4.7 Article

Computed tomography-diagnosed emphysema, not airway obstruction, is associated with the prognostic outcome of early-stage lung cancer

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 12, Issue 22, Pages 6730-6736

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1196

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Because both emphysema and lung cancer can arise from biological damage caused by cigarette smoking, we investigated if the development of emphysema is associated with the clinical features of smoker's lung cancer. Experimental Design: The subjects were a consecutive series of 100 smokers who underwent lobectomy with hilar and mediastinal dissection for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. We studied the relationship between the presence or absence of emphysema at the onset of the lung cancer and clinicopathologic features. Emphysema was diagnosed by measuring the low-attenuation area using computed tomography densitometry. Results: There were no differences in clinicopathologic variables, including the degree of smoking exposure between the patients with (n = 58) and those without (n = 42) emphysema, although male gender and airflow limitation were predominant in the patients with emphysema. The presence of emphysema, but neither male gender nor airflow limitation, adversely affected both overall and disease-specific survival. According to Cox regression analysis, emphysema was an independent prognosticator among age, gender, degree of smoking exposure, tumor size, nodal status, histologic subtype, histologic grade, and microvessel invasion. These results were stabilized by a bootstrap sampling model. Conclusions: Computed tomography-diagnosed emphysema, but not airway obstruction, is associated with poor prognosis in smokers with early-stage lung cancer. Thus, routine computed tomography densitometry in smokers with lung cancer should be mandatory.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available