BACKGROUND: Since multiple lung cancer treatment strategies differ, it is essential for clinicians to be able to distinguish between separate primary lesions and metastasis. In the present study, we used array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and somatic mutation (epidermal growth factor receptor: EGFR) to analyze genomic alteration profiles in lung cancer patients. To validate the consistency among the pathological assessments and clarify the clinical differences between double primary lesions and metastasis, we also examined synchronous double lung cancer clinical data. METHODS: Between January 1970 and March 2010, 2215 patients with lung cancer underwent surgical resection at Nagasaki University Hospital. We performed molecular analysis of 12 synchronous double lung cancer patients without lymph node metastasis (intrapulmonary metastasis in the same lobe (pm1): n=6, primary: n=6). We then evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with pathologically diagnosed synchronous double lung cancers (intrapulmonary metastasis (pm): n=80, primary: n=39) and other T3 tumors (n=230). RESULTS: Examination of the concordance rate (CR) of the copy number changes (CNCs) for paired tumors showed that the metastasis group was larger than the primary group (55.5% vs. 19.6%, p=0.04). Pathological diagnosis and molecular classification were the same in 10 out of 12 cases (83%). As compared to the primary group, there tended to be an inferior 5-year survival curve for the pm group. However, in N0 patients, the survival curve for the pm group overlapped the primary group, while the survival rate of the pm1 group was much higher than that of other T3 group (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Both pathological and molecular assessment using aCGH adapted in the current study appeared to have a consistency. Pathological pm1(T3)N0 patients may have a better prognosis than other T3N0 patients.
BACKGROUND: Since multiple lung cancer treatment strategies differ, it is essential for clinicians to be able to distinguish between separate primary lesions and metastasis. In the present study, we used array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and somatic mutation (epidermal growth factor receptor: EGFR) to analyze genomic alteration profiles in lung cancerpatients. To validate the consistency among the pathological assessments and clarify the clinical differences between double primary lesions and metastasis, we also examined synchronous double lung cancer clinical data. METHODS: Between January 1970 and March 2010, 2215 patients with lung cancer underwent surgical resection at Nagasaki University Hospital. We performed molecular analysis of 12 synchronous double lung cancerpatients without lymph node metastasis (intrapulmonary metastasis in the same lobe (pm1): n=6, primary: n=6). We then evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with pathologically diagnosed synchronous double lung cancers (intrapulmonary metastasis (pm): n=80, primary: n=39) and other T3 tumors (n=230). RESULTS: Examination of the concordance rate (CR) of the copy number changes (CNCs) for paired tumors showed that the metastasis group was larger than the primary group (55.5% vs. 19.6%, p=0.04). Pathological diagnosis and molecular classification were the same in 10 out of 12 cases (83%). As compared to the primary group, there tended to be an inferior 5-year survival curve for the pm group. However, in N0 patients, the survival curve for the pm group overlapped the primary group, while the survival rate of the pm1 group was much higher than that of other T3 group (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Both pathological and molecular assessment using aCGH adapted in the current study appeared to have a consistency. Pathological pm1(T3)N0 patients may have a better prognosis than other T3N0 patients.
Authors: Andrew G Nicholson; Kathleen Torkko; Patrizia Viola; Edwina Duhig; Kim Geisinger; Alain C Borczuk; Kenzo Hiroshima; Ming S Tsao; Arne Warth; Sylvie Lantuejoul; Prudence A Russell; Erik Thunnissen; Alberto Marchevsky; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Mary Beth Beasley; Johan Botling; Sanja Dacic; Yasushi Yatabe; Masayuki Noguchi; William D Travis; Keith Kerr; Fred R Hirsch; Lucian R Chirieac; Ignacio I Wistuba; Andre Moreira; Jin-Haeng Chung; Teh Ying Chou; Lukas Bubendorf; Gang Chen; Giuseppe Pelosi; Claudia Poleri; Frank C Detterbeck; Wilbur A Franklin Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Stephen J Murphy; Marie-Christine Aubry; Faye R Harris; Geoffrey C Halling; Sarah H Johnson; Simone Terra; Travis M Drucker; Michael K Asiedu; Benjamin R Kipp; Eunhee S Yi; Tobias Peikert; Ping Yang; George Vasmatzis; Dennis A Wigle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aaron S Mansfield; Stephen J Murphy; Tobias Peikert; Eunhee S Yi; George Vasmatzis; Dennis A Wigle; Marie Christine Aubry Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 12.531