4.5 Article

Lung cancer patients showing pure ground-glass opacity on computed tomography are good candidates for wedge resection

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 61-68

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2003.09.025

关键词

lung cancer; adenocarcinoma; wedge resection; segmentectomy; limited resection; ground-glass opacity; computed tomography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Small lung cancers frequently have been detected in mass screening by computed tomography (CT) in recent years. Suitability of limited resection for these small lung cancers remains controversial. One hundred patients who underwent sublobular limited resection (wedge resection or segmentectomy) for lung cancer in our hospital from 1981 to 2002 were analyzed retrospectively. From CT findings, tumors were classified into two groups; pure ground-glass opacity (PGGO) and non-PGGO. Patients included 44 women and 56 men, and ages ranged from 40 to 92 years (mean, 71.0). Histologic types included 76 adenocarcinomas, 21 squamous cell carcinomas, and 3 large cell carcinomas. Clinical stages included 83 stage IA and 17 stage IB. By high-resolution CT, 27 tumors (27%) showed PGGO; at postoperative histopathologic examination, all of these were localized bronchioloalveolar carcinomas. Diameter of tumors showing PGGO was 9.3 +/- 3.5 mm (mean +/- S.D.); that of non-PGGO tumors was 21.2 +/- 13.7 mm. Overall and lung cancer-specific 5-year survival rates in all patients were 58.0 and 64.8%, respectively. Overall 5-year survival rate with small adenocarcinomas (less than or equal to20mm) was 93.7%, significantly better than 24.8% with Larger adenocarcinomas (P < 0.0001). No intrathoracic recurrence or distant metastasis has been observed in PGGO tumors. For peripheral Localized bronchioloalveolar carcinoma showing PGGO, wedge resection appears to be the best operation. Definitive study of more patients with longer follow-up is needed. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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