4.6 Article

The Correlation of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC)/American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) Classification With Prognosis and EGFR Mutation in Lung Adenocarcinoma

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 98, 期 2, 页码 453-458

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.04.108

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The purpose of this study was to validate the prognostic effect and the frequency of mutations in the gene expressing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in lung adenocarcinoma of Japanese patients, on the basis of the new adenocarcinoma classification proposed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society. Methods. The new classification was used to reclassify 486 adenocarcinomas. The percentage of each histopathologic subtype and the predominant pattern were determined. EGFR mutation was also investigated. The relationship between these results and clinicopathologic backgrounds was investigated statistically. Results. No patients with adenocarcinoma in situ or minimally invasive adenocarcinoma died within the follow-up periods, followed by patients with lepidic predominant. Patients with papillary or acinar predominant, or invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma, showed almost similar overall survival (OS). The patients with solid predominant and micropapillary predominant showed the worst OS. Multivariate analysis showed that the new classification was an independent predictor of OS. The frequency of EGFR mutation was adenocarcinoma in situ (62%), minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (60%), lepidic (77%), acinar (49%), papillary (50%), solid (28%), micropapillary (43%), and invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (0%). Conclusions. This new adenocarcinoma classification is a very useful predictive marker to plan and determine a therapeutic strategy for lung adenocarcinoma. (C) 2014 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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