Su Jin Hong1,2, Tae Jung Kim3,4, Yo Won Choi2, Jeong-Soo Park5, Jin-Haeng Chung6, Kyung Won Lee1. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea. taejung.kim1@gmail.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, 135-710, Korea. taejung.kim1@gmail.com. 5. Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, Dankook Universicity, Cheonan, Korea. 6. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To correlate imaging features of resected lung adenocarcinoma with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and the IASLC/ATS/ERS classification histological subtypes. METHODS: In 250 consecutive patients with resected lung adenocarcinoma, EGFR mutation status was correlated with demographics, imaging features including ground-glass opacity (GGO) proportion and the IASLC/ATS/ERS classification histological subtypes. RESULTS: EGFR mutations were significantly more frequent in women (54.5 % vs. 38.1 %, p = 0.011) and in never-smokers (54.7 % vs. 35.3 %, p = 0.003). GGO proportion was significantly higher in tumours with EGFR mutation than in those without (30.3 ± 33.8 % vs. 19.0 ± 29.3 %, p = 0.005). EGFR mutation was significantly more frequent in tumours with GGO ≥ 50 % and tumours with any GGO (p = 0.026 and 0.008, respectively). Adenocarcinomas with exon 19 or 21 mutation showed significantly higher GGO proportion than that in EGFR wild-type tumours (p = 0.009 and 0.029, respectively). Absence of GGO was an independent predictor of negative EGFR mutation (odds ratio, 1.81; 95 % confidence interval, 1.16-3.04; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: GGO proportion in adenocarcinomas with EGFR mutation was significantly higher than that in EGFR wild-type tumours, and the absence of GGO on CT was an independent predictor of negative EGFR mutation. KEY POINTS: • Ground-glass opacity (GGO) proportion is significantly higher in EGFR-mutated adenocarcinomas • Exon 19 or 21 mutated adenocarcinomas shows significantly higher GGO proportion • GGO absence is an independent predictor of negative EGFR mutation in lung adenocarcinomas.
OBJECTIVES: To correlate imaging features of resected lung adenocarcinoma with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and the IASLC/ATS/ERS classification histological subtypes. METHODS: In 250 consecutive patients with resected lung adenocarcinoma, EGFR mutation status was correlated with demographics, imaging features including ground-glass opacity (GGO) proportion and the IASLC/ATS/ERS classification histological subtypes. RESULTS:EGFR mutations were significantly more frequent in women (54.5 % vs. 38.1 %, p = 0.011) and in never-smokers (54.7 % vs. 35.3 %, p = 0.003). GGO proportion was significantly higher in tumours with EGFR mutation than in those without (30.3 ± 33.8 % vs. 19.0 ± 29.3 %, p = 0.005). EGFR mutation was significantly more frequent in tumours with GGO ≥ 50 % and tumours with any GGO (p = 0.026 and 0.008, respectively). Adenocarcinomas with exon 19 or 21 mutation showed significantly higher GGO proportion than that in EGFR wild-type tumours (p = 0.009 and 0.029, respectively). Absence of GGO was an independent predictor of negative EGFR mutation (odds ratio, 1.81; 95 % confidence interval, 1.16-3.04; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS:GGO proportion in adenocarcinomas with EGFR mutation was significantly higher than that in EGFR wild-type tumours, and the absence of GGO on CT was an independent predictor of negative EGFR mutation. KEY POINTS: • Ground-glass opacity (GGO) proportion is significantly higher in EGFR-mutated adenocarcinomas • Exon 19 or 21 mutated adenocarcinomas shows significantly higher GGO proportion • GGO absence is an independent predictor of negative EGFR mutation in lung 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: Vincent A Miller; Gregory J Riely; Maureen F Zakowski; Allan R Li; Jyoti D Patel; Robert T Heelan; Mark G Kris; Alan B Sandler; David P Carbone; Anne Tsao; Roy S Herbst; Glenn Heller; Marc Ladanyi; William Pao; David H Johnson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Vincent A Miller; Mark G Kris; Neelam Shah; Jyoti Patel; Christopher Azzoli; Jorge Gomez; Lee M Krug; William Pao; Naiyer Rizvi; Barbara Pizzo; Leslie Tyson; Ennapadam Venkatraman; Leah Ben-Porat; Natalie Memoli; Maureen Zakowski; Valerie Rusch; Robert T Heelan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ke Nie; Hania Al-Hallaq; X Allen Li; Stanley H Benedict; Jason W Sohn; Jean M Moran; Yong Fan; Mi Huang; Michael V Knopp; Jeff M Michalski; James Monroe; Ceferino Obcemea; Christina I Tsien; Timothy Solberg; Jackie Wu; Ping Xia; Ying Xiao; Issam El Naqa Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 7.038