TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Resectable Lung Cancer in Older Patients
AU - Veluswamy, Rajwanth R.
AU - Whittaker Brown, Stacey Ann
AU - Mhango, Grace
AU - Sigel, Keith
AU - Nicastri, Daniel G.
AU - Smith, Cardinale B.
AU - Bonomi, Marcelo
AU - Galsky, Matthew D.
AU - Taioli, Emanuela
AU - Neugut, Alfred I.
AU - Wisnivesky, Juan P.
N1 - Funding Information:
Other contributions: The authors thank the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; the Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Science, National Cancer Institute; the Office of Information Services and the Office of Strategic Planning, Health Care Finance Administration; Information Management Services, Inc.; the SEER Program tumor registries for their efforts in the creation of the SEER-Medicare Database; and the ISMMS Clinical and Translational Science Award. The collection, interpretation, and reporting of these data are the sole responsibilities of the authors.
Funding Information:
FUNDING/SUPPORT: This study was supported by the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Young Investigator Award and the ISMMS Clinical and Translational Science Award.
Funding Information:
Author contributions: R. R. V. S.-A. W. B. G. M. and J. P. W. were responsible for the collection, assembly, analysis, and interpretation of data. All authors were responsible for conception and design and manuscript writing, and all authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Financial/nonfinancial disclosures: The authors have reported to CHEST the following: R. R. V. has received consulting honorarium from Onconova Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. J. P. W. is a member of the research board of EHE International; has received consulting honorarium from Merck, Quintiles, and AstraZeneca; and has received research grants from Sanofi and Quorum. A. I. N. is a member of the research board of EHE International; and has received consulting honoraria from Otsuka, Hospira, and United Biosource Corporation. None declared (S.-A. W. B. G. M. K. S. D. G. N. C. B. S. M. B. M. D. G. E. T.). Role of sponsors: The sponsor had no role in the design of the study, the collection and analysis of the data, or the preparation of the manuscript. Other contributions: The authors thank the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; the Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Science, National Cancer Institute; the Office of Information Services and the Office of Strategic Planning, Health Care Finance Administration; Information Management Services, Inc.; the SEER Program tumor registries for their efforts in the creation of the SEER-Medicare Database; and the ISMMS Clinical and Translational Science Award. The collection, interpretation, and reporting of these data are the sole responsibilities of the authors. Additional information: The e-Appendix can be found in the Supplemental Materials section of the online article. FUNDING/SUPPORT: This study was supported by the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Young Investigator Award and the ISMMS Clinical and Translational Science Award.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American College of Chest Physicians
PY - 2020/5
Y1 - 2020/5
N2 - Background: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is a novel surgical approach increasingly used for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, data comparing the effectiveness and costs of RAS vs open thoracotomy and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for NSCLC are limited. Methods: Patients > 65 years old with stage I to IIIA NSCLC treated with RAS, VATS, or open thoracotomy were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and matched according to age, sex, stage, and extent of resection. Propensity score methods were used to compare adjusted rates of postoperative complications, adequate lymph node staging, survival, and treatment-related costs. Results: In this matched study cohort of 2,766 patients with resected NSCLC, RAS was associated with lower complication rates (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79) compared with open thoracotomy, and similar complication rates (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.76-1.37) compared with VATS. Patients undergoing RAS were as likely to have adequate lymph node sampling as those undergoing open thoracotomy (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.74) or VATS (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18). There was no significant difference in overall survival after RAS vs open thoracotomy (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63-1.04) or VATS (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.70-1.18). Costs were similar for RAS ($54,702) vs open thoracotomy ($57,104; P = .08), and higher compared with VATS ($48,729; P = .02). Conclusions: RAS led to improved operative outcomes compared with open thoracotomy but may not offer an advantage over VATS. The comparative effectiveness of RAS should be further evaluated prior to widespread adoption.
AB - Background: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is a novel surgical approach increasingly used for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, data comparing the effectiveness and costs of RAS vs open thoracotomy and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for NSCLC are limited. Methods: Patients > 65 years old with stage I to IIIA NSCLC treated with RAS, VATS, or open thoracotomy were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and matched according to age, sex, stage, and extent of resection. Propensity score methods were used to compare adjusted rates of postoperative complications, adequate lymph node staging, survival, and treatment-related costs. Results: In this matched study cohort of 2,766 patients with resected NSCLC, RAS was associated with lower complication rates (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79) compared with open thoracotomy, and similar complication rates (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.76-1.37) compared with VATS. Patients undergoing RAS were as likely to have adequate lymph node sampling as those undergoing open thoracotomy (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.74) or VATS (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18). There was no significant difference in overall survival after RAS vs open thoracotomy (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63-1.04) or VATS (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.70-1.18). Costs were similar for RAS ($54,702) vs open thoracotomy ($57,104; P = .08), and higher compared with VATS ($48,729; P = .02). Conclusions: RAS led to improved operative outcomes compared with open thoracotomy but may not offer an advantage over VATS. The comparative effectiveness of RAS should be further evaluated prior to widespread adoption.
KW - NSCLC
KW - early stage
KW - minimally invasive
KW - robotic surgery
KW - treatment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078231526&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.chest.2019.09.017
DO - 10.1016/j.chest.2019.09.017
M3 - Article
C2 - 31589843
AN - SCOPUS:85078231526
SN - 0012-3692
VL - 157
SP - 1313
EP - 1321
JO - Chest
JF - Chest
IS - 5
ER -