4.4 Article

Prognostic significance of micropapillary and solid patterns in stage IA lung adenocarcinoma

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages 10562-10569

Publisher

E-CENTURY PUBLISHING CORP

Keywords

Lung adenocarcinoma; micropapillary pattern; solid pattern; prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In patients with early stage lung adenocarcinoma, the presence of non-predominant micropapillary and solid patterns is a risk factor for predicting poor recurrence-free survival.
Objective: To evaluate the value of the non-predominant micropapillary and solid patterns in prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma. Methods: Totally 422 patients diagnosed with stage IA lung adenocarcinomas were included, and all their slides were reviewed. We compared clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes between MP- & SD- (both micropapillary and solid component were absent), MP+/SD+ (either micropapillary or solid component was present, but the single or combined percentage of the MP and SD was not greater than 50%) and MPp/SDp (either micropapillary or solid or the combined percentage of these two components was great than 50%). Results: Patients with MP- & SD- had smaller tumor size (P=0.012) and lower spread through air spaces rates (P<0.001). Patients with MP- & SD- had significantly better 5-year recurrence free survival than MP+/SD+ (91% versus 70%, P<0.001) and MPp/SDp (91% versus 56%, P<0.001). The difference of RFS between MP+/SD+ subgroup and MPp/SDp subgroup was not significant (P=0.177). In the multivariate analysis, patients with MP- & SD- had a better recurrence free survival than the other two groups (versus: MP+/SD+, HR, 3.198; 95% CI, 1.5376.653; P=0.002; versus MPp/SDp: HR, 4.981; 95% CI, 2.266-10.950; P<0.001). Conclusions: The presence of micropapillary or solid patterns, even not predominant, was a risk factor for predicting poor recurrence free survival in very early stage lung adenocarcinoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available