Long-Term Survival Following Minimally Invasive Lung Cancer Surgery: Comparing Robotic-Assisted and Video-Assisted Surgery

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) are known to be safe and efficient surgical procedures to treat lung cancer. Both VATS and RATS allow anatomical resection associated with radical lymph node dissection. However, RATS, unlike VATS, allows the thoracic surgeon to mimic an open approach and to perform lung resection. We hypothesized that the technical advantages of RATS, compared with VATS, would allow more precise resection, with “better lymph node dissection” which could increase survival compared to VATS. Nevertheless, VATS, and RATS nodal up-staging are still debated, with conflicting results and in our study, as well as in the medical literature, RATS failed to show its superiority over VATS in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. ABSTRACT: Background: Nowadays, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) are known to be safe and efficient surgical procedures to treat early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We assessed whether RATS increased disease-free survival (DFS) compared with VATS for lobectomy and segmentectomy. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients treated for resectable NSCLC performed by RATS or VATS, in our tertiary care center from 2012 to 2019. Patients’ data were prospectively recorded and reviewed in the French EPITHOR database. Primary outcomes were 5-year DFS for lobectomy and 3-year DFS for segmentectomy, compared by propensity-score adjusted difference of Kaplan–Meier estimates. Results: Among 844 lung resections, 436 VATS and 234 RATS lobectomies and 46 VATS and 128 RATS segmentectomies were performed. For lobectomy, the adjusted 5-year DFS was 60.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 52.9–68.8%) for VATS and 52.7% (95%CI 41.7–63.7%) for RATS, with a difference estimated at −8.3% (−22.2–+4.9%, p = 0.24). For segmentectomy, the adjusted 3-year DFS was 84.6% (95%CI 69.8–99.0%) for VATS and 72.9% (95%CI 50.6–92.4%) for RATS, with a difference estimated at −11.7% (−38.7–+7.8%, p = 0.21). Conclusions: RATS failed to show its superiority over VATS for resectable NSCLC.