R VanderMeer1, S Chambers2, A Van Dam2, J C Cutz3, J R Goffin4, P M Ellis4. 1. Medical Oncology Department, Walker Family Cancer Centre, St. Catharines, ON; 2. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON; 3. Hamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON; 4. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON; ; Medical Oncology Department, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Histologic and molecular subtyping have become increasingly important as predictors of treatment benefit in lung cancer. The objective of the present study was to determine whether current diagnostic approaches provide adequate tissue to allow for individualized treatment decisions. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study of new lung cancer patients seen at an academic centre between July 2007 and June 2008 collected baseline demographic and diagnostic information, including mode of diagnosis, type of diagnostic material, and pathology diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 431 study patients, 20% had stage i or ii non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc), 24% stage iii disease, and 39% stage iv nsclc. Three quarters of the small-cell lung cancer (sclc) cases were extensive stage. Diagnostically, 18% of patients had sclc; 30%, adenocarcinoma; 27%, squamous-cell cancer; 2%, large-cell carcinoma; 1%, bronchoalveolar carcinoma; 1%, mixed histology; 18%, nsclc not otherwise specified; 4%, other; and 2%, no pathology diagnosis. Surgical pathology material was available in 80% of cases, and cytology material alone in 20%. Surgical pathology material was more common in patients with early-stage than with advanced disease (89% for stages i and ii vs. 74% for stages iii and iv, p < 0.0001). The pathology report included ambiguous terms in 24% of cases: "consistent" (12%), "suspicious" (3%), "favour" (2%), "suggestive" (2%), "likely" (1%), "compatible" with malignancy (1%), "at least" (1%), "atypical" (0.5%), and "no pathology" (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Current diagnostic approaches in most lung cancer patients appear adequate, but complete histopathologic identification is missing in nearly 20% of cases, and some uncertainty as to the final diagnosis is expressed in 24% of pathology reports. Some improvement in diagnostic sampling and pathology reporting are required to allow for implementation of current treatment approaches.
BACKGROUND: Histologic and molecular subtyping have become increasingly important as predictors of treatment benefit in lung cancer. The objective of the present study was to determine whether current diagnostic approaches provide adequate tissue to allow for individualized treatment decisions. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study of new lung cancerpatients seen at an academic centre between July 2007 and June 2008 collected baseline demographic and diagnostic information, including mode of diagnosis, type of diagnostic material, and pathology diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 431 study patients, 20% had stage i or ii non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc), 24% stage iii disease, and 39% stage iv nsclc. Three quarters of the small-cell lung cancer (sclc) cases were extensive stage. Diagnostically, 18% of patients had sclc; 30%, adenocarcinoma; 27%, squamous-cell cancer; 2%, large-cell carcinoma; 1%, bronchoalveolar carcinoma; 1%, mixed histology; 18%, nsclc not otherwise specified; 4%, other; and 2%, no pathology diagnosis. Surgical pathology material was available in 80% of cases, and cytology material alone in 20%. Surgical pathology material was more common in patients with early-stage than with advanced disease (89% for stages i and ii vs. 74% for stages iii and iv, p < 0.0001). The pathology report included ambiguous terms in 24% of cases: "consistent" (12%), "suspicious" (3%), "favour" (2%), "suggestive" (2%), "likely" (1%), "compatible" with malignancy (1%), "at least" (1%), "atypical" (0.5%), and "no pathology" (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Current diagnostic approaches in most lung cancerpatients appear adequate, but complete histopathologic identification is missing in nearly 20% of cases, and some uncertainty as to the final diagnosis is expressed in 24% of pathology reports. Some improvement in diagnostic sampling and pathology reporting are required to allow for implementation of current treatment approaches.
Authors: Ji-Youn Han; Keunchil Park; Sang-We Kim; Dae Ho Lee; Hyae Young Kim; Heung Tae Kim; Myung Ju Ahn; Tak Yun; Jin Seok Ahn; Cheolwon Suh; Jung-Shin Lee; Sung Jin Yoon; Jong Hee Han; Jae Won Lee; Sook Jung Jo; Jin Soo Lee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paolo Ceppi; Marco Volante; Silvia Saviozzi; Ida Rapa; Silvia Novello; Alberto Cambieri; Marco Lo Iacono; Susanna Cappia; Mauro Papotti; Giorgio V Scagliotti Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gilda da Cunha Santos; Shui Wun Lai; Mauro Ajaj Saieg; William R Geddie; Melania Pintilie; Ming-Sound Tsao; Scott L Boerner; David Hwang Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Lecia V Sequist; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Kenneth O'Byrne; Vera Hirsh; Tony Mok; Sarayut Lucien Geater; Sergey Orlov; Chun-Ming Tsai; Michael Boyer; Wu-Chou Su; Jaafar Bennouna; Terufumi Kato; Vera Gorbunova; Ki Hyeong Lee; Riyaz Shah; Dan Massey; Victoria Zazulina; Mehdi Shahidi; Martin Schuler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Purvish Parikh; Joachim von Pawel; Bonne Biesma; Johan Vansteenkiste; Christian Manegold; Piotr Serwatowski; Ulrich Gatzemeier; Raghunadharao Digumarti; Mauro Zukin; Jin S Lee; Anders Mellemgaard; Keunchil Park; Shehkar Patil; Janusz Rolski; Tuncay Goksel; Filippo de Marinis; Lorinda Simms; Katherine P Sugarman; David Gandara Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David H Johnson; Louis Fehrenbacher; William F Novotny; Roy S Herbst; John J Nemunaitis; David M Jablons; Corey J Langer; Russell F DeVore; Jacques Gaudreault; Lisa A Damico; Eric Holmgren; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544