 2016: Converging incidence in males and females. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2016;66(3):182‐202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Varlotto JM, Recht A, Flickinger JC, Medford‐Davis LN, Dyer AM, DeCamp MM. Lobectomy leads to optimal survival in early‐stage small cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2011;142(3):538‐46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Whitson BA, Groth SS, Andrade RS, Maddaus MA, Habermann EB, D'Cunha J. Survival after lobectomy versus segmentectomy for stage I non‐small cell lung cancer: a population‐based analysis. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2011;92(6):1943‐50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yamamoto K, Ohsumi A, Kojima F, Imanishi N, Matsuoka K, Ueda M, et al. Long term survival after video‐assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for primary lung cancer. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2010;89(2):353‐9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yan TD, Cao C, D'Amico TA, Demmy TL, He J, Hansen H, et al. International VATS lobectomy consensus group. Video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy at 20 years: a consensus statement. European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2014;45(4):633‐9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]