4.7 Article

Visceral Pleural Invasion Does Not Affect Recurrence or Overall Survival Among Patients With Lung Adenocarcinoma ≤ 2 cm A Proposal to Reclassify T1 Lung Adenocarcinoma

Journal

CHEST
Volume 144, Issue 5, Pages 1622-1631

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-0394

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA008748, R21 CA164568, R21 CA164585, U54CA132378, U54 CA137788, 1R21CA164568-01A1, U54CA137788, 1R21CA164585-01A1, U54 CA132378] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: T1 (<= 3 cm) tumors with visceral pleural invasion (VPI) are upstaged to T2a (stage IB) in the TNM classification. We investigated the effect of VPI on the cumulative incidence of recurrence (CIR) and overall survival (OS) of lung adenocarcinoma (ADC) <= 2 cm (T1a) and 2 to 3 cm (T1b). Methods: OS and CIR among patients with or without VPI were examined by tumor size (<= 2 and 2-3 cm) in 777 patients with node-negative lung ADC <= 3 cm who underwent resection. Results: Among patients with tumors <= 2 cm, VPI was not associated with either increased CIR (P = .90) or decreased OS (P = .11). Among patients with tumors 2 to 3 cm in size, the presence of VPI was associated with increased CIR (P = .015) and decreased OS (P < .001), even after adjusting for histologic subtype. When stage I lung ADCs <= 3 cm were regrouped as either new stage IA (<= 2 cm with or without VPI, 2-3 cm without VPI) or new stage IB (2-3 cm with VPI), there was a statistically significant difference in 5-year CIR and OS between new stage IA and new stage IB tumors (CIR, 18% vs 40% [P = .004]; OS, 76% vs 51% [P < .001]). Conclusions: VPI stratifies prognosis in patients with lung ADC 2 to 3 cm but not in those with tumors <= 2 cm. Our proposed regrouping of a new stage IB better stratifies patients with poor prognosis, similar to published outcomes in patients with stage II disease, who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.

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