Evidence Hub

Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted lobectomy for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: the RVlob randomized controlled trial

Z. Niu, Yuqin Cao, Ming-Yuan Du, Siying Sun, Yan Yan, Yuyan Zheng, Yi-Chao Han, Xianfei Zhang et al.

EClinicalMedicine, 2024

320 participants · 36 citations

Abstract

Summary Background The long-term survival and perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted lobectomy (RAL) and video-assisted lobectomy (VAL) in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were found to be comparable in retrospective studies, but they have not been investigated in a randomized trial setting. We conducted the RVlob trial to investigate if RAL was non-inferior to VAL in patients with resectable NSCLC. Methods In this single-center, open-label, and parallel-arm randomized controlled trial conducted in Ruijin Hospital (Shanghai, China) between May 2017 and May 2020, we randomly assigned patients with resectable NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either RAL or VAL. One of the primary endpoints was 3-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints included 3-year disease-free survival. The Kaplan–Meier approach was used to calculate overall survival and disease-free survival at 3 years. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03134534. Findings A total of 320 patients were randomized to receive RAL (n = 157) or VAL (n = 163). The baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 58.0 months, the 3-year overall survival was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0–98.3) in the RAL group and 91.5% (95% CI, 87.2–96.0) in the VAL group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.33–1.28; P = 0.21); noninferiority of RAL was confirmed according to the predefined margin of −5% (absolute difference,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 320 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free