4.6 Article

Prognostic significance of combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 46, 期 6, 页码 E113-E119

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu384

关键词

Non-small-cell lung cancer; Combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema; Overall survival; Disease-free survival; Prognosis

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24591926] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE) is a unique disorder that is usually diagnosed on the basis of high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) findings. It is unclear whether CPFE is an independent prognostic factor in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Therefore, we conducted a retrospective analysis to assess the impact of CPFE on the prognosis of patients with completely resected NSCLC. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 365 patients diagnosed with NSCLC who underwent complete resection at the Tazuke Kofukai Medical Research Institute, Kitano Hospital between January 2007 and December 2012. Patients were classified into four groups according to chest HRCT findings: those with CPFE, those with fibrosis, those with emphysema or those with a normal lung except for the presence of a tumour. We evaluated disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) using the two-tailed log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The two-tailed log-rank test demonstrated that the four groups had significantly different DFS and OS (P < 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, CPFE was found to be an independent prognostic factor for DFS and OS compared with a normal lung [hazard ratio (HR): 2.52; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.24-5.13; P = 0.01 and HR: 4.53; 95% CI: 1.91-10.7; P < 0.01, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: CPFE is a significant, unfavourable prognostic factor for NSCLC patients after curative resection.

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