{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01945945945945946, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.430555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Surgery versus stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: less is not more.

High level evidence from randomized studies comparing surgery to stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is lacking and available retrospective cohort and case control studies are highly variable in how thoroughly they define and stage lung cancer, in how they determine operability, and in the offered surgical approaches to operable lung cancer (open vs. video-assisted). This makes it difficult to compare best radiotherapy and best surgery approaches to treatment and to be confident in conclusions of equipoise between the two modalities. What has become clear from the controversy surrounding surgery versus SABR for early stage lung cancer is the desire to optimize treatment efficacy while minimizing invasiveness and morbidity. This review highlights the ongoing debate in light of these goals.