Lorenzo Spaggiari1, Giulia Sedda2, Patrick Maisonneuve3, Adele Tessitore2, Monica Casiraghi2, Francesco Petrella4, Domenico Galetta2. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: lorenzo.spaggiari@ieo.it. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 3. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Thoracic Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery has become the first choice for several conditions since its introduction in clinical practice in 2000. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently raised a warning against the use of robotic surgical approaches for the cure and prevention of cancer following the publication of two studies focused on endometrial cancer. We conducted an internal audit to retrospectively analyze our experience to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery compared to open surgery. METHODS: We selected a 5-year period to guarantee at least 2 years of follow-up (2011-2016) and identified 1139 patients who underwent lobectomy for NSCLC in our division. The primary data set analyzed included 544 early-stage clinical N0 patients (348 open and 196 robotic surgeries). We compared 131 patients of each group individually matched, with demographic and clinical characteristics almost identical. RESULTS: No difference was observed between the cohorts, either in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio: 1.09; p = 0.55) or overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.86; p = 0.36). The 5-year recurrence of disease risk and overall survival were 24.9% and 83.2%, respectively, in the open group and 24.6% and 86.1%, respectively, in the robotic group. CONCLUSIONS: These data underline that robotic-assisted lobectomy for early NSCLC is a safe and feasible technique with adequate long-term and progression-free survival compared to open surgery.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery has become the first choice for several conditions since its introduction in clinical practice in 2000. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently raised a warning against the use of robotic surgical approaches for the cure and prevention of cancer following the publication of two studies focused on endometrial cancer. We conducted an internal audit to retrospectively analyze our experience to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery compared to open surgery. METHODS: We selected a 5-year period to guarantee at least 2 years of follow-up (2011-2016) and identified 1139 patients who underwent lobectomy for NSCLC in our division. The primary data set analyzed included 544 early-stage clinical N0 patients (348 open and 196 robotic surgeries). We compared 131 patients of each group individually matched, with demographic and clinical characteristics almost identical. RESULTS: No difference was observed between the cohorts, either in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio: 1.09; p = 0.55) or overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.86; p = 0.36). The 5-year recurrence of disease risk and overall survival were 24.9% and 83.2%, respectively, in the open group and 24.6% and 86.1%, respectively, in the robotic group. CONCLUSIONS: These data underline that robotic-assisted lobectomy for early NSCLC is a safe and feasible technique with adequate long-term and progression-free survival compared to open surgery.