4.6 Article

The IASLC lung cancer staging project: Proposals for the revision of the N descriptors in the forthcoming seventh edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 2, Issue 7, Pages 603-612

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31807ec803

Keywords

lung cancer staging; Nodal descriptors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Accurate staging of lymph node involvement is a critical aspect of the initial management of nonmetastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We sought to determine whether the current N descriptors should be maintained or revised for the next edition of the international lung cancer staging system. Methods: A retrospective international lung cancer database was developed and analyzed. Anatomical location of lymph node involvement was defined by the Naruke (for Japanese data) and American Thoracic Society (for non-Japanese data) nodal maps. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and prognostic groups were assessed by Cox regression analysis. Results: Current NO to N3 descriptors defined distinct prognostic groups for both clinical and pathologic staging. Exploratory analyses indicated that lymph node stations could be grouped together into six zones: peripheral or hilar for N1, and upper or lower mediastinal, aortopulmonary, and subcarinal for N2 nodes. Among patients undergoing resection without induction therapy, there were three distinct prognostic groups: single-zone N1, multiple-zone NI or single N2, and multiple-zone N2 disease. Nevertheless, there were insufficient data to determine whether the N descriptors should be subdivided (e.g., N1a, Nib, N2a, N2b). Conclusions: Current N descriptors should be maintained in the NSCLC staging system. Prospective studies arc needed to validate p amalgamating lymph node stations into zones and subdividing N descriptors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available