Outcomes of Lobar and Sublobar Resection for Clinical Stage I Lung Neuroendocrine Tumors: An ENETS Center of Excellence Experience

<b>Objectives:</b> Lung neuroendocrine tumors (LNETs) are rare, comprising 1-2% of lung cancers. This study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) after lobar resection versus sublobar resection for LNETs and to identify factors associated with prognosis and resection extent. <b>Methods:</b> We retrospectively analyzed patients with clinical stage I (T ≤ 4 cm, N0M0) typical or atypical carcinoid who underwent curative resection at Hadassah Medical Center and Kaplan medical Center between 2010 and 2024. <b>Results:</b> Seventy patients (mean age 56.8 ± 16 years; 63% female) were included. Lobar resection was performed in 40 (57%) and sublobar resection in 30 (43%; 15 segmentectomies, 15 wedge resections). Pathology revealed 50 typical carcinoid (71.43%) and 20 atypical carcinoid (28.57%). Final pathological stage was I in 57 patients (81.42%), II in 9 (12.86%), and III in 4 (5.71%), reflecting surgical upstaging in 13 patients (18.57%), all due to nodal involvement. Atypical carcinoid was associated with worse RFS, nodal upstaging, and adjuvant therapy (all <i>p</i> < 0.01). Patients undergoing sublobar resection were older, had higher comorbidity scores, more frequently presented with peripheral tumors, and underwent less frequent lymph node assessment (all <i>p</i> < 0.01). At a median follow-up of 3.8 years for OS and 2.0 years for RFS, survival rates were 95.7% for both. Neither OS, RFS, nor postoperative normalization of plasma pro-gastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRPp) levels differed significantly between lobar resection and sublobar resection (<i>p</i> = 0.94, <i>p</i> = 0.42, and <i>p</i> = 0.205, respectively). <b>Conclusions:</b> Sublobar resection may represent an acceptable surgical option for selected patients with clinical stage I LNETs, particularly for peripheral tumors ≤ 2 cm in older or comorbid patients. The high rate of nodal upstaging underscores the need for lymph node assessment, irrespective of resection extent.