4.6 Article

Histological determinants of survival in completely resected T1-2N1M0 nonsmall cell cancer of the lung

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 77, Issue 4, Pages 1173-1178

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2003.08.080

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Back-ground. The histologic determinants of survival after surgical resection of stage II nonsmall cell lung cancer are poorly understood. We analyzed the prognostic significance of a number of histologic features after complete resection of T1-2N1M0 nonsmall cell cancer of the lung. Methods. The case notes and histology of all patients who underwent a potentially curative surgical resection for T1-2N1M0 nonsmall cell carcinoma of the lung between 1991 and 1997 were reviewed retrospectively. The following histologic factors were recorded: histologic type of tumor; number of nodes with metastatic deposits together with their nodal station; the presence of vascular invasion, visceral pleural involvement, and cellular necrosis; and grade of tumor. The results from 98 patients were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors. Results. Univariate analysis showed that only three factors had a statistically significant correlation with a poor prognosis: vascular invasion (p = 0.002), nonsquamous histology (p = 0.005), and visceral pleural involvement (P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis revealed that all three factors were significant independent adverse prognostic indicators. Conclusions. Visceral pleural involvement, nonsquamous histology, and vascular invasion are all significant adverse prognostic factors after surgical resection of T1-2N1M0 nonsmall cell cancer of the lung. These findings conflict with previously published reports, and we advocate a prospective, large-scale study in order to clarify the prognostic significance of histologic characteristics in stage II disease.

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