4.7 Article

Minor Components of Micropapillary and Solid Subtypes in Lung Adenocarcinoma are Predictors of Lymph Node Metastasis and Poor Prognosis

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 2099-2105

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-5043-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung adenocarcinoma with micropapillary and solid predominant subtypes was reported to be associated with poor prognosis; however, whether minor components (non-predominant) of micropapillary and solid subtypes predict poor prognosis remains unknown. In this study, we investigated the predictive and prognostic value of lymph node metastasis of minor micropapillary and solid components. Specimens of resected tumors of 1244 patients were reclassified to determine the predominant subtype and minor components (> 5 %, but not predominant). Of these specimens, 105 contained a micropapillary component and 210 contained a solid component. The correlation between each subtype and lymph node metastasis was analyzed, and survival analyses were used to determine the association between each subtype and patient survival. Adenocarcinomas harboring micropapillary and/or solid components held higher rates of metastatic lymph node stations (25.2 % vs. 15.6 %, p = 0.002; and 24.0 % vs. 14.9 %, p < 0.001, respectively) and lymph nodes (17.3 % vs. 10.1 %, p = 0.004; and 15.5 % vs. 9.7 %, p = 0.001, respectively). Patients with micropapillary and solid components in their tumors showed a shorter median recurrence-free survival (15.8 vs. 62.8 months, p < 0.001; and 20.8 months vs. not reached, p < 0.001) and overall survival (47.0 months vs. not reached, p < 0.001; and 69.0 months vs. not reached, p < 0.001). Minor components of micropapillary and/or solid subtypes of lung adenocarcinoma are correlated with lymph node metastasis and poor prognosis. Thus, it is beneficial to focus not only on predominant subtypes but also minor components to predict prognoses and make therapeutic strategies more comprehensively.

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

4.7
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