TY - JOUR
T1 - Prognostic Impact of the Histologic Lepidic Component in Pathologic Stage IA Adenocarcinoma
AU - Okubo, Yu
AU - Kashima, Jumpei
AU - Teishikata, Takashi
AU - Muraoka, Yuji
AU - Yotsukura, Masaya
AU - Yoshida, Yukihiro
AU - Nakagawa, Kazuo
AU - Watanabe, Hirokazu
AU - Kusumoto, Masahiko
AU - Watanabe, Shun ichi
AU - Yatabe, Yasushi
N1 - Funding Information:
Disclosure: Dr. Kusumoto reports receiving support from Canon Medical Systems and honoraria from AstraZeneca, KK. Dr. Yatabe reports having contracts from ArcherDx and Chugai Pharmaceutical; having honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Chugai Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roches/Ventana, Agilent/Dako, Thermo Fisher Science, ArcherDx, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Sysmex; and serving on the advisory board for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Chugai Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, and Daiichi Sankyo. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding Information:
This work was supported partly by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (20H03461), and the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (A-3). The authors thank members of the Division of Biostatistics at the National Cancer Center for offering fruitful opinions and suggestions on the statistical methods.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer
PY - 2022/1
Y1 - 2022/1
N2 - Introduction: Because several articles have reported a prognostic association with the radiologic features of ground-glass opacity, we explored whether the histologic presence of a lepidic component had similar significance. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 380 consecutive surgically resected lung adenocarcinomas (ADCs) of pathologic (p)stage IA. The tumors were classified into lepidic-positive and lepidic-negative ADCs. Clinicopathologic characteristics, radiographic ground-glass opacity status, and disease-free survival were compared between lepidic-positive and lepidic-negative ADCs and between part-solid and solid nodules on computed tomography images. Results: Of the 380 cases, 176 (46.3%) were lepidic-positive ADCs. Of the overall patients with pT1, lepidic-positive ADCs were found to have significantly better recurrence-free survival (5 y, 95.4% versus 87.0%, p = 0.005), but this significance was not reproduced in pT1 subcategories (pT1a, pT1b, and pT1c). Furthermore, the presence of the lepidic component was not an independent prognostic factor in the multivariate analysis (hazard ratio = 0.46 [95% confidence interval: 0.19–1.14], p = 0.09). We also analyzed the extent of the lepidic component with 10% incremental valuables. Although we found that a 10% or greater extent of lepidic component made the recurrence-free survival difference the largest, a clear prognostic impact was not obtained with this cutoff point. Conclusions: Although lepidic-positive ADCs tended to have a favorable outcome, the lepidic component was not a clear independent prognostic factor in pstage I ADC.
AB - Introduction: Because several articles have reported a prognostic association with the radiologic features of ground-glass opacity, we explored whether the histologic presence of a lepidic component had similar significance. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 380 consecutive surgically resected lung adenocarcinomas (ADCs) of pathologic (p)stage IA. The tumors were classified into lepidic-positive and lepidic-negative ADCs. Clinicopathologic characteristics, radiographic ground-glass opacity status, and disease-free survival were compared between lepidic-positive and lepidic-negative ADCs and between part-solid and solid nodules on computed tomography images. Results: Of the 380 cases, 176 (46.3%) were lepidic-positive ADCs. Of the overall patients with pT1, lepidic-positive ADCs were found to have significantly better recurrence-free survival (5 y, 95.4% versus 87.0%, p = 0.005), but this significance was not reproduced in pT1 subcategories (pT1a, pT1b, and pT1c). Furthermore, the presence of the lepidic component was not an independent prognostic factor in the multivariate analysis (hazard ratio = 0.46 [95% confidence interval: 0.19–1.14], p = 0.09). We also analyzed the extent of the lepidic component with 10% incremental valuables. Although we found that a 10% or greater extent of lepidic component made the recurrence-free survival difference the largest, a clear prognostic impact was not obtained with this cutoff point. Conclusions: Although lepidic-positive ADCs tended to have a favorable outcome, the lepidic component was not a clear independent prognostic factor in pstage I ADC.
KW - Correlation
KW - Ground-glass opacity
KW - Lepidic growth component
KW - Lung adenocarcinoma
KW - Prognosis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118742457&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85118742457&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.09.006
DO - 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.09.006
M3 - Article
C2 - 34634451
AN - SCOPUS:85118742457
SN - 1556-0864
VL - 17
SP - 67
EP - 75
JO - Journal of Thoracic Oncology
JF - Journal of Thoracic Oncology
IS - 1
ER -