Next Article in Journal
Adequate Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Radical Cystectomy in the Era of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Morphine Analgesia, Cannabinoid Receptor 2, and Opioid Growth Factor Receptor Cancer Tissue Expression Improve Survival after Pancreatic Cancer Surgery
Previous Article in Special Issue
Implications of Transglutaminase-Mediated Protein Serotonylation in the Epigenetic Landscape, Small Cell Lung Cancer, and Beyond
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 16
10.3390/cancers15164039
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Beyond the Frontline: A Triple-Line Approach of Thoracic Surgeons in Lung Cancer Management—State of the Art

by
Benjamin Bottet
1,
Nicolas Piton
2,
Jean Selim
3,4,
Matthieu Sarsam
1,
Florian Guisier
5,6 and
Jean-Marc Baste
1,*
1
Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Hospital Center University De Rouen, 1 Rue de Germont, F-76000 Rouen, France
2
Department of Pathology, UNIROUEN, INSERM U1245, CHU Rouen, Normandy University, F-76000 Rouen, France
3
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, CHU Rouen, F-76000 Rouen, France
4
INSERM EnVI UMR 1096, University of Rouen Normandy, F-76000 Rouen, France
5
Department of Pneumology, CHU Rouen, 1 Rue de Germont, F-76000 Rouen, France
6
Clinical Investigation Center, Rouen University Hospital, CIC INSERM 1404, 1 Rue de Germont, F-76000 Rouen, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(16), 4039; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164039
Submission received: 7 July 2023 / Revised: 26 July 2023 / Accepted: 8 August 2023 / Published: 9 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Evolving Role of the Thoracic Oncologic Surgeon in the Era of Molecular and Immune-Targeted Therapies for Lung Cancer)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease, making it a complex and challenging condition to diagnose and treat effectively. However, recent advances have been made in surgery and perioperative management as well as in the emergence of new therapies (targeted therapy and immunotherapy). These novel treatment approaches have fundamentally altered the course of the disease, offering new hope and improved outcomes for patients. While surgery traditionally played a role mainly in the initial phases of lung cancer, its potential benefits are now being considered at various stages of the disease. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive description of the latest surgical approaches in lung cancer. We aim to highlight the importance of integrating these modalities within a patient-centered and personalized treatment pathway.

Abstract

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is now described as an extremely heterogeneous disease in its clinical presentation, histology, molecular characteristics, and patient conditions. Over the past 20 years, the management of lung cancer has evolved with positive results. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment landscape for NSCLC in both metastatic and locally advanced stages. The identification of molecular alterations in NSCLC has also allowed the development of targeted therapies, which provide better outcomes than chemotherapy in selected patients. However, patients usually develop acquired resistance to these treatments. On the other hand, thoracic surgery has progressed thanks to minimally invasive procedures, pre-habilitation and enhanced recovery after surgery. Moreover, within thoracic surgery, precision surgery considers the patient and his/her disease in their entirety to offer the best oncologic strategy. Surgeons support patients from pre-operative rehabilitation to surgery and beyond. They are involved in post-treatment follow-up and lung cancer recurrence. When conventional therapies are no longer effective, salvage surgery can be performed on selected patients.

1. Introduction: State of the Art of Lung Cancer in 2023

Lung cancer was the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in 2020, with 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths [1]. Lung cancer primarily affects men and is often diagnosed at an advanced stage (75%) [2,3,4], resulting in a low 5-year survival rate of only 10 to 20% [1,2]. However, screening programs and improved follow-up strategies have led to earlier detection and reduced mortality rates. Low-dose computed tomography (CT) is an effective screening method for high-risk individuals, such as heavy smokers, and has demonstrated an ability to detect lung cancer at an earlier stage and to decrease mortality [5,6,7].
Lung cancer is a molecularly heterogeneous disease with various subtypes and clinical presentations, making it a complex disease to diagnose and manage [4] (Figure 1). Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 80–85% of newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer annually [8]. Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and lung squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are the most common subtypes. Histology plays a crucial role in the classification and management of NSCLC. The World Health Organization (WHO) classification enables improvement in patient outcomes by providing greater diagnostic accuracy and better therapeutic strategies through more efficient molecular and biomarker testing [4]. The Tumor, Node, Metastasis (TNM) staging system further guides treatment decisions, allowing clinicians to tailor therapies based on the stage of the disease and overall prognosis [9]. In addition, the WHO classification provides guidelines and recommendations regarding the comprehensive evaluation of molecular markers in lung cancer [4].
Advances in molecular biology have improved our understanding of this heterogeneity, particularly in NSCLC, and have revealed oncogenic drivers that can be targeted with specific therapies. Indeed, lung cancer displays one of the highest rates of targetable genetic alterations [10]. The frequency and prevalence of driver gene aberrations differ among LUAD and lung SCC [11,12,13]. The European Society for Medical Oncology [14] and the WHO classification [4] emphasize the systematic assessment of specific molecular alterations in NSCLC, such as genetic mutations (e.g., EGFR, KRAS), fusions (e.g., ALK, ROS1, RET), and protein overexpression such as programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), among others.
Because samples are often small, it is recommended to spare as much tissue for molecular testing as possible and to use only a limited panel of immunohistochemical markers as well as mucin stains to diagnose and subtype NSCLC [4]. Liquid biopsy includes testing on a variety of cancer biomarkers, such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), microRNA, and circulating tumor cells, which can be collected from non-invasive specimens (plasma, serum, urine, etc.) to determine actionable genomic alterations [15,16]. These challenges have prompted the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in anatomical pathology [17]. AI technologies, such as machine learning and deep learning algorithms, have shown great potential in revolutionizing anatomical pathology by predicting patient prognosis and treatment response based on image analysis, and contributing to personalized medicine approaches [18].
In selected patients, targeted treatments have replaced the empirical use of cytotoxic therapies and offer more effective and tolerable regimens tailored to specific molecular alterations [14]. Most targetable oncogenic alterations occur in LUAD. The most common genetic alterations in LUAD are EGFR and KRAS-activating mutations, followed by, in frequency, ALK and ROS1 fusions, BRAF mutations, MET exon 14 skipping mutations and MET amplifications, RET gene fusions, and HER2 mutations [14]. Despite the initial success of targeted therapies, our ability to achieve durable remission remains limited by the inevitable development of resistance to targeted therapy. Acquired resistance often arises due to the emergence of secondary mutations [19]. To fight resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors, next-generation inhibitors have been developed and have shown efficacy in clinical trials [20,21]. Performing new biopsies in cases of recurrence or relapse of lung cancer is of the highest importance, especially in patients harboring known genetic alterations [22,23,24].
Immunotherapy also plays a significant role in the treatment of lung cancer, similar to melanoma, resulting in major improvements in patient survival [25]. First developed for metastatic or locally advanced NSCLC, immunotherapy is now considered even for neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy [26,27,28]. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy aims to facilitate early development of memory T cells leading to a strong adaptive anti-tumor response, representing an important advantage over adjuvant therapy [29,30,31]. CheckMate-816, the first phase 3 trial comparing the addition of an anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody (nivolumab) to neoadjuvant platinum-doublet chemotherapy, met its primary endpoint of improved pathologic complete response rates with the addition of nivolumab (24.0% vs. 2.2% for chemotherapy alone). Event-free survival was also improved but overall survival data are still not mature enough [32].
Immunotherapy, known for its ability to induce inflammation and immune-related adverse events, can potentially complicate surgical procedures [33]. Moreover, there were concerns that adding immunotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy could potentially increase the risk of adverse effects. However, the results of the CheckMate 816 trial have shown the opposite. In addition surgery was less cancelled in the chemo-immunotherapy group [32].
These new modalities of lung cancer management have not only reshaped the role of pulmonary surgery but also highlight the need for a multidisciplinary approach and personalized treatment plans tailored to each patient’s specific circumstances and disease characteristics.
The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive description of the latest surgical approaches in NSCLC. Furthermore, we aim to highlight the importance of integrating these modalities within a patient-centered and personalized treatment pathway.

2. Advances in Thoracic Surgery—The Evolving Landscape of First-Line Surgical Approaches

2.1. Progress in Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgical Procedures

Since the end of the 1990s [34,35], the development and spread of new minimally invasive techniques in thoracic surgery, such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS), have revolutionized patient management. Thoracotomy was for a long time considered the gold standard, but VATS and RATS have now supplanted it in the management of early-stage NSCLC [3,36,37]. By using “small incisions” and without rib spreading, VATS lung resection has shown better short-term outcomes with lower morbidity and mortality rates, a shorter length of hospital stay, and less pain [38,39,40,41,42]. Similarly, RATS lung resection has shown superiority when compared to open surgery [43,44,45]. Regarding long-term outcomes the superiority of VATS or RATS is still debated [44,45,46,47].
Even if VATS and RATS propose better short-term outcomes, it is essential that they provide equal long-term outcomes regarding overall survival and disease-free survival. No difference was reported between minimally invasive techniques and thoracotomy [44,45,46,47,48,49]. Results are debated concerning operative lymph node staging, and nodal upstaging in open surgery, VATS, or RATS [50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. Thanks to advances in anesthesia [57] and surgery, the mortality rate of lung surgery has decreased over the years [58,59]. Today, the 30-day mortality rate has further decreased to 2% after open lobectomy, 1.3% after minimally invasive lobectomy, and less than 1% after segmentectomy [47,60,61].

2.2. Innovation in Perioperative Management

2.2.1. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS)

The concept of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) was first defined in 1997 by Professor Henrik Kehlet for colorectal surgery [62]. It was based on six pillars: preoperative information and education, attenuation of stress, pain relief, exercise, enteral nutrition, and growth factors. The ERAS program aims to optimize patient management throughout their surgical journey by implementing specific measures in each phase. First, the preoperative phase plays a crucial role in patient preparation. Education and information strategies are implemented to educate patients about the upcoming surgery, the goals of enhanced recovery, and the steps involved. This enables patients to mentally and physically prepare themselves, which can reduce anxiety and promote active participation in their own recovery [63,64]. Moving on to the intraoperative phase, the ERAS program encourages the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques whenever possible. These techniques can lead to smaller incisions, reduced tissue trauma, and faster recovery [3]. Additionally, optimized pain management strategies, such as the use of regional anesthesia or nerve blocks, are employed to minimize postoperative pain and facilitate early mobilization [57]. The postoperative phase of the ERAS program focuses on early recovery and rehabilitation. Early mobilization, including walking and physical therapy, is initiated as soon as possible to prevent complications and improve overall outcomes. The program also emphasizes early initiation of oral intake, gradually advancing from clear liquids to a normal diet, to expedite the return of bowel function. By integrating these elements into the entire perioperative process, the ERAS program in thoracic surgery aims to reduce surgical stress, minimize complications, shorten hospital stays, and enhance overall patient recovery without increased re-admission rates [65,66].

2.2.2. Prehabilitation

The emergence of preoperative rehabilitation has had a profound impact on the field of thoracic surgery, offering numerous benefits for patients undergoing surgical procedures.
One significant advantage is the observed reduction in postoperative complications. Several studies have demonstrated that preoperative exercise training and physiotherapy can improve patients’ functional capacity, respiratory function, and overall physical fitness [67,68,69]. These improvements contribute to a decreased incidence of postoperative complications, such as pneumonia, atelectasis, and respiratory failure.
The timely management of lung cancer is crucial for optimal patient outcomes. However, the requirement of a five-week preoperative rehabilitation period has posed challenges in meeting the recommended treatment timeline [70]. Fortunately, recent studies have shed light on the possibility of shortening the duration of prehabilitation without compromising its effectiveness. Gravier et al. [71] conducted a randomized trial and demonstrated that a three-week regimen of prehabilitation sessions for individuals with NSCLC yielded similar or even better outcomes compared to the traditional five-week program. These findings suggest that a shorter duration of prehabilitation can be equally effective in preparing patients for surgery. Implementing this modified approach can help avoid unnecessary delays in the recommended treatment timeline, facilitating timely and efficient management of lung cancer patients.
Moreover, preoperative rehabilitation has expanded the pool of patients eligible for surgery. Traditionally, patients with poor preoperative spirometric evaluation or pre-existing comorbidities were deemed unsuitable candidates for surgical intervention [72]. However, these recommendations were based on patients mainly treated by open surgery and without a pre-operative rehabilitation program. As previously mentioned, minimally invasive surgery improves postoperative outcomes. The growing emphasis on preoperative rehabilitation also calls for a reevaluation of the traditional criteria used for patient selection before surgery. Among others, a work by our group (Boujibar et al.) [73] highlights the need to update preoperative assessment protocols, particularly for minimally invasive lung surgery. The inclusion of parameters such as performance at stair-climbing tests [68], incremental shuttle walking tests [74], functional capacity, and overall physical fitness can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of patients’ suitability for surgery. These updated criteria can help identify patients who would benefit from preoperative rehabilitation and enable personalized treatment plans to optimize their surgical outcomes (Figure 2).

2.3. The Era of Precision in Thoracic Surgery: Customizing Treatment Approaches

2.3.1. The Role of Multimodal Approaches and Preoperative Planning

Integrating the patient in a multimodal approach through “precision surgery” is of utmost importance in the field of thoracic surgery. Lung surgery is not a binary procedure categorized solely as resectable or non-resectable [75]. It is crucial to move beyond indications based solely on respiratory function and to consider various factors (tumor characteristics: size, appearance, localization; patient comorbidities and age, etc.). Adopting a comprehensive approach allows for a more personalized treatment plan [76,77].
Preoperative planning plays a significant role in determining the surgical approach and the type of resection. Indeed, minimally invasive approaches such as VATS and RATS are becoming standard, rendering the palpation of lesions more difficult, not to mention pure ground-glass opacities, which cannot be felt even in open surgery. In the era of sublobar resection, the use of preoperative tracking techniques is becoming essential in some surgeries [78,79,80]. Several techniques have been described, such as the use of methylene blue [81,82], combined with 99mTechnetium [83], indocyanine green [84], hook wire [85], electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) [85,86], and intraoperative ultrasound [87].
Resection margins in lung cancer surgery serve as a guide for surgical strategy [88].
Furthermore, 3D reconstructions have become an important part of preoperative planning, particularly for sublobar resection [79,80,89]. The technical aspects of the procedure require a thorough understanding of the complex and highly variable pulmonary anatomy, which could be improved by a 3D model. These reconstructions provide a detailed visualization of the patient’s anatomy and surgical margin [80]. By incorporating advanced imaging and reconstruction techniques, surgeons can better navigate the complex anatomy of the lungs, perform precise, targeted resections, and reduce adverse events [90,91].
In summary, adopting a multimodal approach to thoracic surgery, encompassing precision surgery, is essential. This involves moving beyond simplistic categorizations and considering a range of factors when determining surgical indications. Preoperative planning, lesion localization techniques, and three-dimensional reconstruction all play a critical role in ensuring precise surgical interventions and improving patient outcomes (Figure 2).

2.3.2. Sublobar Resection: Wedge Resection and Segmentectomy

Lobectomy has long been considered the gold standard for the management of lung cancer, providing a complete resection of the affected lobe [36]. We are now in an era where CT-based lung cancer screening has revolutionized the detection of “very early” NSCLC. This refers to tumors that are classified as T1a–bN0 (measuring ≤2 cm and node negative), for which more conservative surgeries such as sublobar resection may be proposed. Indeed, recent guidelines and recommendations have emerged suggesting the potential benefits of sublobar resection. Despite resecting less tissue, segmentectomy must lead to a complete resection of the tumor with safe margins and lymph node dissection, providing accurate staging and preserving long-term outcomes. Segmentectomy is indicated not only for compromised patients [92] but also for specific cases and selected patients [3,36,37], with pure ground-glass opacity <2 cm, adenocarcinoma in situ <2 cm, or minimally invasive or invasive adenocarcinoma <2 cm [93], if expected margins are >1 cm or measuring at least the size of the tumor. In these indications, segmentectomy provided the same short- and long-term outcomes as lobectomy [47,60,94].
Two recent studies have brought about a paradigm shift in the management of lung cancer. The first study, conducted by Saji et al., compared segmentectomy and lobectomy for small-sized peripheral NSCLC. After a median follow-up of 7.3 years, no difference was noted in overall survival, although a lower relapse-free survival was observed after segmentectomy. These findings support the consideration of segmentectomy as an alternative surgical approach for patients with small-sized peripheral NSCLC, as it may offer a less extensive procedure while maintaining comparable outcomes [95]. The second study by Altorki et al. reported the results of a multicenter, non-inferiority trial. Eligible patients with peripheral stage IA NSCLC were randomly assigned intraoperatively to undergo either lobectomy or sublobar resection (wedge resection or segmentectomy). After a median follow-up of 7 years, sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy in terms of disease-free survival or overall survival [96].
These two studies provide valuable insights into the management of early-stage lung cancer, expanding the options available for surgical resection. They highlight the potential benefits of sublobar resection by providing a more conservative surgical approach while preserving lung function.

3. Second Primary Lung Cancer and Recurrence: Approaching the Second Line

3.1. Second Primary Lung Cancer: Impact on Survival and Prognosis

Over the last few decades, therapeutic advances have increased the overall 5-year survival rate of patients with lung cancer. Patients are more frequently followed-up, and recurrences can be detected earlier, often before symptoms occur. Indeed, lung cancer survivors are known to have a high risk of developing a second primary lung cancer. Choi et al. conducted a study that revealed that approximately 8.7% of patients with lung cancer had a second lung cancer. Among these second cancers, around 54.6% were detected within the first 5 years following the initial cancer diagnosis [97]. Moreover, in patients who underwent lung cancer surgery, the estimated risk of developing a second cancer was roughly 1–2% per patient-year after resection [98]. Unfortunately, patients with a second lung cancer had a significant decrease in survival compared to those who remained with a single primary lung cancer (HR = 2.12, 95% CI = 2.06 to 2.17; p < 0.001). This decrease in survival was more pronounced in patients with early-stage lung cancer and active smokers than in those with advanced cancer and former or non-smokers [97]. It is thus crucial to focus on CT screening and smoking cessation.
Initially documented in 2006 [99], the phenomenon of NSCLC transforming into small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has now been firmly established. The occurrence of histologic changes in lung cancer following initial diagnosis was attributed to either transformation between NSCLC and SCLC or undetected mixed histology at diagnosis due to tumor heterogeneity [100]. Approximately 10% to 28% of SCLC cases exhibit an NSCLC component [101,102,103]. Distinguishing between transformation and de novo mixed lung cancer histology can pose challenges. To date, EGFR-mutant NSCLC is the most common source of SCLC transformation, significantly higher than ALK-rearranged NSCLC [100,103]. More recent estimates of the frequency of this type of transformation range from 3% to 10% [104]. SCLC transformation is associated with poor prognosis. The estimated median survival was approximately 6 months, which was less than in primary SCLC with extensive disease [105].

3.2. Advances in Diagnostic Techniques and Surgical Approaches for Managing Second Lung Cancer

Performing new biopsies has become essential for the management of recurrent and second-line primary lung cancer. Less invasive procedures should be preferred [9,106].
One commonly used technique is bronchoscopic biopsy. Using this minimally invasive procedure, samples can be obtained from the tumor or adjacent areas using specialized tools such as forceps, brushes, or needles. Bronchoscopy may be coupled with a radial ultrasound probe, also known as radial endobronchial ultrasound (r-EBUS). Virtual bronchoscopy software allows one to locate the tumor and identify the optimal bronchial path to the tumor [107]. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration are used for the diagnosis of mediastinal lymph node metastases [108,109].
Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) is a minimally invasive procedure used for the diagnosis and staging of lung lesions. During an ENB procedure, a preoperative CT scan is used to create a three-dimensional virtual map of the patient’s lungs. This map serves as a guide for the bronchoscopist to navigate through the airways to the nodule [86]. However, ENB and r-EBUS have some limitations when it comes to pure ground-glass opacities and nodules without bronchial signs [110,111].
When nodules are inaccessible to EBUS, samples can be obtained using a CT scan. CT-guided transthoracic lung biopsy is a minimally invasive diagnostic procedure for tissue diagnosis of peripheral lung nodules [112] and, in some cases, mediastinal metastases [113].
Among surgical techniques, video mediastinoscopy is a safe and effective procedure to evaluate mediastinal lymph nodes surrounding the trachea [114]. Although re-mediastinoscopy can be safely performed in expert centers, less invasive techniques should be preferred in cases of mediastinal recurrence [106].
Although VATS can reach almost all mediastinal lymph node stations, it is the most invasive procedure. However, VATS allows surgeons to access and examine ipsilateral lymph nodes, providing accurate staging information. Additionally, VATS enables meticulous assessment of the pleura, aiding in the detection of metastatic spread. In addition, it is also possible to perform sublobar resection in cases of lung cancer recurrence, providing both sufficient tissue for genetic testing and safe resection margins for curative management. Some authors perform these procedures on an outpatient basis [115,116]. Abid et al. showed that a second surgical resection for a second NSCLC did not result in significantly higher morbidity than the first surgery [117]. Anatomical sublobar resection emerges as a favorable approach, striking a balance between surgical efficacy and preservation of lung function. This approach can also be considered during the first surgery if a suspicious synchronous lesion is identified, which may potentially require surgical intervention at a later stage.

3.3. Management of Recurrence after Lung Cancer Treatment

Complete resection remains the most effective treatment for early-stage NSCLC [3,37]. However, despite successful surgeries, recurrence rates of approximately 20% to 50% [118,119,120] pose significant challenges to long-term survival [3,9]. Multiple factors, including TNM stage, surgical approach, resection quality, genetic mutations, and treatment response, influence the likelihood of recurrence [9,14,37,47,95,96]. Accurate diagnosis of recurrence is crucial as it profoundly impacts therapeutic decisions. Sonoda et al. revealed that patients with 1 to 2 recurrences had better survival outcomes than those with more than 3 recurrences, emphasizing the importance of managing recurrent cases carefully [121]. In light of these findings, it is imperative to prioritize localized treatments for patients presenting with 1 to 2 recurrences. Minimally invasive surgical procedures, such as VATS or RATS, offer a good option to treat recurrent lesions [122]. Sublobar resection, including wedge and segmentectomy, is preferred to spare healthy lung tissue. Additionally, non-surgical options such as stereotactic radiotherapy [123] and radiofrequency ablation [124] provide efficient and less invasive alternatives.

4. Salvage Surgery in Advanced NSCLC—Third Line

4.1. Improved Outcomes in Metastatic Cancers Treated with Immunotherapy

Today, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, is the standard of care for most patients with unresectable NSCLC without targetable molecular alterations [125]. Since their introduction, ICIs have improved the prognosis of advanced NSCLC [126,127,128]. Given the existence of long-term survivors among patients with stage IV NSCLC treated with ICI, lung surgery may be considered in selected cases to improve outcomes in three different scenarios: (i) synchronous oligometastatic disease, (ii) oligopersistence of lung tumor after partial response, (iii) oligoprogression of disease. In some cases, the persistence or growth of pulmonary abnormalities might be due to macroscopic residual disease, granulomatosis reaction, or parenchymal fibrosis with no residual tumor [33]. Anatomical lung resection may be suggested to obtain a pathologic analysis of persisting lung abnormalities and to eradicate any macroscopic residual disease.

4.2. Salvage Surgery: Safety and Feasibility

Salvage surgery is defined as lung resection in patients with unresectable or initially metastatic lung cancer who have received previous treatments such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Surgical resection is performed more than 12 weeks after the last treatment session, and it is not considered neoadjuvant therapy. When patients received previous high-dose radiotherapy, the delay between lung resection and radiotherapy increased the risk of complications [129]. Immunotherapy generates peritumoral inflammation that may increase tissue adherence, with a potentially higher risk of perioperative complications. Several series showed a higher rate of tissue fibrosis/inflammation [33,130,131,132,133]. Several studies evaluated salvage surgery after immunotherapy in patients with metastatic cancer, demonstrating its safety and feasibility [130,131,132,133,134]. There is much heterogeneity in the results of these studies. Minimally invasive surgery was performed in less than 50% of cases (36–48%) [130,131,134] and in 100% of cases in one study [132]. Postoperative complication rates ranged from 16% to 43% [130,131,132,133,134], with a 90-day mortality rate between 0% and 9% [130,131,132,134]. Nearly 100% of cases achieved complete resection of the tumor [130,131,132,134], while the complete pathologic response rate ranged from 27% to 37.5% [130,132,133,134].
However, these studies had limitations due to their retrospective nature, case series, heterogeneity in surgical procedures and tumor invasion areas. Moreover, the reported cases were often from highly selected patient populations.

4.3. Patient Selection Criteria for Salvage or Rescue Surgery

The selection of patients eligible for salvage surgery following immunotherapy +/− chemo- or chemo-radiotherapy treatment requires careful consideration of various factors. Baseline evaluation and staging play a crucial role in determining the suitability of patients for salvage surgery. A comprehensive assessment is typically conducted, which includes an enhanced chest CT scan, brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and abdominal CT as routine imaging modalities. Patients with signs of disease progression or distant metastasis should be excluded, as should those with tumors invading vital structures such as great vessels, diaphragm, heart, trachea, and carina, with a risk of incomplete resection and perioperative complications. Histologic examination and driver mutation analysis are performed through bronchoscopy or subcutaneous needle biopsy. These include confirmed lymph node down-staging assessed by chest CT scan or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT [135]. In cases where there is a bulky mediastinal mass or a need for pathologic confirmation of the N stage, PET/CT and invasive mediastinal staging or EBUS should be used. Resectability of the tumor is then reassessed by a multidisciplinary tumor board composed of thoracic surgeons, oncologists, and radiologists with expertise in the field [75] (Figure 3).

5. Conclusions

Overall, the insights gained from these studies and advances in thoracic surgery highlight the importance of early detection, accurate staging, personalized treatment strategies, and multidisciplinary care to optimize outcomes for patients with NSCLC. As we continue to uncover novel therapeutic strategies and refine surgical approaches, a comprehensive and integrated approach involving collaboration among clinicians, surgeons, and researchers will further improve outcomes and the quality of life for patients with lung cancer.

Author Contributions

Investigation and bibliography research: B.B., N.P., J.S., M.S., F.G. and J.-M.B.; Writing: B.B., N.P., J.S., M.S., F.G. and J.-M.B.; Reviewing draft and original article: B.B., N.P., J.S., M.S., F.G. and J.-M.B.; Approving the final version B.B., N.P., J.S., M.S., F.G. and J.-M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Nikki Sabourin-Gibbs, CHU Rouen, for her help in editing the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

J.-M.B. is Proctor for Intuitive Surgical, Baxter and Medtronic. B.B., N.P., J.S., M.S., F.G.: none.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Jemal, A. Cancer Statistics, 2020. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Postmus, P.E.; Kerr, K.M.; Oudkerk, M.; Senan, S.; Waller, D.A.; Vansteenkiste, J.; Escriu, C.; Peters, S. Early and Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, iv1–iv21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Nicholson, A.G.; Tsao, M.S.; Beasley, M.B.; Borczuk, A.C.; Brambilla, E.; Cooper, W.A.; Dacic, S.; Jain, D.; Kerr, K.M.; Lantuejoul, S.; et al. The 2021 WHO Classification of Lung Tumors: Impact of Advances Since 2015. J. Thorac. Oncol. Off. Publ. Int. Assoc. Study Lung Cancer 2022, 17, 362–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Leleu, O.; Basille, D.; Auquier, M.; Clarot, C.; Hoguet, E.; Pétigny, V.; Addi, A.A.; Milleron, B.; Chauffert, B.; Berna, P.; et al. Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose CT Scan: Baseline Results of a French Prospective Study. Clin. Lung Cancer 2020, 21, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Extended Follow-up in the National Lung Screening Trial. J. Thorac. Oncol. Off. Publ. Int. Assoc. Study Lung Cancer 2019, 14, 1732–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pastorino, U.; Silva, M.; Sestini, S.; Sabia, F.; Boeri, M.; Cantarutti, A.; Sverzellati, N.; Sozzi, G.; Corrao, G.; Marchianò, A. Prolonged Lung Cancer Screening Reduced 10-Year Mortality in the MILD Trial: New Confirmation of Lung Cancer Screening Efficacy. Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2019, 30, 1162–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Molina, J.R.; Yang, P.; Cassivi, S.D.; Schild, S.E.; Adjei, A.A. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Treatment, and Survivorship. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2008, 83, 584–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Goldstraw, P.; Chansky, K.; Crowley, J.; Rami-Porta, R.; Asamura, H.; Eberhardt, W.E.E.; Nicholson, A.G.; Groome, P.; Mitchell, A.; Bolejack, V.; et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: Proposals for Revision of the TNM Stage Groupings in the Forthcoming (Eighth) Edition of the TNM Classification for Lung Cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. Off. Publ. Int. Assoc. Study Lung Cancer 2016, 11, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Alexandrov, L.B.; Nik-Zainal, S.; Wedge, D.C.; Aparicio, S.A.J.R.; Behjati, S.; Biankin, A.V.; Bignell, G.R.; Bolli, N.; Borg, A.; Børresen-Dale, A.-L.; et al. Signatures of Mutational Processes in Human Cancer. Nature 2013, 500, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Garraway, L.A. Genomics-Driven Oncology: Framework for an Emerging Paradigm. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 1806–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Senft, D.; Leiserson, M.D.M.; Ruppin, E.; Ronai, Z.A. Precision Oncology: The Road Ahead. Trends Mol. Med. 2017, 23, 874–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Barlesi, F.; Mazieres, J.; Merlio, J.-P.; Debieuvre, D.; Mosser, J.; Lena, H.; Ouafik, L.; Besse, B.; Rouquette, I.; Westeel, V.; et al. Routine Molecular Profiling of Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a 1-Year Nationwide Programme of the French Cooperative Thoracic Intergroup (IFCT). Lancet Lond. Engl. 2016, 387, 1415–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hendriks, L.E.; Kerr, K.M.; Menis, J.; Mok, T.S.; Nestle, U.; Passaro, A.; Peters, S.; Planchard, D.; Smit, E.F.; Solomon, B.J.; et al. Oncogene-Addicted Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. Ann. Oncol. 2023, 34, 339–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Herbst, R.S.; Morgensztern, D.; Boshoff, C. The Biology and Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Nature 2018, 553, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Rolfo, C.; Mack, P.; Scagliotti, G.V.; Aggarwal, C.; Arcila, M.E.; Barlesi, F.; Bivona, T.; Diehn, M.; Dive, C.; Dziadziuszko, R.; et al. Liquid Biopsy for Advanced NSCLC: A Consensus Statement From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. Off. Publ. Int. Assoc. Study Lung Cancer 2021, 16, 1647–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, S.; Yang, D.M.; Rong, R.; Zhan, X.; Fujimoto, J.; Liu, H.; Minna, J.; Wistuba, I.I.; Xie, Y.; Xiao, G. Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer Pathology Image Analysis. Cancers 2019, 11, 1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Coudray, N.; Ocampo, P.S.; Sakellaropoulos, T.; Narula, N.; Snuderl, M.; Fenyö, D.; Moreira, A.L.; Razavian, N.; Tsirigos, A. Classification and Mutation Prediction from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Histopathology Images Using Deep Learning. Nat. Med. 2018, 24, 1559–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yu, H.A.; Arcila, M.E.; Rekhtman, N.; Sima, C.S.; Zakowski, M.F.; Pao, W.; Kris, M.G.; Miller, V.A.; Ladanyi, M.; Riely, G.J. Analysis of Tumor Specimens at the Time of Acquired Resistance to EGFR-TKI Therapy in 155 Patients with EGFR-Mutant Lung Cancers. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 2240–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Kunimasa, K.; Oka, T.; Hara, S.; Yamada, N.; Oizumi, S.; Miyashita, Y.; Kamada, R.; Funamoto, T.; Kawachi, H.; Kawamura, T.; et al. Osimertinib Is Associated with Reversible and Dose-Independent Cancer Therapy-Related Cardiac Dysfunction. Lung Cancer Amst. Neth. 2021, 153, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jänne, P.A.; Yang, J.C.-H.; Kim, D.-W.; Planchard, D.; Ohe, Y.; Ramalingam, S.S.; Ahn, M.-J.; Kim, S.-W.; Su, W.-C.; Horn, L.; et al. AZD9291 in EGFR Inhibitor-Resistant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 1689–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Scheffler, M.; Wiesweg, M.; Michels, S.; Nogová, L.; Kron, A.; Herold, T.; Scheel, A.H.; Metzenmacher, M.; Eberhardt, W.E.; Reis, H.; et al. Rebiopsy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Clinical Relevance and Prognostic Implications. Lung Cancer 2022, 168, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hong, M.H.; Kim, H.R.; Ahn, B.C.; Heo, S.J.; Kim, J.H.; Cho, B.C. Real-World Analysis of the Efficacy of Rebiopsy and EGFR Mutation Test of Tissue and Plasma Samples in Drug-Resistant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Yonsei Med. J. 2019, 60, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gainor, J.F.; Dardaei, L.; Yoda, S.; Friboulet, L.; Leshchiner, I.; Katayama, R.; Dagogo-Jack, I.; Gadgeel, S.; Schultz, K.; Singh, M.; et al. Molecular Mechanisms of Resistance to First- and Second-Generation ALK Inhibitors in ALK-Rearranged Lung Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2016, 6, 1118–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Horn, L.; Spigel, D.R.; Vokes, E.E.; Holgado, E.; Ready, N.; Steins, M.; Poddubskaya, E.; Borghaei, H.; Felip, E.; Paz-Ares, L.; et al. Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Two-Year Outcomes From Two Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trials (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057). J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 3924–3933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Xi, J.; Du, Y.; Hu, Z.; Liang, J.; Bian, Y.; Chen, Z.; Sui, Q.; Zhan, C.; Li, M.; Guo, W. Long-Term Outcomes Following Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Stage I-IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Analysis. J. Thorac. Dis. 2020, 12, 3043–3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shu, C.A.; Gainor, J.F.; Awad, M.M.; Chiuzan, C.; Grigg, C.M.; Pabani, A.; Garofano, R.F.; Stoopler, M.B.; Cheng, S.K.; White, A.; et al. Neoadjuvant Atezolizumab and Chemotherapy in Patients with Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Open-Label, Multicentre, Single-Arm, Phase 2 Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 786–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Felip, E.; Altorki, N.; Zhou, C.; Csőszi, T.; Vynnychenko, I.; Goloborodko, O.; Luft, A.; Akopov, A.; Martinez-Marti, A.; Kenmotsu, H.; et al. Adjuvant Atezolizumab after Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Resected Stage IB-IIIA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (IMpower010): A Randomised, Multicentre, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial. Lancet Lond. Engl. 2021, 398, 1344–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Saw, S.P.L.; Ong, B.-H.; Chua, K.L.M.; Takano, A.; Tan, D.S.W. Revisiting Neoadjuvant Therapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, e501–e516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gaudreau, P.-O.; Negrao, M.V.; Mitchell, K.G.; Reuben, A.; Corsini, E.M.; Li, J.; Karpinets, T.V.; Wang, Q.; Diao, L.; Wang, J.; et al. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Increases Cytotoxic T Cell, Tissue Resident Memory T Cell, and B Cell Infiltration in Resectable NSCLC. J. Thorac. Oncol. Off. Publ. Int. Assoc. Study Lung Cancer 2021, 16, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Travis, W.D.; Dacic, S.; Wistuba, I.; Sholl, L.; Adusumilli, P.; Bubendorf, L.; Bunn, P.; Cascone, T.; Chaft, J.; Chen, G.; et al. Iaslc multidisciplinary recommendations for pathologic assessment of lung cancer resection specimens following neoadjuvant therapy. J. Thorac. Oncol. Off. Publ. Int. Assoc. Study Lung Cancer 2020, 15, 709–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Forde, P.M.; Spicer, J.; Lu, S.; Provencio, M.; Mitsudomi, T.; Awad, M.M.; Felip, E.; Broderick, S.R.; Brahmer, J.R.; Swanson, S.J.; et al. Neoadjuvant Nivolumab plus Chemotherapy in Resectable Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 386, 1973–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. El Husseini, K.; Piton, N.; De Marchi, M.; Grégoire, A.; Vion, R.; Blavier, P.; Thiberville, L.; Baste, J.-M.; Guisier, F. Lung Cancer Surgery after Treatment with Anti-PD1/PD-L1 Immunotherapy for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Case—Cohort Study. Cancers 2021, 13, 4915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Walker, W.S.; Carnochan, F.M.; Tin, M. Thoracoscopy Assisted Pulmonary Lobectomy. Thorax 1993, 48, 921–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Giudicelli, R.; Thomas, P.; Lonjon, T.; Ragni, J.; Bulgare, J.C.; Ottomani, R.; Fuentes, P. Major Pulmonary Resection by Video Assisted Mini-Thoracotomy. Initial Experience in 35 Patients. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 1994, 8, 254–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Vansteenkiste, J.; Crinò, L.; Dooms, C.; Douillard, J.Y.; Faivre-Finn, C.; Lim, E.; Rocco, G.; Senan, S.; Van Schil, P.; Veronesi, G.; et al. 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer: Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Consensus on Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2014, 25, 1462–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Remon, J.; Soria, J.-C.; Peters, S. Early and Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Update of the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines Focusing on Diagnosis, Staging, Systemic and Local Therapy. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 1637–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pagès, P.-B.; Delpy, J.-P.; Orsini, B.; Gossot, D.; Baste, J.-M.; Thomas, P.; Dahan, M.; Bernard, A. Epithor Project French Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Propensity Score Analysis Comparing Videothoracoscopic Lobectomy with Thoracotomy: A French Nationwide Study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2016, 101, 1370–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bendixen, M.; Jørgensen, O.D.; Kronborg, C.; Andersen, C.; Licht, P.B. Postoperative Pain and Quality of Life after Lobectomy via Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery or Anterolateral Thoracotomy for Early Stage Lung Cancer: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 836–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lim, E.; Batchelor, T.; Shackcloth, M.; Dunning, J.; McGonigle, N.; Brush, T.; Dabner, L.; Harris, R.; Mckeon, H.E.; Paramasivan, S.; et al. Study Protocol for VIdeo Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy versus Conventional Open LobEcTomy for Lung Cancer, a UK Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial with an Internal Pilot (the VIOLET Study). BMJ Open 2019, 9, e029507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Lim, E.; Harris, R.A.; McKeon, H.E.; Batchelor, T.J.; Dunning, J.; Shackcloth, M.; Anikin, V.; Naidu, B.; Belcher, E.; Loubani, M.; et al. Impact of Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy versus Open Lobectomy for Lung Cancer on Recovery Assessed Using Self-Reported Physical Function: VIOLET RCT. Health Technol. Assess. Winch. Engl. 2022, 26, 1–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Falcoz, P.-E.; Puyraveau, M.; Thomas, P.-A.; Decaluwe, H.; Hürtgen, M.; Petersen, R.H.; Hansen, H.; Brunelli, A. ESTS Database Committee and ESTS Minimally Invasive Interest Group Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery versus Open Lobectomy for Primary Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Outcome from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeon Database. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2016, 49, 602–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. O’Sullivan, K.E.; Kreaden, U.S.; Hebert, A.E.; Eaton, D.; Redmond, K.C. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Robotic versus Open and Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Approaches for Lobectomy. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2019, 28, 526–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Huang, L.; Shen, Y.; Onaitis, M. Comparative Study of Anatomic Lung Resection by Robotic vs. Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery. J. Thorac. Dis. 2019, 11, 1243–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ng, C.S.H.; MacDonald, J.K.; Gilbert, S.; Khan, A.Z.; Kim, Y.T.; Louie, B.E.; Blair Marshall, M.; Santos, R.S.; Scarci, M.; Shargal, Y.; et al. Optimal Approach to Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. Innovations 2019, 14, 90–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Ma, J.; Li, X.; Zhao, S.; Wang, J.; Zhang, W.; Sun, G. Robot-Assisted Thoracic Surgery versus Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery for Lung Lobectomy or Segmentectomy in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Montagne, F.; Chaari, Z.; Bottet, B.; Sarsam, M.; Mbadinga, F.; Selim, J.; Guisier, F.; Gillibert, A.; Baste, J.-M. Long-Term Survival Following Minimally Invasive Lung Cancer Surgery: Comparing Robotic-Assisted and Video-Assisted Surgery. Cancers 2022, 14, 2611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kneuertz, P.J.; D’Souza, D.M.; Richardson, M.; Abdel-Rasoul, M.; Moffatt-Bruce, S.D.; Merritt, R.E. Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes After Robotic Lobectomy for Early-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic and Open Thoracotomy Approach. Clin. Lung Cancer 2020, 21, 214–224.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kent, M.S.; Hartwig, M.G.; Vallières, E.; Abbas, A.E.; Cerfolio, R.J.; Dylewski, M.R.; Fabian, T.; Herrera, L.J.; Jett, K.G.; Lazzaro, R.S.; et al. Pulmonary Open, Robotic, and Thoracoscopic Lobectomy (PORTaL) Study: An Analysis of 5721 Cases. Ann. Surg. 2023, 277, 528–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tang, A.; Raja, S.; Bribriesco, A.C.; Raymond, D.P.; Sudarshan, M.; Murthy, S.C.; Ahmad, U. Robotic Approach Offers Similar Nodal Upstaging to Open Lobectomy for Clinical Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2020, 110, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hennon, M.W.; DeGraaff, L.H.; Groman, A.; Demmy, T.L.; Yendamuri, S. The Association of Nodal Upstaging with Surgical Approach and Its Impact on Long-Term Survival after Resection of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2020, 57, 888–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, W.; Wei, Y.; Jiang, H.; Xu, J.; Yu, D. Thoracotomy Is Better than Thoracoscopic Lobectomy in the Lymph Node Dissection of Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 14, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Yang, C.-F.J.; Kumar, A.; Deng, J.Z.; Raman, V.; Lui, N.S.; D’Amico, T.A.; Berry, M.F. A National Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes and Long-Term Survival Following Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lobectomy for Clinical Stage II Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Ann. Surg. 2021, 273, 595–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zirafa, C.; Aprile, V.; Ricciardi, S.; Romano, G.; Davini, F.; Cavaliere, I.; Alì, G.; Fontanini, G.; Melfi, F. Nodal Upstaging Evaluation in NSCLC Patients Treated by Robotic Lobectomy. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 33, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Medbery, R.L.; Gillespie, T.W.; Liu, Y.; Nickleach, D.C.; Lipscomb, J.; Sancheti, M.S.; Pickens, A.; Force, S.D.; Fernandez, F.G. Nodal Upstaging Is More Common with Thoracotomy than with VATS During Lobectomy for Early-Stage Lung Cancer: An Analysis from the National Cancer Data Base. J. Thorac. Oncol. Off. Publ. Int. Assoc. Study Lung Cancer 2016, 11, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Kneuertz, P.J.; Cheufou, D.H.; D’Souza, D.M.; Mardanzai, K.; Abdel-Rasoul, M.; Theegarten, D.; Moffatt-Bruce, S.D.; Aigner, C.; Merritt, R.E. Propensity-Score Adjusted Comparison of Pathologic Nodal Upstaging by Robotic, Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic, and Open Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2019, 158, 1457–1466.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Durey, B.; Djerada, Z.; Boujibar, F.; Besnier, E.; Montagne, F.; Baste, J.-M.; Dusseaux, M.-M.; Compere, V.; Clavier, T.; Selim, J. Erector Spinae Plane Block versus Paravertebral Block after Thoracic Surgery for Lung Cancer: A Propensity Score Study. Cancers 2023, 15, 2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Weiss, W. Operative Mortality and Five-Year Survival Rates in Men with Bronchogenic Carcinoma. Chest 1974, 66, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pagès, P.-B.; Cottenet, J.; Mariet, A.-S.; Bernard, A.; Quantin, C. In-Hospital Mortality Following Lung Cancer Resection: Nationwide Administrative Database. Eur. Respir. J. 2016, 47, 1809–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Berg, E.; Madelaine, L.; Baste, J.-M.; Dahan, M.; Thomas, P.; Falcoz, P.-E.; Martinod, E.; Bernard, A.; Pagès, P.-B. Interest of Anatomical Segmentectomy over Lobectomy for Lung Cancer: A Nationwide Study. J. Thorac. Dis. 2021, 13, 3587–3596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dumitra, T.-C.; Molina, J.-C.; Mouhanna, J.; Nicolau, I.; Renaud, S.; Aubin, L.; Siblini, A.; Mulder, D.; Ferri, L.; Spicer, J. Feasibility Analysis for the Development of a Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic (VATS) Lobectomy 23-Hour Recovery Pathway. Can. J. Surg. J. Can. Chir. 2020, 63, E349–E358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Kehlet, H. Multimodal Approach to Control Postoperative Pathophysiology and Rehabilitation. Br. J. Anaesth. 1997, 78, 606–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Schmidt, M.; Eckardt, R.; Scholtz, K.; Neuner, B.; von Dossow-Hanfstingl, V.; Sehouli, J.; Stief, C.G.; Wernecke, K.-D.; Spies, C.D. PERATECS Group Patient Empowerment Improved Perioperative Quality of Care in Cancer Patients Aged ≥ 65 Years—A Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0137824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Crabtree, T.D.; Puri, V.; Bell, J.M.; Bontumasi, N.; Patterson, G.A.; Kreisel, D.; Krupnick, A.S.; Meyers, B.F. Outcomes and Perception of Lung Surgery with Implementation of a Patient Video Education Module: A Prospective Cohort Study. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2012, 214, 816–821.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Salati, M.; Brunelli, A.; Xiumè, F.; Refai, M.; Pompili, C.; Sabbatini, A. Does Fast-Tracking Increase the Readmission Rate after Pulmonary Resection? A Case-Matched Study. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2012, 41, 1083–1087; discussion 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Muehling, B.M.; Halter, G.L.; Schelzig, H.; Meierhenrich, R.; Steffen, P.; Sunder-Plassmann, L.; Orend, K.-H. Reduction of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications after Lung Surgery Using a Fast Track Clinical Pathway. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2008, 34, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Gravier, F.-E.; Smondack, P.; Prieur, G.; Medrinal, C.; Combret, Y.; Muir, J.-F.; Baste, J.-M.; Cuvelier, A.; Boujibar, F.; Bonnevie, T. Effects of Exercise Training in People with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer before Lung Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Thorax 2022, 77, 486–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Boujibar, F.; Gillibert, A.; Gravier, F.E.; Gillot, T.; Bonnevie, T.; Cuvelier, A.; Baste, J.-M. Performance at Stair-Climbing Test Is Associated with Postoperative Complications after Lung Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Thorax 2020, 75, 791–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sebio García, R.; Yáñez-Brage, M.I.; Giménez Moolhuyzen, E.; Salorio Riobo, M.; Lista Paz, A.; Borro Mate, J.M. Preoperative Exercise Training Prevents Functional Decline after Lung Resection Surgery: A Randomized, Single-Blind Controlled Trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2017, 31, 1057–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rochester, C.L.; Vogiatzis, I.; Holland, A.E.; Lareau, S.C.; Marciniuk, D.D.; Puhan, M.A.; Spruit, M.A.; Masefield, S.; Casaburi, R.; Clini, E.M.; et al. An Official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Policy Statement: Enhancing Implementation, Use, and Delivery of Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2015, 192, 1373–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Gravier, F.-E.; Smondack, P.; Boujibar, F.; Prieur, G.; Medrinal, C.; Combret, Y.; Muir, J.-F.; Baste, J.-M.; Cuvelier, A.; Debeaumont, D.; et al. Prehabilitation Sessions Can Be Provided More Frequently in a Shortened Regimen with Similar or Better Efficacy in People with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomised Trial. J. Physiother. 2022, 68, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Brunelli, A.; Charloux, A.; Bolliger, C.T.; Rocco, G.; Sculier, J.-P.; Varela, G.; Licker, M.; Ferguson, M.K.; Faivre-Finn, C.; Huber, R.M.; et al. ERS/ESTS Clinical Guidelines on Fitness for Radical Therapy in Lung Cancer Patients (Surgery and Chemo-Radiotherapy). Eur. Respir. J. 2009, 34, 17–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Boujibar, F.; Gravier, F.-E.; Selim, J.; Baste, J.-M. Preoperative Assessment for Minimally Invasive Lung Surgery: Need an Update? Thorac. Cancer 2021, 12, 3–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Fennelly, J.; Potter, L.; Pompili, C.; Brunelli, A. Performance in the Shuttle Walk Test Is Associated with Cardiopulmonary Complications after Lung Resections. J. Thorac. Dis. 2017, 9, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Mainguene, J.; Basse, C.; Girard, P.; Beaucaire-Danel, S.; Cao, K.; Brian, E.; Grigoroiu, M.; Gossot, D.; Luporsi, M.; Perrot, L.; et al. Surgical or Medical Strategy for Locally-Advanced, Stage IIIA/B-N2 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Reproducibility of Decision-Making at a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board. Lung Cancer Amst. Neth. 2022, 163, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rusch, V.W. Initiating the Era of “Precision” Lung Cancer Surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 388, 557–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Montagne, F.; Guisier, F.; Venissac, N.; Baste, J.-M. The Role of Surgery in Lung Cancer Treatment: Present Indications and Future Perspectives—State of the Art. Cancers 2021, 13, 3711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sarsam, M.; Baste, J.-M.; Thiberville, L.; Salaun, M.; Lachkar, S. How Bronchoscopic Dye Marking Can Help Minimally Invasive Lung Surgery. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Baste, J.M.; Soldea, V.; Lachkar, S.; Rinieri, P.; Sarsam, M.; Bottet, B.; Peillon, C. Development of a Precision Multimodal Surgical Navigation System for Lung Robotic Segmentectomy. J. Thorac. Dis. 2018, 10, S1195–S1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Eguchi, T.; Sato, T.; Shimizu, K. Technical Advances in Segmentectomy for Lung Cancer: A Minimally Invasive Strategy for Deep, Small, and Impalpable Tumors. Cancers 2021, 13, 3137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lachkar, S.; Baste, J.-M.; Thiberville, L.; Peillon, C.; Rinieri, P.; Piton, N.; Guisier, F.; Salaun, M. Pleural Dye Marking Using Radial Endobronchial Ultrasound and Virtual Bronchoscopy before Sublobar Pulmonary Resection for Small Peripheral Nodules. Respir. Int. Rev. Thorac. Dis. 2018, 95, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Aoun, H.D.; Littrup, P.J.; Heath, K.E.; Adam, B.; Prus, M.; Beydoun, R.; Baciewcz, F. Methylene Blue/Collagen Mixture for CT-Guided Presurgical Lung Nodule Marking: High Efficacy and Safety. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. JVIR 2020, 31, 1682.e1–1682.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nardini, M.; Bilancia, R.; Paul, I.; Jayakumar, S.; Papoulidis, P.; ElSaegh, M.; Hartley, R.; Richardson, M.; Misra, P.; Migliore, M.; et al. 99 mTechnetium and Methylene Blue Guided Pulmonary Nodules Resections: Preliminary British Experience. J. Thorac. Dis. 2018, 10, 1015–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Wang, G.; Lin, Y.; Zheng, L.; Liang, Y.; Zhao, L.; Wen, Y.; Zhang, R.; Huang, Z.; Yang, L.; Zhao, D.; et al. A New Method for Accurately Localizing and Resecting Pulmonary Nodules. J. Thorac. Dis. 2020, 12, 4973–4984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Tian, Y.; Wang, C.; Yue, W.; Lu, M.; Tian, H. Comparison of Computed Tomographic Imaging-Guided Hook Wire Localization and Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscope Localization in the Resection of Pulmonary Nodules: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mariolo, A.V.; Vieira, T.; Stern, J.-B.; Perrot, L.; Caliandro, R.; Escande, R.; Brian, E.; Grigoroiu, M.; Boddaert, G.; Gossot, D.; et al. Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy Localization of Lung Nodules for Thoracoscopic Resection. J. Thorac. Dis. 2021, 13, 4371–4377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Piolanti, M.; Coppola, F.; Papa, S.; Pilotti, V.; Mattioli, S.; Gavelli, G. Ultrasonographic Localization of Occult Pulmonary Nodules during Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery. Eur. Radiol. 2003, 13, 2358–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Gossot, D.; Lafouasse, C.; Kovacs, E.; Seguin-Givelet, A. Sublobar Resection for Early-Stage Lung Cancer: The Issue of Safety Margins. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2023, 63, ezad055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Brunelli, A.; Decaluwe, H.; Gonzalez, M.; Gossot, D.; Petersen, R.H.; Augustin, F.; Assouad, J.; Baste, J.M.; Batirel, H.; Falcoz, P.E.; et al. European Society of Thoracic Surgeons Expert Consensus Recommendations on Technical Standards of Segmentectomy for Primary Lung Cancer. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2023, 63, ezad224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Decaluwe, H.; Petersen, R.H.; Hansen, H.; Piwkowski, C.; Augustin, F.; Brunelli, A.; Schmid, T.; Papagiannopoulos, K.; Moons, J.; Gossot, D.; et al. Major Intraoperative Complications during Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Anatomical Lung Resections: An Intention-to-Treat Analysis. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2015, 48, 588–598; discussion 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Bottet, B.; Rivera, C.; Dahan, M.; Falcoz, P.-E.; Jaillard, S.; Baste, J.-M.; Seguin-Givelet, A.; de la Tour, R.B.; Bellenot, F.; Rind, A.; et al. Reporting of Patient Safety Incidents in Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery: A National Registered Thoracic Surgeons Experience for Improvement of Patient Safety. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2022, 35, ivac129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Cao, C.; Chandrakumar, D.; Gupta, S.; Yan, T.D.; Tian, D.H. Could Less Be More?—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sublobar Resections versus Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer According to Patient Selection. Lung Cancer Amst. Neth. 2015, 89, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Winckelmans, T.; Decaluwé, H.; De Leyn, P.; Van Raemdonck, D. Segmentectomy or Lobectomy for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2020, 57, 1051–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Suzuki, K.; Saji, H.; Aokage, K.; Watanabe, S.-I.; Okada, M.; Mizusawa, J.; Nakajima, R.; Tsuboi, M.; Nakamura, S.; Nakamura, K.; et al. Comparison of Pulmonary Segmentectomy and Lobectomy: Safety Results of a Randomized Trial. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2019, 158, 895–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Saji, H.; Okada, M.; Tsuboi, M.; Nakajima, R.; Suzuki, K.; Aokage, K.; Aoki, T.; Okami, J.; Yoshino, I.; Ito, H.; et al. Segmentectomy versus Lobectomy in Small-Sized Peripheral Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (JCOG0802/WJOG4607L): A Multicentre, Open-Label, Phase 3, Randomised, Controlled, Non-Inferiority Trial. Lancet Lond. Engl. 2022, 399, 1607–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Altorki, N.; Wang, X.; Kozono, D.; Watt, C.; Landrenau, R.; Wigle, D.; Port, J.; Jones, D.R.; Conti, M.; Ashrafi, A.S.; et al. Lobar or Sublobar Resection for Peripheral Stage IA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 388, 489–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Choi, E.; Luo, S.J.; Aredo, J.V.; Backhus, L.M.; Wilkens, L.R.; Su, C.C.; Neal, J.W.; Le Marchand, L.; Cheng, I.; Wakelee, H.A.; et al. The Survival Impact of Second Primary Lung Cancer in Patients with Lung Cancer. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2021, 114, 618–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Johnson, B.E. Second Lung Cancers in Patients after Treatment for an Initial Lung Cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1998, 90, 1335–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zakowski, M.F.; Ladanyi, M.; Kris, M.G. EGFR Mutations in Small-Cell Lung Cancers in Patients Who Have Never Smoked. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 355, 213–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yin, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Jia, T.; Wang, E.; Luo, Y.; Wei, Y.; Qin, Z.; Ma, X. Small Cell Lung Cancer Transformation: From Pathogenesis to Treatment. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2022, 86, 595–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nicholson, S.A.; Beasley, M.B.; Brambilla, E.; Hasleton, P.S.; Colby, T.V.; Sheppard, M.N.; Falk, R.; Travis, W.D. Small Cell Lung Carcinoma (SCLC): A Clinicopathologic Study of 100 Cases with Surgical Specimens. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2002, 26, 1184–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Oser, M.G.; Niederst, M.J.; Sequist, L.V.; Engelman, J.A. Transformation from Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer to Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Molecular Drivers and Cells of Origin. Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, e165–e172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Clamon, G.; Zeitler, W.; An, J.; Hejleh, T.A. Transformational Changes between Non-Small Cell and Small Cell Lung Cancer-Biological and Clinical Relevance-A Review. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 43, 670–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Marcoux, N.; Gettinger, S.N.; O’Kane, G.; Arbour, K.C.; Neal, J.W.; Husain, H.; Evans, T.L.; Brahmer, J.R.; Muzikansky, A.; Bonomi, P.D.; et al. EGFR-Mutant Adenocarcinomas That Transform to Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Other Neuroendocrine Carcinomas: Clinical Outcomes. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Roca, E.; Gurizzan, C.; Amoroso, V.; Vermi, W.; Ferrari, V.; Berruti, A. Outcome of Patients with Lung Adenocarcinoma with Transformation to Small-Cell Lung Cancer Following Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Treatment: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2017, 59, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. De Leyn, P.; Dooms, C.; Kuzdzal, J.; Lardinois, D.; Passlick, B.; Rami-Porta, R.; Turna, A.; Van Schil, P.; Venuta, F.; Waller, D.; et al. Revised ESTS Guidelines for Preoperative Mediastinal Lymph Node Staging for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2014, 45, 787–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Lachkar, S.; Perrot, L.; Gervereau, D.; De Marchi, M.; Morisse Pradier, H.; Dantoing, E.; Piton, N.; Thiberville, L.; Guisier, F.; Salaün, M. Radial-EBUS and Virtual Bronchoscopy Planner for Peripheral Lung Cancer Diagnosis: How It Became the First-Line Endoscopic Procedure. Thorac. Cancer 2022, 13, 2854–2860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fournier, C.; Hermant, C.; Gounant, V.; Escarguel, B.; Thibout, Y.; Lachkar, S.; Raspaud, C.; Vergnon, J.-M. Diagnostic of Mediastinal Lymphadenopathy in Extrathoracic Cancer: A Place for EBUS-TBNA in Real Life Practice? Respir. Med. Res. 2019, 75, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Navani, N.; Spiro, S.G.; Janes, S.M. Mediastinal Staging of NSCLC with Endoscopic and Endobronchial Ultrasound. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 6, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Yarmus, L.; Akulian, J.; Wahidi, M.; Chen, A.; Steltz, J.P.; Solomon, S.L.; Yu, D.; Maldonado, F.; Cardenas-Garcia, J.; Molena, D.; et al. A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of Three Guided Bronchoscopic Approaches for Investigating Pulmonary Nodules: The PRECISION-1 Study. Chest 2020, 157, 694–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Simoff, M.J.; Pritchett, M.A.; Reisenauer, J.S.; Ost, D.E.; Majid, A.; Keyes, C.; Casal, R.F.; Parikh, M.S.; Diaz-Mendoza, J.; Fernandez-Bussy, S.; et al. Shape-Sensing Robotic-Assisted Bronchoscopy for Pulmonary Nodules: Initial Multicenter Experience Using the IonTM Endoluminal System. BMC Pulm. Med. 2021, 21, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Manhire, A.; Charig, M.; Clelland, C.; Gleeson, F.; Miller, R.; Moss, H.; Pointon, K.; Richardson, C.; Sawicka, E. BTS Guidelines for Radiologically Guided Lung Biopsy. Thorax 2003, 58, 920–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Yin, Z.; Liang, Z.; Li, P.; Wang, Q. CT-Guided Core Needle Biopsy of Mediastinal Nodes through a Transpulmonary Approach: Retrospective Analysis of the Procedures Conducted over Six Years. Eur. Radiol. 2017, 27, 3401–3407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Zakkar, M.; Tan, C.; Hunt, I. Is Video Mediastinoscopy a Safer and More Effective Procedure than Conventional Mediastinoscopy? Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2012, 14, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. Bardet, J.; Zaimi, R.; Dakhil, B.; Couffinhal, J.C.; Raynaud, C.; Bagan, P. Outpatient thoracoscopic resection of lung nodules within a fast-track recovery program. Rev. Mal. Respir. 2016, 33, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Bagan, P.; Berna, P.; De Dominicis, F.; Lafitte, S.; Zaimi, R.; Dakhil, B.; Das Neves Pereira, J.-C. Outpatient thoracic surgery: Evolution of the indications, current applications and limits. Rev. Mal. Respir. 2016, 33, 899–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Abid, W.; Seguin-Givelet, A.; Brian, E.; Grigoroiu, M.; Girard, P.; Girard, N.; Gossot, D. Second Pulmonary Resection for a Second Primary Lung Cancer: Analysis of Morbidity and Survival. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2021, 59, 1287–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Endo, C.; Sakurada, A.; Notsuda, H.; Noda, M.; Hoshikawa, Y.; Okada, Y.; Kondo, T. Results of Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients with Completely Resected Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2012, 93, 1061–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Gourcerol, D.; Scherpereel, A.; Debeugny, S.; Porte, H.; Cortot, A.B.; Lafitte, J.-J. Relevance of an Extensive Follow-up after Surgery for Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer. Eur. Respir. J. 2013, 42, 1357–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Jeong, W.G.; Choi, H.; Chae, K.J.; Kim, J. Prognosis and Recurrence Patterns in Patients with Early Stage Lung Cancer: A Multi-State Model Approach. Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 2022, 11, 1279–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Sonoda, D.; Matsuura, Y.; Kondo, Y.; Ichinose, J.; Nakao, M.; Ninomiya, H.; Nishio, M.; Okumura, S.; Satoh, Y.; Mun, M. A Reasonable Definition of Oligo-Recurrence in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Clin. Lung Cancer 2022, 23, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sihoe, A.D.L.; Van Schil, P. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: When to Offer Sublobar Resection. Lung Cancer 2014, 86, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Falcinelli, L.; Menichelli, C.; Casamassima, F.; Aristei, C.; Borghesi, S.; Ingrosso, G.; Draghini, L.; Tagliagambe, A.; Badellino, S.; di Monale, E.; et al. Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Lung Oligometastases. Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother. J. Gt. Cancer Cent. Poznan Pol. Soc. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 27, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Kodama, H.; Yamakado, K.; Takaki, H.; Kashima, M.; Uraki, J.; Nakatsuka, A.; Takao, M.; Taguchi, O.; Yamada, T.; Takeda, K. Lung Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Unresectable Recurrent Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer after Surgical Intervention. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2012, 35, 563–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Arbour, K.C.; Riely, G.J. Systemic Therapy for Locally Advanced and Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Review. JAMA 2019, 322, 764–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Gandhi, L.; Rodríguez-Abreu, D.; Gadgeel, S.; Esteban, E.; Felip, E.; De Angelis, F.; Domine, M.; Clingan, P.; Hochmair, M.J.; Powell, S.F.; et al. Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 2078–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Reck, M.; Rodríguez-Abreu, D.; Robinson, A.G.; Hui, R.; Csőszi, T.; Fülöp, A.; Gottfried, M.; Peled, N.; Tafreshi, A.; Cuffe, S.; et al. Pembrolizumab versus Chemotherapy for PD-L1-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 1823–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Herbst, R.S.; Giaccone, G.; de Marinis, F.; Reinmuth, N.; Vergnenegre, A.; Barrios, C.H.; Morise, M.; Felip, E.; Andric, Z.; Geater, S.; et al. Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of PD-L1–Selected Patients with NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1328–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Romero-Vielva, L.; Viteri, S.; Moya-Horno, I.; Toscas, J.I.; Maestre-Alcácer, J.A.; Ramón y Cajal, S.; Rosell, R. Salvage Surgery after Definitive Chemo-Radiotherapy for Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer 2019, 133, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ueno, T.; Yamashita, M.; Yamashita, N.; Uomoto, M.; Kawamata, O.; Sano, Y.; Inokawa, H.; Hirayama, S.; Okazaki, M.; Toyooka, S. Safety of Salvage Lung Resection after Immunotherapy for Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Gen. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2022, 70, 812–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Bott, M.J.; Cools-Lartigue, J.; Tan, K.S.; Dycoco, J.; Bains, M.S.; Downey, R.J.; Huang, J.; Isbell, J.M.; Molena, D.; Park, B.J.; et al. Safety and Feasibility of Lung Resection After Immunotherapy for Metastatic or Unresectable Tumors. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2018, 106, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  132. Deng, H.; Liu, J.; Cai, X.; Chen, J.; Rocco, G.; Petersen, R.H.; Brunelli, A.; Ng, C.S.H.; D’Amico, T.A.; Liang, W.; et al. Radical Minimally Invasive Surgery after Immuno-Chemotherapy in Initially-Unresectable Stage IIIB Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Ann. Surg. 2022, 275, e600–e602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Bertolaccini, L.; Galetta, D.; Sedda, G.; de Marinis, F.; Spaggiari, L. Safety Analysis of Salvage Surgery for Advanced Stages or Metastatic Lung Cancers. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2022, 70, 273–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Etienne, H.; Fournel, L.; Mordant, P.; Delatour, B.R.; Pfeuty, K.; Frey, G.; Seguin-Givelet, A.; Fourdrain, A.; Lancelin, C.; Berna, P.; et al. Anatomic Lung Resection after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Initially Unresectable Advanced-Staged Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis. J. Thorac. Dis. 2023, 15, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Lopci, E.; Hicks, R.J.; Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, A.; Dercle, L.; Iravani, A.; Seban, R.D.; Sachpekidis, C.; Humbert, O.; Gheysens, O.; Glaudemans, A.W.J.M.; et al. Joint EANM/SNMMI/ANZSNM Practice Guidelines/Procedure Standards on Recommended Use of [18F]FDG PET/CT Imaging during Immunomodulatory Treatments in Patients with Solid Tumors Version 1.0. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2022, 49, 2323–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 15 04039 g001
Figure 1. Lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease with a complex and multimodal management. Lung cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease including numerous subtypes. Recent advances in techniques have significantly expanded the treatment landscape, resulting in both increased complexity and the potential for personalized medicine, offering patients the prospect of more effective and precise interventions based on their unique tumor profiles. VATS: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; RATS: robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; r-EBUS: radial endobronchial ultrasound; EBUS-TBNA: endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration; ENB: Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy; CTC: Circulating tumor cells; IGRT: Image guided radiation therapy; SBRT: Stereotactic body radiation therapy; 3D CRT: 3-Dimensional conformal radiation therapy; ERAS: enhanced recovery after surgery.
Figure 1. Lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease with a complex and multimodal management. Lung cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease including numerous subtypes. Recent advances in techniques have significantly expanded the treatment landscape, resulting in both increased complexity and the potential for personalized medicine, offering patients the prospect of more effective and precise interventions based on their unique tumor profiles. VATS: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; RATS: robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; r-EBUS: radial endobronchial ultrasound; EBUS-TBNA: endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration; ENB: Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy; CTC: Circulating tumor cells; IGRT: Image guided radiation therapy; SBRT: Stereotactic body radiation therapy; 3D CRT: 3-Dimensional conformal radiation therapy; ERAS: enhanced recovery after surgery.
Cancers 15 04039 g001
Cancers 15 04039 g002
Figure 2. Patient Pathway for Personalized Surgical Management of Early-Stage Lung Cancer in 2023. The patient, initially screened or monitored for a previous cancer, is diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer based on a recent CT scan. In order to determine the best course of treatment, the patient’s case is presented at a multidisciplinary meeting, where a team of specialists collectively discusses and develops a personalized treatment plan. The patient has a consultation with a thoracic surgeon, who explains the personalized surgical approach for their case (3D reconstruction, sublobar resection, and preoperative rehabilitation). The surgery is performed using minimally invasive techniques. The patient is included in an ERAS program. Based on the pTNM staging system, a decision is made regarding the need for further surveillance imaging.
Figure 2. Patient Pathway for Personalized Surgical Management of Early-Stage Lung Cancer in 2023. The patient, initially screened or monitored for a previous cancer, is diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer based on a recent CT scan. In order to determine the best course of treatment, the patient’s case is presented at a multidisciplinary meeting, where a team of specialists collectively discusses and develops a personalized treatment plan. The patient has a consultation with a thoracic surgeon, who explains the personalized surgical approach for their case (3D reconstruction, sublobar resection, and preoperative rehabilitation). The surgery is performed using minimally invasive techniques. The patient is included in an ERAS program. Based on the pTNM staging system, a decision is made regarding the need for further surveillance imaging.
Cancers 15 04039 g002
Cancers 15 04039 g003
Figure 3. Comprehensive overview of factors to consider and questions to address when considering salvage surgery.
Figure 3. Comprehensive overview of factors to consider and questions to address when considering salvage surgery.
Cancers 15 04039 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bottet, B.; Piton, N.; Selim, J.; Sarsam, M.; Guisier, F.; Baste, J.-M. Beyond the Frontline: A Triple-Line Approach of Thoracic Surgeons in Lung Cancer Management—State of the Art. Cancers 2023, 15, 4039. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164039

AMA Style

Bottet B, Piton N, Selim J, Sarsam M, Guisier F, Baste J-M. Beyond the Frontline: A Triple-Line Approach of Thoracic Surgeons in Lung Cancer Management—State of the Art. Cancers. 2023; 15(16):4039. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164039

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bottet, Benjamin, Nicolas Piton, Jean Selim, Matthieu Sarsam, Florian Guisier, and Jean-Marc Baste. 2023. "Beyond the Frontline: A Triple-Line Approach of Thoracic Surgeons in Lung Cancer Management—State of the Art" Cancers 15, no. 16: 4039. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164039

APA Style

Bottet, B., Piton, N., Selim, J., Sarsam, M., Guisier, F., & Baste, J. -M. (2023). Beyond the Frontline: A Triple-Line Approach of Thoracic Surgeons in Lung Cancer Management—State of the Art. Cancers, 15(16), 4039. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15164039

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop