Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cohort study reveals reduced accuracy of surgical risk scales in central lung cancer, indicating the need for tailored risk stratification models.
Objective. To evaluate predictive value of current operative risk scales in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) depending on tumor localization and identify independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Material and methods. A retrospective single-center cohort study enrolled 511 NSCLC patients who underwent anatomical lung resection (central tumors n=148, peripheral tumors n=363). Eurolung I/II, Modified Eurolung II, Thoracoscore, SABCIP, and ESOS scales were assessed by ROC analysis using a single Youden-derived cut-off applied uniformly across subgroups. Complications were classified as minor (Clavien-Dindo I–IIIa) or major (IIIb–V). Risk factors were identified by logistic regression. Results. Thirty-day mortality was 2.3% (12/511). In centrally located tumors, AUC fell to 0.581–0.729 versus 0.690–0.918 in peripheral tumors. Specificity dropped to 38–62%. Central localization showed a stepwise increase in prognostic impact: non-significant for minor complications (OR=1.249; p=0.289), significant for major complications (OR=2.604; 95% CI 1.209–5.609; p=0.014), and the strongest for mortality (OR=5.129; 95% CI 1.520–17.302; p=0.008). Multivariable analysis identified central localization (OR=3.593; p=0.046) and FEV1 <65% (OR=7.286; p=0.001) as independent predictors of mortality. The model delineates four risk groups with mortality from 0.71% to 15.8%. Conclusion. Current risk scales systematically underperform in central lung tumors. A two-factor model based on localization and FEV1 provides preoperative risk stratification and requires external validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zemtsova et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: