4.6 Article

Long-Term Outcomes of 50 Cases of Limited-Resection Trial for Pulmonary Ground-Glass Opacity Nodules

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 1563-1566

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182641b5c

关键词

Lung cancer; Adenocarcinoma; Limited resection; Ground-glass opacity; Noguchi classification

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: From 1998 to 2002, we performed a trial of prospective limited resection for pulmonary ground-glass opacity lesions 2 cm or smaller. This is the second report on the long-term outcome. Methods: The enrollment criteria of the trial were as follows: pulmonary peripheral nodule less than 2 cm, diagnosis or suspected diagnosis of clinical T1N0M0 carcinoma with ground-glass opacity and lack of evident pleural indentations or vascular convergence on high-resolution computed tomography. Limited-resection (wedge or segment) specimens were intraoperatively examined by frozen section. If the nodule was confirmed as Noguchi type A or B with a resection margin of greater than 1 cm, the incision was sutured and the patient followed up. The median surveillance period was 10 years. Results: In a total of 50 enrolled participants, there were two Noguchi type A, 23 type B and 15 type C adenocarcinomas; five atypical adenomatous hyperplasias, four fibroses, and one granuloma. Although there were no patients with recurrence within the first 5 years, in four patients who underwent limited-resection pulmonary adenocarcinoma developed more than 5 years after the initial resection, of either cut-end recurrence or metachronous primary disease. Conclusions: Of 26 patients who underwent limited resection, adenocarcinoma developed in four after more than 5 years. These were possibly cut-end recurrences. We concluded that 5 years is not a sufficient period for follow-up, and that limited resection should still be done only in a trial setting, even for small ground-glass opacity lesions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据