Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Department of Image, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Med Sci Monit. 2019 Nov 27;25:9003-9011. doi: 10.12659/MSM.917933.
BACKGROUND We investigated the correlation between cavity formation, prognosis, and tumor stage for pathologic stage I invasive lung adenocarcinomas (IADCs) ≤3 cm in size. MATERIAL AND METHODS 2106 candidates with pathologic stage I IADC were identified from Shanghai Chest Hospital between 2009 and 2014. There were 227 patients who were diagnosed as having cavity formation and another 1879 patients who were not (the non-cavitary lung cancer group). Kaplan-Meier analysis curves were conducted to compare the overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) between these 2 groups. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to discover the independent risk factors of OS and RFS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was done to determine the cutoff value of cavity size for predicting prognosis. Furthermore, subgroup analysis was stratified by the size of tumor and the 8th classification of T category. RESULTS Compared with non-cavitary lung cancer group, patients with cavity formation were found to have a higher prevalence of male patients (P=0.015), older age patients (P=0.039), larger size tumors (P=0.004), and worse cancer relapse (P<0.001). Survival analysis found that patients with cavitary IADC had significantly shorter RFS than those with non-cavitary IADC (P=0.001). Further, subgroup analysis confirmed a significantly worse RFS in cavitary IADC group both in stage T1a (P=0.002) and T1b (P<0.001), but not for stage T1c (P=0.962) and T2a (P=0.364). Moreover, cavity formation was still less of a significant predictor of RFS in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.810, 95% confidence level [CI] 1.229-2.665, P=0.003). The ROC curve showed that the best cutoff value of maximum diameter of the cavity for judging RFS was 5 mm (sensitivity: 0.500; specificity: 0.783). At the same time, multiple cavities were more likely to lead to recurrence (sensitivity: 0.605; specificity: 0.439). CONCLUSIONS Cavitary adenocarcinoma was a worse prognostic indicator compared with non-cavitary adenocarcinoma, especially for cavity >5 mm and multiple cavities. Thus, for stage T1a and T1b, cavitary and non-cavitary IADC should be considered separately.
我们研究了病理分期为 I 期的最大直径≤3cm 的浸润性肺腺癌(IADC)中,癌性空洞的形成、预后与肿瘤分期之间的相关性。
从 2009 年至 2014 年,我们从上海胸科医院中筛选出 2106 例病理分期为 I 期的 IADC 患者。其中 227 例患者被诊断为有空腔形成,1879 例患者没有(无空洞肺癌组)。通过 Kaplan-Meier 分析曲线比较两组的总生存期(OS)和无复发生存期(RFS)。通过 Cox 比例风险回归发现 OS 和 RFS 的独立危险因素。绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,确定预测预后的空洞大小截断值。此外,还根据肿瘤大小和第 8 版 T 分期进行亚组分析。
与无空洞肺癌组相比,有空腔形成的患者中男性患者(P=0.015)、老年患者(P=0.039)、肿瘤体积较大(P=0.004)和癌症复发率较高(P<0.001)的比例更高。生存分析发现,有空腔的 IADC 患者的 RFS 明显短于无空洞的 IADC 患者(P=0.001)。此外,亚组分析证实,在 T1a 期(P=0.002)和 T1b 期(P<0.001),有空腔的 IADC 患者的 RFS 明显更差,但在 T1c 期(P=0.962)和 T2a 期(P=0.364)则不然。此外,多变量分析显示,癌性空洞形成仍然是 RFS 的一个不太显著的预测因素(风险比[HR] 1.810,95%置信区间[CI] 1.229-2.665,P=0.003)。ROC 曲线显示,判断 RFS 的最佳空洞最大直径截断值为 5mm(灵敏度:0.500;特异性:0.783)。同时,多个空洞更有可能导致复发(灵敏度:0.605;特异性:0.439)。
与无空洞腺癌相比,有空腔的腺癌是一个预后较差的指标,尤其是对于直径>5mm 和多个空洞的情况。因此,对于 T1a 期和 T1b 期,有空腔和无空洞的 IADC 应分别考虑。