4.7 Article

Pneumoconiosis-related lung cancers - Preferential occurrence from diffuse interstitial fibrosis-type pneumoconiosis

出版社

AMER LUNG ASSOC
DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.162.1.9906138

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been reported that patients with pneumoconiosis occasionally have a diffuse interstitial fibrosis (DIF) that resembles interstitial pneumonia, but little is known about the relation between pneumoconiosis-associated DIF and the risk of lung cancer. In the present study, we evaluated the incidence of DIF by chest CT and its contribution to lung cancer in 563 patients with nonasbestos pneumoconiosis. Fifty-five (10%) of the 563 patients had DIF. Pneumoconiosis with DIF had an exceedingly high concurrence of lung cancers when compared with pneumoconiosis without DIF (29 [53%] of 55 versus 78 [15%] of 508, p < 0.001). Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the lung from pneumoconiosis with DIF exclusively comprised peripheral-types, as compared with SCCs from pneumoconiosis without DIF (13 [100%] of 13 versus 33 [72%] of 46, p = 0.03). In addition, lung cancers arose frequently from the area of DIF in pneumoconiosis with DIF (20 [74%] of 27). Furthermore, our pathologic examination revealed that dysplasias from pneumoconiosis with DIF were significantly more frequently observed in peripheral bronchioli than were dysplasias from pneumoconiosis without DIF (11 [69%] of 16 versus 20 [30%] of 66, p = 0.01). p53 expression evaluated by immunohistochemistry was frequently observed in dysplasias from pneumoconiosis with DIF, although it was not significantly different compared with that in dysplasias from pneumoconiosis without DIF (5 [50%] of 10 versus 12 [38%] of 32). Taken together, these results may suggest a positive causal relationship between pneumoconiosis and peripheral-type SCCs of the lung, and further indicate a pivotal role of diffuse fibrosis for the excess incidence of lung cancers, especially peripheral-type SCCs, in DIF-type pneumoconiosis.

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