OBJECTIVE: To assess whether measuring the solid portion of adenocarcinomas appearing as part-solid ground-glass nodules (GGNs) can predict a patient's prognosis accurately and how the prognosis corresponds to that of solid nodules. METHODS: 501 patients (solid nodule group, 304; part-solid GGN group, 197) underwent curative surgery for stage I adenocarcinomas. Maximal diameters of the whole lesion including ground-glass opacities (D whole ) and solid components only (D solid ) were measured on CT. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the date of surgery. RESULTS: D solid was a significant prognostic factor in the part-solid GGN group, while D whole was not. Part-solid GGNs with D solid ≤2 cm showed significantly better DFS (P = 0.016) and OS (P = 0.004) than solid nodules; however, those with D solid >2 cm did not show a significant difference. Hazard ratio (HR) for increase in D solid was significantly greater in part-solid GGNs than in solid nodules (P = 0.009). For OS, HR for increase in D solid was greater in part-solid GGNs than in solid nodule, which was marginally not significant (P = 0.060). CONCLUSION: D solid was better than D whole for prognosis prediction of adenocarcinomas appearing as part-solid GGNs. In addition, the influence of D solid on prognosis in the part-solid GGN group was greater than in the solid nodule group. KEY POINTS: • Dsolid is a better prognosis indicator than Dsolid in part-solid GGN adenocarcinomas • Part-solid GGN adenocarcinoma show better prognosis than solid adenocarcinomas when Dsolid ≤2 cm • Dsolid has greater prognostic influence in part-solid GGN adenocarcinomas than solid adenocarcinomas.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether measuring the solid portion of adenocarcinomas appearing as part-solid ground-glass nodules (GGNs) can predict a patient's prognosis accurately and how the prognosis corresponds to that of solid nodules. METHODS: 501 patients (solid nodule group, 304; part-solid GGN group, 197) underwent curative surgery for stage I adenocarcinomas. Maximal diameters of the whole lesion including ground-glass opacities (D whole ) and solid components only (D solid ) were measured on CT. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the date of surgery. RESULTS: D solid was a significant prognostic factor in the part-solid GGN group, while D whole was not. Part-solid GGNs with D solid ≤2 cm showed significantly better DFS (P = 0.016) and OS (P = 0.004) than solid nodules; however, those with D solid >2 cm did not show a significant difference. Hazard ratio (HR) for increase in D solid was significantly greater in part-solid GGNs than in solid nodules (P = 0.009). For OS, HR for increase in D solid was greater in part-solid GGNs than in solid nodule, which was marginally not significant (P = 0.060). CONCLUSION: D solid was better than D whole for prognosis prediction of adenocarcinomas appearing as part-solid GGNs. In addition, the influence of D solid on prognosis in the part-solid GGN group was greater than in the solid nodule group. KEY POINTS: • Dsolid is a better prognosis indicator than Dsolid in part-solid GGNadenocarcinomas • Part-solid GGN adenocarcinoma show better prognosis than solid adenocarcinomas when Dsolid ≤2 cm • Dsolid has greater prognostic influence in part-solid GGN adenocarcinomas than solid adenocarcinomas.
Authors: David M Hansell; Alexander A Bankier; Heber MacMahon; Theresa C McLoud; Nestor L Müller; Jacques Remy Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John H M Austin; Kavita Garg; Denise Aberle; David Yankelevitz; Keiko Kuriyama; Hyun-Ju Lee; Elisabeth Brambilla; William D Travis Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alain C Borczuk; Fang Qian; Angeliki Kazeros; Jennifer Eleazar; Adel Assaad; Joshua R Sonett; Mark Ginsburg; Lyall Gorenstein; Charles A Powell Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: S Sone; F Li; Z G Yang; T Honda; Y Maruyama; S Takashima; M Hasegawa; S Kawakami; K Kubo; M Haniuda; T Yamanda Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2001-01-05 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Morgan L Cox; Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang; Paul J Speicher; Kevin L Anderson; Zachary W Fitch; Lin Gu; Robert Patrick Davis; Xiaofei Wang; Thomas A D'Amico; Matthew G Hartwig; David H Harpole; Mark F Berry Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2017-01-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Julien G Cohen; Jin Mo Goo; Roh-Eul Yoo; Chang Min Park; Chang Hyun Lee; Bram van Ginneken; Doo Hyun Chung; Young Tae Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 5.315