A decade of robotics in lung cancer surgery

Minimally invasive approaches to cancer surgery have been widely embraced by many surgical specialties and for many the less invasive approach is used preferentially. For thoracic surgeons, lung cancer and pulmonary lobectomy is the dominant oncologic procedure but open thoracotomy remains the most commonly used approach to lung cancer resection. Minimally invasive lobectomy using a video assisted approach or VATS was first reported nearly 25 years ago (1) and despite multiple studies demonstrating clear benefits adoption has been slower than anticipated.

Just over a decade ago, robotic assisted lobectomy was introduced to North America with the hope that the perceived shortcomings of VATS lobectomy would be minimized and it might allow for great adoption of minimally invasive approach (2). In that decade, the use of robotic lobectomy has risen steadily and now comprises 14% of all minimally invasive lobectomies in the STS General Thoracic Surgery database (3). The performance of robotic lobectomy has been compared to VATS (4,5) and open lobectomy (6,7) in terms of clinical outcomes, complications and cost (8,9) with similarities to VATS in outcomes, a more favorable length of stay and pain than open and a higher cost per case.

However, the most important outcome that has yet to be evaluated is survival. Until recently, the quality of oncologic performance was being assessed using the surrogate measure of nodal upstage and short term survival (10). However, it is long term survival that matters most to patients with lung cancer. In a recent comparison of approaches for pulmonary lobectomy, Yang and colleagues from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) (11) reviewed 2,132 patients with clinical stage I lung cancer using one of three surgical approaches. They propensity matched 470 patients (robotic =172, VATS =141, open =157) to analyze overall and disease free survival and determined the prognostic factors for death.

The results of this analysis confirm that in clinical stage I lung cancer that any one of the three approaches results in an overall 5 year survival rate of close to 80%. While this is a significant accomplishment, only about 60–65% of the cohort is non-small cell lung cancer. The remaining is made of up carcinoid tumors and “other” for which we cannot ascertain how the inclusion of these tumor types influences the overall survival duration. It is clear that histology was not shown to be a prognostic factor but a well-differentiated tumor was a positive influence on survival in the multivariable analysis.

The surrogate measure of nodal upstaging (pN0 to pN1/pN2) was similar between the groups though more nodal stations were sampled in the robotic group. While this remains a common measure to judge the quality of surgery, its association with survival or ability to be a marker for survival is less strong and likely should remain a marker of the quality of surgery rather than an estimator of survival. It also remains a marker of the surgeon’s philosophy of care because even in the series there are patients who had no lymph nodes stations sampled. A reasonable goal should be at least a systemic nodal station sampling (12) but in my opinion a thorough thoracic lymphadenectomy should be our goal in stage I tumors. There will always be a small but not insignificant number of patients that will benefit from resection of that nodal metastasis that might impact survival.

I think an important take home message from this study is that there are three options to perform lobectomy and all three yield similar oncologic results. However, both robotic and VATS provide a shorter length of stay likely from an ability to mobilize early due to lower levels of pain experienced. The importance of these findings is not to put one approach on notice, but to encourage more thoracic surgeons to embrace one of the minimally invasive platforms for treatment of early stage lung cancer for the benefit of their patient.

Acknowledgements

None.

Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Louie has been a proctor for Intuitive Surgical and currently is a recipient of a restricted research grant from Intuitive Surgical.

References

1. Kirby TJ, Mack MJ, Landreneau RJ, et al. Initial experience with video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 1993;56:1248-52; discussion 1252-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Park BJ, Flores RM, Rusch VW. Robotic assistance for video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy: technique and initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131:54-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Louie BE, Wilson JL, Kim S, et al. Comparison of Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery and Robotic Approaches for Clinical Stage I and Stage II Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;102:917-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Louie BE, Farivar AS, Aye RW, et al. Early experience with robotic lung resection results in similar operative outcomes and morbidity when compared with matched video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery cases. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;93:1598-604; discussion 1604-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Jang HJ, Lee HS, Park SY, et al. Comparison of the early robot-assisted lobectomy experience to video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for lung cancer: a single-institution case series matching study. Innovations (Phila) 2011;6:305-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Skylizard L, et al. Initial consecutive experience of completely portal robotic pulmonary resection with 4 arms. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:740-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Veronesi G, Galetta D, Maisonneuve P, et al. Four-arm robotic lobectomy for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;140:19-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Deen SA, Wilson JL, Wilshire CL, et al. Defining the cost of care for lobectomy and segmentectomy: a comparison of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:1000-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Swanson SJ, Miller DL, McKenna RJ Jr, et al. Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;147:929-37. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Wilson JL, Louie BE, Cerfolio RJ, et al. The prevalence of nodal upstaging during robotic lung resection in early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:1901-6; discussion 1906-7.
11. Yang HX, Woo KM, Sima CS, et al. Long-term Survival Based on the Surgical Approach to Lobectomy For Clinical Stage I Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer: Comparison of Robotic, Video-assisted Thoracic Surgery, and Thoracotomy Lobectomy. Ann Surg 2016. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Darling GE, Allen MS, Decker PA, et al. Randomized trial of mediastinal lymph node sampling versus complete lymphadenectomy during pulmonary resection in the patient with N0 or N1 (less than hilar) non-small cell carcinoma: results of the American College of Surgery Oncology Group Z0030 Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;141:662-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]